Question about Clinton

[MadImmortalMan]

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?

Our politicians will be paying prostitutes with cameras to visit their opponents.

[Sheilbh]

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

I thought both parties were divided, but the GOP far more so.  But even they nominated an interventionist candidate for President in 1940.  After he was defeated he supported lend-lease and was, in the war, used by Roosevelt as an unofficial flying ambassador.

[MadImmortalMan]

Wilkie was in many ways a real hero.

[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.

What sorts of things do you have in mind?

American politics used to me much more personal, and could get really petty and vindictive when politicians didn't get along personally.  For example, after WWI, when Congress was considering the Treaty of Versailles, Henry Cabot Lodge proposed that the Senate ratify the treaty but with a number of reservations.  President Wilson rejected the reservations and demanded that the Senate ratify the treaty without reservations.  There is some evidence that Wilson would have accepted the reservations (and that the treaty would have been ratified with them) except that he detested Lodge and refused to accept the reservations simply because it was Lodge who had offered them.

[Valmy]

American politics used to me much more personal, and could get really petty and vindictive when politicians didn't get along personally.  For example, after WWI, when Congress was considering the Treaty of Versailles, Henry Cabot Lodge proposed that the Senate ratify the treaty but with a number of reservations.  President Wilson rejected the reservations and demanded that the Senate ratify the treaty without reservations.  There is some evidence that Wilson would have accepted the reservations (and that the treaty would have been ratified with them) except that he detested Lodge and refused to accept the reservations simply because it was Lodge who had offered them.

Well that is different.  That was personal.  It really does not matter now if Obama and Boehner are lifelong BFFs or bitter personal rivals.  The personal revenge and character assassination is institutionalized now and they pretty much have to attack each other or be accused of treason by their supporters.

[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.

We still got Thomas, so meh.

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

[grumbler]

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.

I think it was partially Starr as The Spanish Inquisition (investigating until he found something, despite his original mandate being long forgotten), but it was also the way Clinton kinda stole the Republicans' thunder after the Republicans took control of the House in 1994.  Clinton got the credit for being progressive and yet realistic (welfare reform, and the like) and the Republicans couldn't get any traction in the 1996 presidential elections because Clinton dominated the center.  The man was truly teflon, and that pissed off the Republicans no end.

I agree that this was the start of the present cycle of political bitterness.  It is probably unsurprising that the claims have gotten steadily more shrill over time, to the point where a sizable minority of people don't even think that elections produce legitimate presidents.

[Viking]

It started when the Moral Majority and Jerry Falwell got a born again president with Carter and were disappointed when he didn't put a government padlock on single womens' vaginas.

[Sheilbh]

Clinton got the credit for being progressive and yet realistic (welfare reform, and the like) and the Republicans couldn't get any traction in the 1996 presidential elections because Clinton dominated the center.  The man was truly teflon, and that pissed off the Republicans no end.

I read an interesting argument about welfare in this country.  In passing it quoted Clinton from before welfare reform talking about what was eventually passed.  It wondered what would have happened if Clinton tried to do welfare reform in 1993 and then healthcare reform - I think it's possible he'd have done both and gone down as a great who got a blowjob.

[grumbler]

I read an interesting argument about welfare in this country.  In passing it quoted Clinton from before welfare reform talking about what was eventually passed.  It wondered what would have happened if Clinton tried to do welfare reform in 1993 and then healthcare reform - I think it's possible he'd have done both and gone down as a great who got a blowjob.

I don't think entitlement reform was a possibility until the Republicans won the House and Senate in 1994, and by then the chance of carrying out health care reform was gone.

Interesting idea, though, especially if I am wrong about the chances the Democratic House and Senate would pass meaningful entitlement reform in 1993. 

[Admiral Yi]

I read an interesting argument about welfare in this country.  In passing it quoted Clinton from before welfare reform talking about what was eventually passed.  It wondered what would have happened if Clinton tried to do welfare reform in 1993 and then healthcare reform - I think it's possible he'd have done both and gone down as a great who got a blowjob.

I don't think he would have been able to carry his own party with him.  Welfare reform passed with a GOP majority because it was GOP legislation.  And I surely don't see health care getting easier with a GOP majority than it was with a Democratic one.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think he would have been able to carry his own party with him.  Welfare reform passed with a GOP majority because it was GOP legislation.  And I surely don't see health care getting easier with a GOP majority than it was with a Democratic one.

Either Clinton's running, to an extent, against his party as a reformer and the GOP aren't as galvanised in opposition to Hillarycare.  Or the GOP's still not galvanised against Hillarycare and the Democrats have just passed meaningful welfare reform.  The dynamics of 1994 change whatever's happened.

[derspiess]

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.

The GOP has actually been competitive in House elections (and have controlled the House more often than not) starting with the Clinton years.  I think that's pretty much the difference.  Things have gotten nasty at times, but I think it will work itself out once both parties realize they're not automatically entitled to control the House, Senate, or Presidency.

[Martinus]

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.

[Sheilbh]

The GOP has actually been competitive in House elections (and have controlled the House more often than not) starting with the Clinton years.  I think that's pretty much the difference.  Things have gotten nasty at times, but I think it will work itself out once both parties realize they're not automatically entitled to control the House, Senate, or Presidency.

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 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.