• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Berning down the house!

So, a two-term president is considered an "anomaly"?

What you're saying is that you're never wrong because when you are wrong its just an 'anomaly'?

Oh, and by the way, it seems like you ignored my other points... that the success of the Democrats in that time period may not simply to do with their 'left wing/progressive' policies... the fact that FRD was a 'wartime' president (which increases popularity), the fact that Democrat's policies at the time were not always as "progressive" as you might think.


Yet he didn't run as a democrat, did he.

Eisenhower was a moderate as republicans go. But he wasn't "far left". Yet voters took a look at his (not far left) policies and said "Yup, I want that". Hmmm... a centrist won an election. Wonder if there's a lesson in there anywhere.

Yes, Ike was an anomaly. He was a Republican who the Democrats wanted to run as their own. He was a far leftwinger by today's standards. He taxed the rich at 90%. Other Republicans thought he must be a communist! LOL

https://www.insidethegate.com/2011/07/president-dwight-d-eisenhower-a-communist/
 
Yes, Ike was an anomaly. He was a Republican who the Democrats wanted to run as their own. He was a far leftwinger by today's standards. He taxed the rich at 90%. Other Republicans thought he must be a communist! LOL

https://www.insidethegate.com/2011/07/president-dwight-d-eisenhower-a-communist/

LOL

Your link doesn't actually support the claim that other Republicans thought he must be a communist. It just repeats the claim. And even then, the claim is that "some elements of the far-right fringe" thought that. Not Republicans. Not the right. Not even the far right. Not even the far-right fringe. Just some elements.

That's the claim, and it's not even supported. I'm sure you could find "some elements" of a far-fringe anything that believe in some arbitrary extremism. But your link doesn't even do that.

Try again.
 
Last edited:
...If being "progressive" is such a sure-fire ticket to electoral victory, why did it not work for Mondale? He supported the ERA. Wanted a nuclear freeze. Picked a woman as his running mate (who was criticized for being pro-choice). Talked about raising taxes and the 'unfairness' of the economy under Reagan. Sounds to me like he was 'progressive'.

And he was slaughtered in the 1984 election. Barely won even his own state in the general election. If being "far left" liberal is the key to victory for the Democrats, why did it fail for Mondale?


First, voicing support for a few progressive policies, especially with mere weak-sauce campaign rhetoric , instead of a lifetime record of fighting for the same causes, does not a Progressive make. Secondly, even being a strong, committed progressive (which Mondale wasn't) isn't going to overcome being a very boring, awkward public speaker prone to gaffs (Did you not see Chevy Chase's contemporaneous imitations of him on SNL?), who was already burdened by being Carter's Veep in an administration that was murdered by Reagan's misinformation campaign (not to mention the failed Iranian hostage rescue followed by Reagan's illegal shenanigans to get Iran to hold the American Hostages until after his election).

Progressive policies are generally very popular (much moreso than austerity policies certainly), but they aren't, by themselves, going to reverse the fate of a bad candidate mired in bad circumstances against a popular sitting President, and regardless of how many, if not most, of us feel about Reagan today, His approval rating was above 50% with disapproval in the 30s when he ran for re-election (very similar to Clinton's at his re-election in '96).
 
Last edited:
LOL

Your link doesn't actually support the claim that other Republicans thought he must be a communist. It just repeats the claim. And even then, the claim is that "some elements of the far-right fringe" thought that. Not Republicans. Not the right. Not even the far right. Not even the far-right fringe. Just some elements.

That's the claim, and it's not even supported. I'm sure you could find "some elements" of a far-fringe anything that believe in some arbitrary extremism. But your link doesn't even do that.

Try again.

Ike was ideologically in line with the democrats, who wanted to run him as one of their own.

Do you dispute that?
 
Yes, Ike was an anomaly. He was a Republican who the Democrats wanted to run as their own.
Yet, once again, as I pointed out, he ran as a republican. You know, as a guy who wasn't a democrat.
He was a far leftwinger by today's standards.
"Today's Standards" are irrelevant. What is relevant is how he would have fit on the political spectrum in the middle of the 20th century.
He taxed the rich at 90%.
Yes and no. At best that statement is misleading.

It is true... the U.S. did have a marginal income tax rate of 91%. But that doesn't mean that your average rich person would have paid that much of their income. That 91% applies to ONLY to the "last dollar" earned; much of their income would have been taxed at a lower rater. Furthermore, it also ignores the effects of various tax deductions, other taxes (e.g. city/state), income vs. capital gains, etc. In effect, the effective tax burden was much lower (closer to 40%. Perhaps a bit higher than what they pay today, but nowhere near the 91% under Eisenhower.).

It should also be pointed out that that tax rate would have only affected the super-wealthy. There were many people that would still be considered "rich" by the standards of the day but would be nowhere near the 91% marginal tax rate.

Oh, and by the way, the marginal tax rate under FDR (you know, the democrat) actually peaked at 94%, higher than under (republican) Eisenhower.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...-tax-rates-were-90-percent-under-eisenhower-/

Also, keep in mind that in other areas of domestic and financial policy, Eisenhower was far from a "far-left liberal". For example, he acted to limit the influence of labor unions, launched a campaign to deport hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, believed in free markets, and even though he may have fought against racism, he didn't extend that to gay rights (bringing in a ban against homosexuals). Simply pointing to the tax rate and shouting "Look how progressive he was" is rather foolish.

Eisenhower was not some "democrat in republican clothing". He was a moderate republican, holding some policies that were preferred by the republicans, and a few that were not.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/05/20/gay-bashing-like-ike-column/2343963/

And once again, I note that you ignored the fact that at least some of the success that the democrats had in the mid-20th century can be attributed to factors other than "gee wiz, we really like their progressive policies".
 
The biggest issues defining progressivism at the moment are the economy, health care which is another part of the economic issue anyway, college expenses which are another part of the economic issue too, and military interventionism. The bad trends progressives now point to in the economy date back to the 1970s or 1980s as when they just got started, so it was easier back then to just not see what was happening yet. Global warming hadn't really gotten going yet either. And how many foreign countries were we not just maintaining military bases in, but actually carrying out military missions against, and for how long, compared to how many we have going now and how long they've been going?

You can't expect politics in one era to be dominated by the people's desire for solutions to another era's problems.
 
If the progressives take over the Dems in 2020,and alientate the moderates and centralists (whom they seem to hold in contempt) Trump will be reelected.GUaranteed.
 
Ike was ideologically in line with the democrats, who wanted to run him as one of their own.

Do you dispute that?
Only if the democrats were a bunch of anti-union free-marketers who wanted to deport illegal immigrants and ban homosexuals from working for the government.

But lets say he did decide to run as a Democrat. The fact that he was comfortable enough in the republican party would suggest he was not a far-left progressive in the mold of Bernie Sanders, but a more moderate politician in the mold of Clinton. His victory is not any proof of how "far left policies are the road to victory"... just the opposite. They suggest that appealing to the center has value.
 
If the progressives take over the Dems in 2020,and alientate the moderates and centralists (whom they seem to hold in contempt) Trump will be reelected.GUaranteed.

What an odd notion considering the moderates/ centrists controlling the Dems in 2016 resulted in Trump winning in the first place.

Makes as much sense as saying we need to run Hillary again in 2020 or Trump will be reelected.
 
If the progressives take over the Dems in 2020,and alientate the moderates and centralists (whom they seem to hold in contempt) Trump will be reelected.GUaranteed.

Really?! I have no animosity or contempt for moderates or centrists in general. I do occasionally react to the manner and tone I perceive from individuals and there do seem to be some who profess Moderation or Centrism with a very disdainful and contemptuous manner toward Progressivism and those advocating it. I recall several such people repeatedly telling me in 2016 that they didn't need the Progressive vote and didn't care who we voted for as they were going to pull most of the moderate Republicans to support them against Trump, and then after most of us did vote for their candidate and no moderate Republicans did), they tried to blame the loss of their horrible candidate and election of the little-handed orange Jabba-the-Hut wannabe on us, can't get much more contemptuous than that. But I don't hold that against the party, centrism or moderation, I blame the idiots doing the talking not ideologies most them don't seem to actually understand (or agree with) in the first place.
 
What an odd notion considering the moderates/ centrists controlling the Dems in 2016 resulted in Trump winning in the first place.
I'm not sure 1 case is enough to make the assertion odd. But hundreds and hundreds of cases from trying to follow exactly that advice for years is certainly enough to make the assertion utterly absurd.
 
Who signs bills into law?

It's a team effort, actually. Checks and balances. Congress has the final say on what the laws are, though.

Anyway, taxes went up during the Depression, and went up some more during World War II. Roosevelt already had a 94% tax rate in 1944, and was asking Congress for 100%. As far as I can tell, that taxation level remained the status quo through the Truman administration, and was inherited by Eisenhower. It's not like taxes were relatively low, and then RINO Eisenhower jumps into the Oval Office and says, "let me jack up them taxes!"

I think this idea that Eisenhower should have fought for radical reduction of federal taxes is anachronistic. Congress and the President were both looking for revenue to pay for postwar recovery and stay competitive in the Cold War. Taxes did come down over time, but given the historical context, I don't consider it a mark against Eisenhower that he didn't fight Congress over the typical tax rate of the period.

tl;dr - Republican president inherits ridiculously high tax rates (by modern standards, but much more reasonable in their proper historical context) from back-to-back Democrat administrations, doesn't fight Congress to lower them. Congress gradually lowers the tax rate over time anyway.
 
It's a team effort, actually. Checks and balances. Congress has the final say on what the laws are, though...

Sounds about right to my understandings, at least so long as the president doesn't ever get a line-item veto power. Congress passes bills, the president either signs the bills into law, or he vetoes them. Vetoed bills go back to congress, if they override the veto the bill becomes law, and as far as I know the bill becomes a law, and I'm assuming it does so without a signature.


The rest of your post sounds generally in accord with my historical understandings as well, I just wanted to make sure we were operating from similar background understandings.

Ike, to my perceptions was largely a non-partisan military man who favored some progressive ideas and preferences, but his essence was as a very moderate Republican (who frequently argued against the further right fringes of his day) and they were a large (if not the largest) part of the party through the '70s (with some exceptions, of course). The Dem party however, has almost always been made up of mostly neoliberals with a variable percentage of progressive influences and practices, but very few Progressive members or leaders.

my definitions of the terms I am using are probably in order here:

Liberalism - a political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty.

Neoliberalism - a modified form of liberalism tending to favor free-market capitalism

Progressive - the application of rigorous analysis to reform current public policies to achieve more efficient and effective public policies addressing the needs and rights of the population.

Progressive Economics - understandings rooted in the concept of social justice which have the goal of improving the human condition often through government-based economic central planning. Economic progressivism is based on the idea that free markets are inherently unfair, favoring large corporations and the wealthy.

Both the Republican and Democratic parties in the US are neoliberal organizations, and both to varying extents and focus upon personal and social freedoms, pay homage to liberalism and free-market economics.

Progressivism is more of a process used to analyze and reform public policy while focused on providing efficient policies organized around the precepts of social justice and improving the human condition.
 
What an odd notion considering the moderates/ centrists controlling the Dems in 2016 resulted in Trump winning in the first place.

Makes as much sense as saying we need to run Hillary again in 2020 or Trump will be reelected.

Exactly. I mean, how hard is this to understand?
 
Watch out you might get what you're after...

"Bernie Sanders staff shake-up: Top strategists leave his presidential campaign" - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...gists-leave-his-presidential-campaign-n976221

...And the firm has come under criticism from Sanders allies for the money they made from Sanders and his small-dollar fundraising machine in 2016, with $5.3 million in direct payments to the firm from the campaign, according to the Federal Election Commission reports.

Meanwhile, Sanders has pledged to diversify the top ranks of his campaign.

"We have been criticized, correctly so, for running a campaign that was too white and too male-oriented, and that is going to change," Sanders said in a recent interview with The Young Turks.

There is a slight push trying to "pick at the wallpaper to see if there's a crack underneath." From what I can tell, the timing and final decision was not fully anticipated this early and it may well have been precipitated by the release of the Primary Debate schedule. That's only what, 4 months out from now!?
A lot of this other scuttlebutt was in the Sander's post-mortem 2016 discussions back in early 2017. Neither side seems bitter or hurt, merely trying to move on to their 2020 goals and vision. I'm sure there will be more written. I'm interested in seeing who all else he brings in and what he's planning throughout the rest of this year.
 
Hillary shill and lobbyist Tara Ebersole was planted at a CNN town hall to try and derail Bernie, funny stuff
 
Hillary shill and lobbyist Tara Ebersole was planted at a CNN town hall to try and derail Bernie, funny stuff

Unsurprising, I wouldn't expect them to change their tactics now, this stuff has been going on for years now with regard to Sanders.
 

Back
Top Bottom