Question about Clinton

[Valmy]

I think the concept of "good old times when politics wasn't so vicious" is largely a myth. It just fluctuates, but when you read about the viciousness of the early 19th century (not to mention, a goddamn civil war fought over domestic politics), it's ridiculous to claim that in the past politicians were more conciliatory.

At least back in those days both sides had different political postures.  Now they are just vicous but generally agree on everything.

[Phillip V]

I think the concept of "good old times when politics wasn't so vicious" is largely a myth. It just fluctuates, but when you read about the viciousness of the early 19th century (not to mention, a goddamn civil war fought over domestic politics), it's ridiculous to claim that in the past politicians were more conciliatory.

At least back in those days both sides had different political postures.  Now they are just vicous but generally agree on everything.

It's cultural, both bottom-up and top-down. Many couples now break up over whether the toilet paper should roll over or under.

[Eddie Teach]

I think what's happened in the last 20 years is essentially a return to the way politics were conducted prior to WWII, except now the media is able to report of a lot of stuff that flew under the radar back in those days.

Yeah, I think the lack of a credible external threat since the fall of the Soviet Union is largely to blame.

[Kleves]

Yeah, they also have the potential to be the laziest people in the American system.

Oral arguments are Justice Thomas' nap time.

[Razgovory]

I think the concept of "good old times when politics wasn't so vicious" is largely a myth. It just fluctuates, but when you read about the viciousness of the early 19th century (not to mention, a goddamn civil war fought over domestic politics), it's ridiculous to claim that in the past politicians were more conciliatory.

What do you know, you didn't even have a country in the 19th century.

[Ideologue]

Yeah, they also have the potential to be the laziest people in the American system.

Oral arguments are Justice Thomas' nap time.

Clarence, you're the laziest man on the Mars.

[Phillip V]

I think what's happened in the last 20 years is essentially a return to the way politics were conducted prior to WWII, except now the media is able to report of a lot of stuff that flew under the radar back in those days.

Yeah, I think the lack of a credible external threat since the fall of the Soviet Union is largely to blame.

We need to create a new threat in order to unify America.

[MadImmortalMan]

We need to create a new threat in order to unify America.

*Rolls dice*

27

*Checks threat table*


Mongol Hordes down from the steppe and savage the fruited plain!

[CountDeMoney]

It definitely seems like a fin-de-seicle phenomenon.  Granted, I wasn't very old before that, but I don't remember things being as vehement in late 80s and early 90s.

You missed Iran Contra.  That was germination, and it carried into the Bork hearings.

[CountDeMoney]

I think the concept of "good old times when politics wasn't so vicious" is largely a myth. It just fluctuates, but when you read about the viciousness of the early 19th century (not to mention, a goddamn civil war fought over domestic politics), it's ridiculous to claim that in the past politicians were more conciliatory.

No shit.  People need to read up on the shit storm that brewed up between the time of the Missouri Compromise to Harper's Ferry.

[grumbler]

I think the concept of "good old times when politics wasn't so vicious" is largely a myth. It just fluctuates, but when you read about the viciousness of the early 19th century (not to mention, a goddamn civil war fought over domestic politics), it's ridiculous to claim that in the past politicians were more conciliatory.

It's demonstrably true in the case of the US though.  It may not have always been placid but there was a bipartisan era.  Similarly I think the 'revenge cycle' has got worse while I've been following American politics.  I'm wondering why, where it starts and how it started.

I find it interesting that you think Marti is at all inclined to allow facts to stand in the way of his silly hyperbole.  When he says it is "ridiculous" to disagree with him, just nod pityingly and move to the next post.

[derspiess]

I've read that one of the reason the Senate's more partisan is possibly because many more Senators have been Congressmen, which didn't used to be the case.  So they take the attitude of the House into the Senate, but also behave more like Parliamentary blocks and less like a deliberative chamber.

Further on the GOP taking over the house I read an interesting article that puts all of this to Reagan.  I can't remember where the article was.  One of its arguments though was that Reagan shifted involvement in the GOP.  They went from recruiting local businessmen and the like to run for Congress and built a grass roots machine, like the Democrats.  So they started running in more elections lower down the food chain and basically the 90s was, to an extent, the fruition of that work of the grass roots and the first generation of GOP career politicians.  The religious right was, to them, what the unions were to the Democrats.   I'm doing monstrous violence to the guys argument.  But it was interesting.

I hadn't really thought of it that way, but it makes sense-- particularly if you notice that the GOP gradually scaled back their proposals for term limits once they themselves had career politicians. 

Another cause for the revenge cycle might be the bitterness from hotly contested elections.  We had three presidential elections in a row where the winner did not get a majority of the popular vote and both of Bush's victories were electoral nail-biters (in fact there is still some bitterness over the craziness of 2000).  Not to mention various high-profile elections for Senate & House seats.  I think it's easier to carry a grudge if your side was in contention or even thought they had won-- or even worse, felt like it had the election 'stolen'.