5 ms·

> it could be argued that republicans during Nixon's time were closer to middle road democrats of today in terms of overall platform. That's because it's corre

by derleth 14y ago

> it could be argued that republicans during Nixon's time were closer to middle road democrats of today in terms of overall platform. That's because it's correct, depending on what you mean by 'middle road Democrat'. Nixon created the EPA, created OSHA, signed Title IX into existence, ended the Vietnam war, and endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment, which nevertheless failed to pass. He couldn't have done a lot of those things without Congress, granted, but there wasn't a Tea Party back then, either. Now don't get me wrong: Nixon was a petty, vindictive ass who used the office of the President to pursue personal vendettas and ultimately authored his own downfall in a display of raw hubris worthy of a Greek tragic hero. The irony here was that with Watergate, he attempted to cheat his way to victory in the 1972 election, which was the biggest landslide anyone alive then will live to see. He threw away his entire future in politics trying to rig something that was a sure thing for him to win anyway. But enough on Nixon. Ronald Reagan was too liberal for most of the people who currently lionize him. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/05/10/even-reagan-wasn-t-a-reagan-republican.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/05/10/even-reagan... http://www.quora.com/Politics/Would-Ronald-Reagan-not-be-conservative-enough-for-todays-Republican-party http://www.quora.com/Politics/Would-Ronald-Reagan-not-be-con...

mbell 14y ago
I explicitly worded it that way in an effort to avoid turning this into a political debate...
clarkmoody 14y ago
Bigger landslide in 1984[1]... Cheating there too? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1984 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elec...
- derleth 14y ago
  > Cheating there too? Since when can cheating cause a landslide?
  - clarkmoody 14y ago
    The parent implied that Nixon cheated to get his landslide victory. I guess I left off the /sarcasm tag :-)
twoodfin 14y ago
The Reagan claim is nuts. By the logic of those links, Bill Clinton was too conservative to be nominated by today's Democratic party because he was for free trade, signed DoMA, passed welfare reform and substantially cut the growth of discretionary spending... sorry: "investment". At least two of the GOP's nominees since Reagan would have been happy to sign more immigration liberalization. Bush the Elder raised taxes. Bush the Younger failed to cut spending just like Reagan, and added a new prescription drug entitlement to Medicare. McCain was instrumental in passing campaign finance reform, and Romney passed an individual mandate and state run health exchanges. Reagan "too liberal"? That's a fairy tale. Dead conservatives were always the moderate ones.
- pessimizer 14y ago
  >By the logic of those links, Bill Clinton was too conservative to be nominated by today's Democratic party No, only by the illogic of false equivalence. Obama is for "free" trade, directly said multiple times that he was against gay marriage until recently, is running on a platform to cut Social Security, and has cut a massive number of government jobs during a time of high unemployment. In other words, Bill Clinton is conservative enough to be nominated by today's Democratic party. Reagan was far too liberal to be nominated by today's Republican party.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    is running on a platform to cut Social Security, Citation needed. and has cut a massive number of government jobs during a time of high unemployment. As of Jan 2009, there were 2,790,000 federal employees. There are now 2,814,000. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/CES9091000001.txt http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/CES9091000001.txt Maybe you mean he didn't increase the number of government jobs as fast as was projected?
    - jbooth 14y ago
      "Government jobs". There are fewer total people employed in government, because the states have been put through the ringer and the stimulus contained no state aid (price of getting the Maine senators on board). Anwyays, you're smart enough to know that flatlining is effectively a cut, relative to population and inflation. Certainly relative to every other recent president, Reagan and Bush very much included. And relative to Romney's plan to increase military spending (guess how many of those 2.8M are military or homeland security employees).
rayiner 14y ago
I'll argue that the country is in many ways further to the right than it was then. I think today, even many Democrats are too brow-beaten to mention the EPA, OSHA, Title IX, ending wars, etc. Something like the ERA would be politically untouchable today for a Democrat much less a Republican. Not just among politicians, but among regular people.
- sethg 14y ago
  Depends on what you mean by “further to the right”. From WW2 to the early 1970s, there was a two-party consensus on government intervention in the economy, and that consensus moved “right” even before Reagan. (One of Carter’s legislative accomplishments, for example, was deregulating airline fares.) On the other hand, the country has moved “left” on social issues. Can you imagine any politician in 1975, outside of the most extremely liberal districts, saying that same-sex couples should have legal protections equivalent to those of a married couple? And now that seems to be the “safe” position for right-wing Democrats and left-wing Republicans to take. The ERA hasn’t passed, but the courts have been more critical of laws that have a disparate impact on men and women (the technical term is “intermediate scrutiny”). Regarding protracted military interventions in foreign countries, the parties seem to have moved “left” in the aftermath of Vietnam and “right” again with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

by derleth 14y ago

mbell 14y ago

I explicitly worded it that way in an effort to avoid turning this into a political debate...

clarkmoody 14y ago

Bigger landslide in 1984[1]... Cheating there too? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1984 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elec...

derleth 14y ago
> Cheating there too? Since when can cheating cause a landslide?
- clarkmoody 14y ago
  The parent implied that Nixon cheated to get his landslide victory. I guess I left off the /sarcasm tag :-)

twoodfin 14y ago

The Reagan claim is nuts. By the logic of those links, Bill Clinton was too conservative to be nominated by today's Democratic party because he was for free trade, signed DoMA, passed welfare reform and substantially cut the growth of discretionary spending... sorry: "investment". At least two of the GOP's nominees since Reagan would have been happy to sign more immigration liberalization. Bush the Elder raised taxes. Bush the Younger failed to cut spending just like Reagan, and added a new prescription drug entitlement to Medicare. McCain was instrumental in passing campaign finance reform, and Romney passed an individual mandate and state run health exchanges. Reagan "too liberal"? That's a fairy tale. Dead conservatives were always the moderate ones.

pessimizer 14y ago
>By the logic of those links, Bill Clinton was too conservative to be nominated by today's Democratic party No, only by the illogic of false equivalence. Obama is for "free" trade, directly said multiple times that he was against gay marriage until recently, is running on a platform to cut Social Security, and has cut a massive number of government jobs during a time of high unemployment. In other words, Bill Clinton is conservative enough to be nominated by today's Democratic party. Reagan was far too liberal to be nominated by today's Republican party.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  is running on a platform to cut Social Security, Citation needed. and has cut a massive number of government jobs during a time of high unemployment. As of Jan 2009, there were 2,790,000 federal employees. There are now 2,814,000. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/CES9091000001.txt http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/CES9091000001.txt Maybe you mean he didn't increase the number of government jobs as fast as was projected?
  - jbooth 14y ago
    "Government jobs". There are fewer total people employed in government, because the states have been put through the ringer and the stimulus contained no state aid (price of getting the Maine senators on board). Anwyays, you're smart enough to know that flatlining is effectively a cut, relative to population and inflation. Certainly relative to every other recent president, Reagan and Bush very much included. And relative to Romney's plan to increase military spending (guess how many of those 2.8M are military or homeland security employees).

rayiner 14y ago

I'll argue that the country is in many ways further to the right than it was then. I think today, even many Democrats are too brow-beaten to mention the EPA, OSHA, Title IX, ending wars, etc. Something like the ERA would be politically untouchable today for a Democrat much less a Republican. Not just among politicians, but among regular people.

sethg 14y ago
Depends on what you mean by “further to the right”. From WW2 to the early 1970s, there was a two-party consensus on government intervention in the economy, and that consensus moved “right” even before Reagan. (One of Carter’s legislative accomplishments, for example, was deregulating airline fares.) On the other hand, the country has moved “left” on social issues. Can you imagine any politician in 1975, outside of the most extremely liberal districts, saying that same-sex couples should have legal protections equivalent to those of a married couple? And now that seems to be the “safe” position for right-wing Democrats and left-wing Republicans to take. The ERA hasn’t passed, but the courts have been more critical of laws that have a disparate impact on men and women (the technical term is “intermediate scrutiny”). Regarding protracted military interventions in foreign countries, the parties seem to have moved “left” in the aftermath of Vietnam and “right” again with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.