Question about Clinton

[Sheilbh]

Yi's mentioned the idea of American politics as a revenge cycle a few times.  Generally it all seems to start in the Clinton Presidency.  Why?  What happened?

This was prompted by mentioning Clinton in the other thread but I didn't want to sidetrack things.

[Razgovory]

Yi's mentioned the idea of American politics as a revenge cycle a few times.  Generally it all seems to start in the Clinton Presidency.  Why?  What happened?

This was prompted by mentioning Clinton in the other thread but I didn't want to sidetrack things.

Why start with Clinton? I think Nixon would be a better start.

[Phillip V]

I think FDR would be a better start.

[Sheilbh]

Why start with Clinton? I think Nixon would be a better start.

Yi's mentioned the revenge cycle starts with Clinton.  Prior to that things weren't so poisonous, there was bipartisan cooperation, judges and other appointees got approved and so on.

[Eddie Teach]

The judges bit starts with Robert Bork I think.

[DGuller]

Americans won the Cold War, so domestic political enemies became the ultimate target, and no tactic could be seen to scorch the earth enough to be counter-productive.

[Admiral Yi]

Was Scaife the guy who paid for the Paula Jones suit?  I don't know if he had a personal thing for Clinton or he was just a Republican attack dog who would have laid into any Democratic president given the ammunition.  And Clinton did give him some ammunition.

Then you had the Whitewater investigation.  A more politically attuned prosecutor (like that Mick that ran the Plame investigation) might have dropped it when all the Whitewater co-conspirators fell on their swords but he turned out to be a zealot who preferred to play hard ball.  After that you get the diverging narratives of a president who was impeached over a blow job and the chief executive of the country lying under oath.

[Ideologue]

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.

I mean, there was Bork, but opposing that with all possible means was actually of prime importance, as opposed to appointing an executive agency head.  These days, there's no sense of proportion: all battles must be apocalyptic.

The two things also aren't analogous.  One can assume that an executive appointee will be, to at least some extent, the creature of a sitting president, so it doesn't matter nearly as much who fills the chair, and in any event they'll be subject to political pressures and ultimately you can be rid of them through the democratic process, i.e. electing a new president.  A USSC justice is an entirely different kettle of fish: a USSC justice has a lifetime appointment and almost nonexistent political restraints, and thus all the space to go batshit crazy in the world.  They're potentially the most dangerous people in the American system.

[Razgovory]

The judges bit starts with Robert Bork I think.

Or Earl Warren.

[Razgovory]

Why start with Clinton? I think Nixon would be a better start.

Yi's mentioned the revenge cycle starts with Clinton.  Prior to that things weren't so poisonous, there was bipartisan cooperation, judges and other appointees got approved and so on.

I think the GOP has had a major inferiority complex after being the only party to see one of it's President's resign.  The GOP was pretty rabid in the late 1940's and 1950's after the humiliation of losing presidential runs to guy with out working legs and opposing a war that was seen in hindsight as just and important

[Ed Anger]

opposing a war that was seen in hindsight as just and important

Fuck the brits and frogs. America first.

[MadImmortalMan]

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.

I mean, there was Bork, but opposing that with all possible means was actually of prime importance, as opposed to appointing an executive agency head.  These days, there's no sense of proportion: all battles must be apocalyptic.

The two things also aren't analogous.  One can assume that an executive appointee will be, to at least some extent, the creature of a sitting president, so it doesn't matter nearly as much who fills the chair, and in any event they'll be subject to political pressures and ultimately you can be rid of them through the democratic process, i.e. electing a new president.  A USSC justice is an entirely different kettle of fish: a USSC justice has a lifetime appointment and almost nonexistent political restraints, and thus all the space to go batshit crazy in the world.  They're potentially the most dangerous people in the American system.

We still got Thomas, so meh.

[dps]

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. 

[crazy canuck]

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.

What sorts of things do you have in mind?

[Sheilbh]

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.

Thoughts why?  End of the Cold War?  Break down of geographical coalitions in favour of ideology after civil rights?