How much have Democrats changed in 50 years?

[Cosmo]

What? Read the words of people like Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. Ike would be Bernie Sanders if he were in American politics today. Some of the things he said would be considered at the left end of the spectrum today. He was a moderate Republican back then. Bill Clinton for example is your typical moderate Republican from old times. He signed a bill that hacked to pieces the foundation of New Deal welfare, he cut spending and balanced budgets, he signed a sweeping anti-crime bill, he enthusiastically deregulated the banking industry, he fought civil rights for gays, enthusiastic supporter of the death penalty.... this is the farthest thing from a liberal. It's center-right.

In many ways Nixon was the last liberal president.

 

[Gipper]

What? Read the words of people like Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. Ike would be Bernie Sanders if he were in American politics today. Some of the things he said would be considered at the left end of the spectrum today. He was a moderate Republican back then. Bill Clinton for example is your typical moderate Republican from old times. He signed a bill that hacked to pieces the foundation of New Deal welfare, he cut spending and balanced budgets, he signed a sweeping anti-crime bill, he enthusiastically deregulated the banking industry, he fought civil rights for gays, enthusiastic supporter of the death penalty.... this is the farthest thing from a liberal. It's center-right.

In many ways Nixon was the last liberal president.

That is an interesting take, but I am not buying it.

I suppose you are going to claim BO is a moderate or even conservative.

 

[Rick]

I suppose I could, but it's a very strange request. There are actually people out there who deny that both political parties have shifted to the right over the past thirty years? Seriously?

Get a clue.

Kennedy took on the communists in europe and cuba. Even Johnson took them on in vietnam. Truman set up NATO as a bulwark against soviet imperialism, and stopped them in korea. Kennedy cut taxes.

Now we have an apology touring appeaser president, certainly the most leftwing by far in US history, and democrats in congress who act like his trained monkeys.

 

[Cosmo]

We're still talking across each other, because you guys are drastically overstating the extent to which Washington DC politicians govern according to ideology. They don't and it's beyond naive to think they do. They make decisions according to political calculation and, more importantly, instructions from their key donors and special interest groups. Obama probably is a liberal deep down. But he is still governing in a way to appease, not challenge, the corporate consensus in Washington.

We are living in an age in which many of these left-right distinctions are becoming obsolete. It's about MONEY.

 

[Little-Acorn]

There are actually people out there who deny that both political parties have shifted to the right over the past thirty years? Seriously?

Look, "cosmo". You might think your little "I'm so pure and innocent that I have never in my life run into anybody who thought either political party moved left in the last 30 years, nope, not a single person" charade may be cute.

But lies that flagrant and silly won't get you much respect around here. They'll mostly get you ignored.

A word to the wise.

 

[Cosmo]

It's an objectively false statement. The Nixon presidency basically proves it. If you want I can provide you a list of his liberal accomplishments. He would be literally laughed off the stage in a Republican primary today (so would Reagan). What Nixon did when he was in office would be considered something only Bernie Sanders or someone like him would propose today.

Again it has nothing to do with the ideology of these people. It has to do with campaign contributions. If everyone at this forum is under the impression that politicians actually make decisions according to their deeply cherished principles..... then I'll make it my mission to disabuse everyone here of that truly hilarious notion.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I'll make it my mission to disabuse everyone here of that truly hilarious notion.

See the fourth sentence of my previous post, which is now operational.

 

[Cosmo]

I don't understand. Are you saying politicians are NOT owned by special interests, or are you saying that you don't want anyone in this forum pointing out that they are?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Democrats aren't the only ones who have changed. As I pointed out, a number of liberals have joined the Republican party too, and are swinging that party's tendencies toward more govt "help" for people's ordinary problems, more entitlements etc.

The Republican party has gone from "mostly conservative" fifty years ago, to "moderately liberal" today - a change that has resulted in formation of the TEA ("taxed enough alread") party after large numbers of Repubs were kicked out by America's fundamentally-conservative populace in 2006 and 2008.

The Democrat party have gone from "moderately liberal" fifty years ago, to "far-left" today, with no slackening in their rate of change in sight.

 

[Cosmo]

Have you any factual basis or supporting evidence for any of your opinions on this matter? I've tried to mention some of the obvious reasons why the exact opposite of what you say is true but you've just ignored it.

Is your only evidence a cartoon, one that doesn't even make any sense at that?

 

[Gipper]

Have you any factual basis or supporting evidence for any of your opinions on this matter? I've tried to mention some of the obvious reasons why the exact opposite of what you say is true but you've just ignored it.

Is your only evidence a cartoon, one that doesn't even make any sense at that?

That cartoon makes a great deal of sense and accurately depicts much of America today versus fifty years ago. Your inability to comprehend it, speaks volumes.

The growth of the federal government should be proof enough, but it apparently is not for you. Compare spending from 1961 to today.

 

[Cosmo]

Okay now I'm really confused. So we're using federal spending as the true barometer here? Then you guys would have to readily concede that Bill Clinton was far more conservative than Reagan and Bush II, correct?

 

[Gipper]

Okay now I'm really confused. So we're using federal spending as the true barometer here? Then you guys would have to readily concede that Bill Clinton was far more conservative than Reagan and Bush II, correct?

Bubba BJ Clinton had no intention of balancing the budget had he not had a conservative Congress do deal with.

Bush was a progressive just like his daddy. He grew the government and enacted new entitlement programs that will help to bankrupt the nation, just like his daddy.

Reagan did deficit spend, but nowhere near what W and BO have done. And, neither of them had to deal with the USSR.

Have you ever heard that the size of government has grown exponentially the past few years?

 

[Cosmo]

Bush was a "progressive" huh. Wow. I have genuinely heard things on my first day on this site I have never heard before as a political science student or in hundreds of political discussions and debates. Bush is a progressive. Okay.

Back to reality, umm the issue of the alleged "growth" of government. You would have to explain precisely to what you're referring. Number of government employees? Federal spending?

We did, you might recall, have a nightmarish economic recession which left us with about a two trillion dollar drop in demand. Government obviously stepped in to fill some of that demand. What choice did it have? Just sit back with some popcorn and watch a replay of the Depression? Even the measures it DID take were wholly inadequate.

 

[Little-Acorn]

That cartoon makes a great deal of sense and accurately depicts much of America today versus fifty years ago. Your inability to comprehend it, speaks volumes.

It's not an inability, but deliberate pretension and fakery. Not much point in responding to disingenuous tripe.