FrankRep
09-23-2008, 07:32 AM
The Politics of "Change"
Written by Warren Mass (John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/))
22 September 2008
Popular opinion regarding the status quo is simple enough to gauge: When things are going well — the nation is at peace, business is booming, profits are up, unemployment is down, and there is relative harmony in the community — most people are content to leave things as is.
These are years that favor the incumbent party. But when all of these factors are less favorable, people begin looking for “change.”
Historically, however, the American people have been more patient with wars than they have been with economic downturns. Not since the major mobilization during World War II has a U.S. war had major impact on civilians — except for families unfortunate enough to have suffered from casualties. But an economic downturn is felt not only on Wall Street, but also on Main Street.
Which is why the current turmoil involving some of our nation’s largest investment banks does not bode well for Republicans. Nor does a New York Times/CBS News poll released on September 17 that indicated, “Senator John McCain is seen by voters as far less likely to bring change to Washington than Senator Barack Obama. He is widely viewed as a ‘typical Republican’ who would continue or expand President Bush’s policies.”
While it is unfortunate that most Americans regard John McCain, George W. Bush, and other prominent GOP figures as “typical Republicans,” maybe the explanation is found in the oft-quoted statement made by the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln:
If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem. It is true that you may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
Since World War II, the national Republican Party has coasted on its early 20th Century reputation as the party of peace, prosperity, and limited government — a reputation deservedly earned by constitutionalists like Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. What the GOP has given us since 1952, however, is a long line of neoconservatives from Eisenhower to Bush.
Since it is the economy, more likely than any other factor, that is likely to be the cause of the GOP’s undoing (as it was in 1992, when the Clinton campaign adopted the slogan: “It’s the economy, stupid!”), it is interesting to review an important barometer of economic health, our nation’s public debt, in recent years. From 1980 through 1990, a period that encompassed the eight “conservative” Reagan years and the first two years of the first President Bush, our public debt grew from $930.2 billion to $3.233 trillion. After two more years of Bush and eight of Clinton, the debt grew to $5.674 trillion by 2000. After seven years of George W. Bush in the White House, the debt grew to over $9 trillion!
When it comes to exercising fiduciary responsibility for our economy, therefore, it is obvious that the difference between having a Republican or Democrat in the White House is largely an illusion. Republicans may pretend to cut spending by miniscule amounts, whereupon Democrats howl that the GOP is gouging important social problems while giving “tax breaks to the rich,” but it is largely a theatrical performance put on for the benefit of each party’s constituency.
In an interview with The New American magazine for September 26, 1988, Congressman Ron Paul, in answer to a question about why he was running for President on the Libertarian Party ticket, replied:
The American people ought to have a choice. They have no choice whatsoever between [George H.W.] Bush and [Mike] Dukakis. Although their speeches are a little different, their programs and their policies and their philosophies are very much the same.
This has been true for many decades. Republicans have been elected to balance the budget and cut back on the size of the government, but nothing happens. Democrats are supposed to be good at keeping us out of war and protecting civil liberties, but they don't do a very good job at that. I tried working through the Republican Party for a good many years offering a change in direction, but after seven years of the Reagan Administration I concluded that the Republicans would never reduce the size of government.
While Times polls indicate that 68 percent of Americans disapprove of President Bush’s job performance and 81 percent said the country was heading in the wrong direction, there was no indication that most Americans have a clearly defined view of what the right direction might be.
If McCain was viewed as a “typical Republican,” the poll indicated that nearly half of voters also described Mr. Obama as a “typical Democrat.” From which we would conclude that in 2008, as in every presidential election since 1964, Americans have been given a “typical choice.” And what is a typical choice? One enlightening answer was provided by the late history professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University — whom Bill Clinton praised in his acceptance speech at the 1992 Democratic National Convention. Dr. Quigley described the choice given to voters by the two major political parties in his monumental work Tragedy and Hope (1966):
[T]he two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.... But either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will have none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.
In addition to the above revelation, Tragedy and Hope was the first major exposé of the powerful, elitist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) to be written by a CFR member. Members of the CFR have held key positions in virtually every presidential administration for the past 60 years. The vast majority of secretaries of state, from Dean Acheson in the Truman Administration to Condoleezza Rice in the Bush administration, have been CFR members.
Both John McCain and Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden are CFR members, as well.
Those who think Barrack Obama will bring significant change to the direction of our government because he is a Democrat, or that John McCain will bring significant policy change because he is a “maverick,” have been mislead by the major media, a good share of which of which are also headed by CFR members.
Which perhaps explains why candidates who would offer genuine change — former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin, and Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr, are virtually ignored by the media. Neither are they often included in polls, such as the New York Times/CBS News poll.
SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/index.php/jbs-news-feed/2964
Written by Warren Mass (John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/))
22 September 2008
Popular opinion regarding the status quo is simple enough to gauge: When things are going well — the nation is at peace, business is booming, profits are up, unemployment is down, and there is relative harmony in the community — most people are content to leave things as is.
These are years that favor the incumbent party. But when all of these factors are less favorable, people begin looking for “change.”
Historically, however, the American people have been more patient with wars than they have been with economic downturns. Not since the major mobilization during World War II has a U.S. war had major impact on civilians — except for families unfortunate enough to have suffered from casualties. But an economic downturn is felt not only on Wall Street, but also on Main Street.
Which is why the current turmoil involving some of our nation’s largest investment banks does not bode well for Republicans. Nor does a New York Times/CBS News poll released on September 17 that indicated, “Senator John McCain is seen by voters as far less likely to bring change to Washington than Senator Barack Obama. He is widely viewed as a ‘typical Republican’ who would continue or expand President Bush’s policies.”
While it is unfortunate that most Americans regard John McCain, George W. Bush, and other prominent GOP figures as “typical Republicans,” maybe the explanation is found in the oft-quoted statement made by the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln:
If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem. It is true that you may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
Since World War II, the national Republican Party has coasted on its early 20th Century reputation as the party of peace, prosperity, and limited government — a reputation deservedly earned by constitutionalists like Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. What the GOP has given us since 1952, however, is a long line of neoconservatives from Eisenhower to Bush.
Since it is the economy, more likely than any other factor, that is likely to be the cause of the GOP’s undoing (as it was in 1992, when the Clinton campaign adopted the slogan: “It’s the economy, stupid!”), it is interesting to review an important barometer of economic health, our nation’s public debt, in recent years. From 1980 through 1990, a period that encompassed the eight “conservative” Reagan years and the first two years of the first President Bush, our public debt grew from $930.2 billion to $3.233 trillion. After two more years of Bush and eight of Clinton, the debt grew to $5.674 trillion by 2000. After seven years of George W. Bush in the White House, the debt grew to over $9 trillion!
When it comes to exercising fiduciary responsibility for our economy, therefore, it is obvious that the difference between having a Republican or Democrat in the White House is largely an illusion. Republicans may pretend to cut spending by miniscule amounts, whereupon Democrats howl that the GOP is gouging important social problems while giving “tax breaks to the rich,” but it is largely a theatrical performance put on for the benefit of each party’s constituency.
In an interview with The New American magazine for September 26, 1988, Congressman Ron Paul, in answer to a question about why he was running for President on the Libertarian Party ticket, replied:
The American people ought to have a choice. They have no choice whatsoever between [George H.W.] Bush and [Mike] Dukakis. Although their speeches are a little different, their programs and their policies and their philosophies are very much the same.
This has been true for many decades. Republicans have been elected to balance the budget and cut back on the size of the government, but nothing happens. Democrats are supposed to be good at keeping us out of war and protecting civil liberties, but they don't do a very good job at that. I tried working through the Republican Party for a good many years offering a change in direction, but after seven years of the Reagan Administration I concluded that the Republicans would never reduce the size of government.
While Times polls indicate that 68 percent of Americans disapprove of President Bush’s job performance and 81 percent said the country was heading in the wrong direction, there was no indication that most Americans have a clearly defined view of what the right direction might be.
If McCain was viewed as a “typical Republican,” the poll indicated that nearly half of voters also described Mr. Obama as a “typical Democrat.” From which we would conclude that in 2008, as in every presidential election since 1964, Americans have been given a “typical choice.” And what is a typical choice? One enlightening answer was provided by the late history professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University — whom Bill Clinton praised in his acceptance speech at the 1992 Democratic National Convention. Dr. Quigley described the choice given to voters by the two major political parties in his monumental work Tragedy and Hope (1966):
[T]he two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.... But either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will have none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.
In addition to the above revelation, Tragedy and Hope was the first major exposé of the powerful, elitist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) to be written by a CFR member. Members of the CFR have held key positions in virtually every presidential administration for the past 60 years. The vast majority of secretaries of state, from Dean Acheson in the Truman Administration to Condoleezza Rice in the Bush administration, have been CFR members.
Both John McCain and Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden are CFR members, as well.
Those who think Barrack Obama will bring significant change to the direction of our government because he is a Democrat, or that John McCain will bring significant policy change because he is a “maverick,” have been mislead by the major media, a good share of which of which are also headed by CFR members.
Which perhaps explains why candidates who would offer genuine change — former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin, and Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr, are virtually ignored by the media. Neither are they often included in polls, such as the New York Times/CBS News poll.
SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/index.php/jbs-news-feed/2964