Like the Republican Party of today, the G.O.P. during the 1880's was extremely divided and in decline.
There was the civil war generation that looked at voting Republican as a moral obligation. Their strategy in the elections over and over was to 'wave the bloody shirt' which meant equating voting democratic as a vote for the confederate sympathizers. This strategy worked well, from Lincoln's assassination well into the Gilded Age. Public anger in the north was insatiable, but only for so long.
There were the 'Mugwumps' who were sort of like the Tea Party. They viewed the single most important issues being civil service reform, returning from the 'greenback' standard to the gold standard of currency and reducing or eliminating tariffs. In short- they wanted to shrink the size of government, avoid inflation and increase free trade. The mugwumps tended to be what you might say was the business class that made their fortune from importing or manufacturing. They had much more political conviction than political savvy.
Another movement within the Republican party was the 'Half Breeds'. They were more moderate and somewhat more modern than the civil war faction. They believed in Civil Service reform, but were not as ideological or economically conservative as the Mugwump faction.
The final group struggling to politically keep all the factions together at all costs were the Stalwarts. They saw political machines as a good tool in staying in power. The Stalwarts gave the 'Half Breeds' their name as an insult to say that they were not putting party first, but the Half Breeds wore it with pride. The Stalwarts were much more concerned with getting their people elected and paying out the necessary bribes in the form of government appointments than they were in any kind of political conviction. They were usually the ones that would broker deals between the various factions.
It's interesting to see the parallels between then and now. It seems our modern day Stalwarts such as Newt Gingrich are losing power to the Mugwumps in the Tea Party. Waiving the bloody shirt these days seems to fall to the cultural warriors in the Republican Party that endlessly rehash their battles with hippies from the 60's to an ever shrinking crowd of retirees.
All revolutions, even Republican revolutions eventually eat themselves.
http://www.frumforum.com/the-mugwumps-public-moralists-of-the-gilded-age
6/18/11
The Name Game
Peter Baker wrote an article in the NY Times in May talking about how the American public loves to compare Obama to past presidents.
When his poll numbers are up, he's been compared to Abe Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson. If he addresses the American public directly, bypassing Congress, he's been called our generation's JFK or Regan. When his numbers are down, he's been called the next Carter or LBJ.
However, this isn't really a new phenomenon. When Rutherford B. Hayes was asked to perform one of Washington's speeches on the founding of the Republic for America's centennial in 1876, he was roundly criticized as a symbol of how far the country had declined.
Andrew Jackson (Old Hickory) was sort of a Regan type figure of his times, a divisive politician that enjoyed great loyalty and respect from some segments of the population and was reviled by others. His later admirers who would go on to become president were James Polk and Franklin Pierce. Both their supporters and opponents jointly gave them the nicknames 'Young Hickory' and 'Young Hickory of the Granite Hills' respectively to highlight the common policy of the three men.
Abraham Lincoln's supporters commonly compared him to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson for both his reputation as a warrior struggling to save the country and a man of peace. This was somewhat strange since the Confederate President Jefferson Davis was also commonly compared to Thomas Jefferson by his supporters for his belief in states' rights (to own slaves).
George W. Bush has been compared to James Polk for his partisanship and his skill at ramming through legislation, making enemies but also achieving his ambitious political goals.
Even George Washington in his own day was compared to a figure from history when there were no other presidents to compare him to. Washington was given the name 'Cincinnatus' after the Roman retired general/farmer who quit his plow and took his sword back up to defend his country from foreign invaders.
Maybe it's just human nature that people treat history like baseball, always looking for comparisons of current and former greats. At some point though, we have to accept that before they're anyone else, presidents are themselves, making their own history.
When his poll numbers are up, he's been compared to Abe Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson. If he addresses the American public directly, bypassing Congress, he's been called our generation's JFK or Regan. When his numbers are down, he's been called the next Carter or LBJ.
However, this isn't really a new phenomenon. When Rutherford B. Hayes was asked to perform one of Washington's speeches on the founding of the Republic for America's centennial in 1876, he was roundly criticized as a symbol of how far the country had declined.
Andrew Jackson (Old Hickory) was sort of a Regan type figure of his times, a divisive politician that enjoyed great loyalty and respect from some segments of the population and was reviled by others. His later admirers who would go on to become president were James Polk and Franklin Pierce. Both their supporters and opponents jointly gave them the nicknames 'Young Hickory' and 'Young Hickory of the Granite Hills' respectively to highlight the common policy of the three men.
Abraham Lincoln's supporters commonly compared him to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson for both his reputation as a warrior struggling to save the country and a man of peace. This was somewhat strange since the Confederate President Jefferson Davis was also commonly compared to Thomas Jefferson by his supporters for his belief in states' rights (to own slaves).
George W. Bush has been compared to James Polk for his partisanship and his skill at ramming through legislation, making enemies but also achieving his ambitious political goals.
Even George Washington in his own day was compared to a figure from history when there were no other presidents to compare him to. Washington was given the name 'Cincinnatus' after the Roman retired general/farmer who quit his plow and took his sword back up to defend his country from foreign invaders.
Maybe it's just human nature that people treat history like baseball, always looking for comparisons of current and former greats. At some point though, we have to accept that before they're anyone else, presidents are themselves, making their own history.
6/6/11
Lower Your Standards for Politicians
I'm so tired of outraged anchors on TV and tearful and supportive wives on television.
Every time that some sex scandal breaks, it's as though Americans thought that our congressmen and senators lead an honorable life, giving an example of moral certitude (to quote Congressman Weiner) to our young people.
I really don't understand this. Politicians get paid to lie for a living and it's really no surprise to me that they're of questionable character in areas other than politics.
Politicians take money from corporations and unions and pass whatever laws their paymasters demand. They always cloak their actions in political ideology, but it's fairly obvious that we have nothing more than a sophisticated system of bribery in this country. The only people who aren't in on this joke are people that routinely vote for Democrats and Republicans.
The politician that cheats on his wife is the norm, not the exception. Just ask Henry Hyde, Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, Rush Limbaugh, Phil Gramm, Rudulph Giuliani, Strom Thurmond, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, David Patterson or the aptly named Anthony Weiner. I'd keep writing but I'm afraid that I'd get carpal tunnel.
Lower your standards America!
Every time that some sex scandal breaks, it's as though Americans thought that our congressmen and senators lead an honorable life, giving an example of moral certitude (to quote Congressman Weiner) to our young people.
I really don't understand this. Politicians get paid to lie for a living and it's really no surprise to me that they're of questionable character in areas other than politics.
Politicians take money from corporations and unions and pass whatever laws their paymasters demand. They always cloak their actions in political ideology, but it's fairly obvious that we have nothing more than a sophisticated system of bribery in this country. The only people who aren't in on this joke are people that routinely vote for Democrats and Republicans.
The politician that cheats on his wife is the norm, not the exception. Just ask Henry Hyde, Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, Rush Limbaugh, Phil Gramm, Rudulph Giuliani, Strom Thurmond, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, David Patterson or the aptly named Anthony Weiner. I'd keep writing but I'm afraid that I'd get carpal tunnel.
Lower your standards America!
5/2/11
Bin Laden: The Rabbit Hole
For many, today was a day of soul searching. A day when many asked "I'm happy that we got Bin Laden, but should I feel happy over the fact that someone died?"
For me, the short answer is yes. I see absolutely nothing wrong with rejoicing over Bin Laden's death.
This guy took advantage of the Cold War in the eighties and enlisted the United States as an ally in driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan. He then stuck around and made the country a haven and training ground for Islamic extremists.
When the United States established a base in his home country of Saudi Arabia, he then started to launch terrorist plots against the Western world that increased in intensity culminating in the twin towers coming down in 2001.
We had him cornered in Tora Bora but he slipped over the border to Pakistan. We then shifted our mission in Afghanistan to the naive goal of 'nation building' which consisted of paying bribes to Warlords who would re emerge later as 'Taliban' and then re morph into allies again when they wanted our money. We also worked on building girls schools and teaching woman's lib to herdsmen. Policies I'm sure were very effective in a society that uses gang rape on innocent women to punish their male relatives for transgressions against a tribe's honor.
We then went into Iraq largely because by that time, the United States had become a national security state where even the potential threat of attack was enough to mobilize the whole military to seize control of a country. When that inevitably became a three way civil war we again switched our priorities to 'nation building' which consisted of building electric and water plants that the very people we were building them for would then blow up.
After we finally got Saddam, we decided to double down on Afghanistan and start a 'partnership' with the Pakistani government. This partnership consisted mainly of us giving a military dictatorship billions of dollars a year for the privilege of using our own military to kill tribesmen that were also enemies of the military dictatorship. All the while, they were apparently hiding Bin-Laden in the biggest, most conspicuous house of a military town.
So trillions of dollars and several thousand (U.S) casualties later, he's dead and I'm at least glad we got something for our money. Hopefully this will all prove what a waste it is to 'nation build' in a land where people still literally identify with tribes and most of the population is illiterate.
We immediately need to pull back our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan into permanent military basis where we can focus on quick strike missions to kill people that pop up and threaten the United State. That is what a military is for.
Leave the nation building to the people that live there and I think that everyone would be happier. As Alexis de Tocqueville once said "People get the government they deserve."
For me, the short answer is yes. I see absolutely nothing wrong with rejoicing over Bin Laden's death.
This guy took advantage of the Cold War in the eighties and enlisted the United States as an ally in driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan. He then stuck around and made the country a haven and training ground for Islamic extremists.
When the United States established a base in his home country of Saudi Arabia, he then started to launch terrorist plots against the Western world that increased in intensity culminating in the twin towers coming down in 2001.
We had him cornered in Tora Bora but he slipped over the border to Pakistan. We then shifted our mission in Afghanistan to the naive goal of 'nation building' which consisted of paying bribes to Warlords who would re emerge later as 'Taliban' and then re morph into allies again when they wanted our money. We also worked on building girls schools and teaching woman's lib to herdsmen. Policies I'm sure were very effective in a society that uses gang rape on innocent women to punish their male relatives for transgressions against a tribe's honor.
We then went into Iraq largely because by that time, the United States had become a national security state where even the potential threat of attack was enough to mobilize the whole military to seize control of a country. When that inevitably became a three way civil war we again switched our priorities to 'nation building' which consisted of building electric and water plants that the very people we were building them for would then blow up.
After we finally got Saddam, we decided to double down on Afghanistan and start a 'partnership' with the Pakistani government. This partnership consisted mainly of us giving a military dictatorship billions of dollars a year for the privilege of using our own military to kill tribesmen that were also enemies of the military dictatorship. All the while, they were apparently hiding Bin-Laden in the biggest, most conspicuous house of a military town.
So trillions of dollars and several thousand (U.S) casualties later, he's dead and I'm at least glad we got something for our money. Hopefully this will all prove what a waste it is to 'nation build' in a land where people still literally identify with tribes and most of the population is illiterate.
We immediately need to pull back our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan into permanent military basis where we can focus on quick strike missions to kill people that pop up and threaten the United State. That is what a military is for.
Leave the nation building to the people that live there and I think that everyone would be happier. As Alexis de Tocqueville once said "People get the government they deserve."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
