Skip to main content

View Diary: Let the GOP balance the budget (123 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  different time, different media, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chrismorgan

    and a different electorate. Political literacy was much higher fifty years ago than it is now, at least among the smaller percentage of Americans who voted. Witness the resilience and popularity of all the zombie lies about everything from the efficacy of Keynesian economics vs austerity to the legacy of MLK and FDR. Murrow and Cronkite would not have presided over the stupidification of the American electorate like Ailes and Murdoch have.
    I am far from sure that we would see the same result now that we saw then; there is too much disinformation, and the bubbles are harder to break than they have ever been.

    Last full month in which the average daily temperature did not exceed twentieth-century norms: 2/1985 - Harper's Index, 2/2013

    by kamarvt on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 07:34:03 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Different Party. We owned the House until (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kamarvt

      we veered hard right in 1992 with Clinton.  It wasn't even a fight.

      The only people who watch Fox are the far right.  They've always been here.  They're not new.

      What is new is Democrats using their insanity as an excuse to move further and further to the right.

      You can say a lot of shit about LBJ, and I do, but the fucker never tried to play "Do you see how crazy the Birchers are?  Obviously, the intensity of the insanity of this small minority is going to make me cut Social Security!!!!".

      The public is on our side on issue after issue.  The polls aren't jokes, and they don't support the whimpering excuse that the people have been duped by Murdoch.

      But most of those who don't vote lean left.  They stay home because even when they elected Democrats, they got unpopular Republican policies.

      income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

      by JesseCW on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 08:13:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I see a different dynamic in non voters (0+ / 0-)

        Many of the people i know, particularly the younger ones, are firmly in the "government doesn't matter to my life" camp. Even when I show them how the policies by and for the 1% do in fact impact their lives, negatively, i get shrugged shoulders. the post WW2 generation, the sixties generation, even my generation (70s) never adopted this view because we were raised in an age where the good that government can do was not questioned. Vanquishing the Nazis, landing on the moon, and the civil rights advances of that time made such a cynical or disinterested outlook almost impossible.
        Murdoch's dark empire hasn't always been exclusively for the reactionary fringe; i watched it up until 9/11 before the unbridled partisan dishonesty got to be too much (hey, those chyrons were cool, once). I know quite a few people, not wingnuts, who still watch it occasionally.
        I live in a rural area, which makes it likely my experience differs from more urban areas; RW radio is everywhere here, as well.

        Last full month in which the average daily temperature did not exceed twentieth-century norms: 2/1985 - Harper's Index, 2/2013

        by kamarvt on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 09:36:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What I hear from non-voters isn't (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          billlaurelMD

          "government doesn't matter".  It's "it doesn't matter who I vote for".

          In the last three cycles, my activism during the General has been all about propositions.  I don't have that hard a time convincing them their vote will have an impact on the outcome in those fights.  This isn't entirely a "what's my one little vote" thing.

          They just don't believe that Politicians will do anything like what they run on doing.  They know Government has a lot of power, they don't believe they have any power over Government.

          I live in an urban part of a moderately progressive state.   AM radio is dead.  Some minority language populations listen to FM radio for their basic news, but aren't that into getting tons of commentary with it.

          Fox isn't tolerated in public spaces, and the only people I know who watch it are over 60 and are committed Right-Wingers (some of my former patients).

          income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

          by JesseCW on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 03:18:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Mostly bc of the same gerrymandering now hurting (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        billlaurelMD

        us, and the same folks doing it.  The pre-Civil Rights South was gerrymandered heavily for Ds.  As the racists fled to the Thugs, more and more southern state governments have become Thug and more and more Thug, so that now the gerrymandering is preventing a D majority - i.e., giving Thugs the same artifical guaranteeed seats Ds used to have.

        The reason the House didn't flip before 1994 has to do with hte life-span of incumbent Ds elected to the state and Congressional seats in the '50s and '60s (and sometimes long before, See e.g., J. Jake Pickle).

        •  We got a massive swing in 1994 because of (0+ / 0-)

          NAFTA, and because the recovery didn't include jobs with the same kind of pay and benefits people were used to.

          Democrats deliver on those "kitchen table" issues, or the only people who vote for us are those who truly fear Republican social policies.

          And those aren't enough to secure the House.

          We didn't have 60 Democrats all just "age out" suddenly.

          income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

          by JesseCW on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 02:12:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nope. Not supported by exit data. Sorry, I (0+ / 0-)

            know you want a simple answer that confirms your view, but life and politics is far more complex.  NAFTA was not even implemented by Nov. 1994 (it was signed in Jan. 1994), and was ratified with far more Thug than D votes (House-234-200: 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats;  Senate 61-38: 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats).

            Failure of health care ('Harry and Louise'), gun control, the 93 budget (tax increases), D 'corruption' (Wright, Rostenkowski), ruthlessly and cynical exploitation of scorched-earth and personal-destruction politics by Gingrinch had a lot more to do with losing those seats not lost thru Ds losing the South in the decades after CivilRights, than NAFTA.

            Not too mention that Clinton didin't win '92 so much as Bush1 lost it to a coalition that included a lot of rightwing voters who went for Perot.

            BTW, you do know Clinton did not craft NAFTA, right?  That was Bush1, who delivered it to Clinton as an essentially done deal, and repudiating it would have had pretty significant consequences for US-Canadian and Mexican relations?  And even then Clinton added a whole bunch of side agreements which would have mitigated the labor and enviromental costs of NAFTA if Bush2 hadn't wiped his ass with them?

            •  I'll never convince a right wing extremist that (0+ / 0-)

              right wing moves harm the Democratic Party.

              It's a fools errand.

              income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

              by JesseCW on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 03:20:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site