Yes, and many of them are the same people who thought there was no real difference between Gore and Bush and Democrats and Republicans and who therefore thought it would be a good idea to vote for Nader. If they're not the same people (young voters, for instance), they're cut from the same cloth.
Yes, and many of them are the same people who thought there was no real difference between Gore and Bush and Democrats and Republicans and who therefore thought it would be a good idea to vote for Nader. If they're not the same people (young voters, for instance), they're cut from the same cloth.
GWB was nowhere close to as bad as Trump was/is-- I still maintain he's a good man but was a bad president-- but much of where we are now can be traced back to the 2000 election.
Actually I'd take it a step further and credit Newt Gingrich in the early- to mid-1990s for creating the environment that made the 2000 election outcome and so much else possible in our modern toxic politics. His widespread introduction of grievance, anger, and outright hatred of opposition into the political process on the right set the table for MAGA and the sort of dysfunctional, win-at-all-costs GOP mindset that now prevails after marinating for a couple of decades. Nothing has been the same since he weaponized conservative victimization and the need to blame every conceivable ill on liberals, and making it personal, as an either-or proposition rather than the consensus-building process that had prevailed.
I do not like to see the word grievance used in association with the GOP without a modifier. It makes it all too easy to dismiss any criticism as irgnorable grievance. If there is a real grievance, it needs to be addressed and rectified. However, what we see is a lot of fake grievance like the guy I was talking to today who was upset that it was unfair (according to him) that blue state residents pre-2018 got to deduct a lot more for state taxes paid and mortgage insurance and therefore cut down on their tax liability because then red state taxpayers were subsidizing blue state. Fake grievance.
Other than that I agree that Gingrich's widespread introduction of FAKE grievance to stoke anger and hatred set the table for MAGA.
I with you on the blame-Gingrich bandwagon. Assume you read the Atlantic piece on him ("Man Who Broke Politics"). One of the ways that I can tell the analysis is spot on is how poor the conservative rebuttals to it were.
Yes, good point. I've long felt that the two most influential Republicans of the modern era, without ever attaining the White House, are Gingrich and Mitch McConnell. Some good books and documentaries are waiting to be made about how profoundly they have reshaped the fate of our nation through their guidance, Newt for the reasons cited above and Mitch for his own many actions, foremost essentially seizing the Supreme Court for his side and reshaping its impact for at least a generation to come. I often think about how 5-4 conservative rulings, including abortion recently, would be different if Merrick Garland had not been jobbed out of the seat by McConnell's gamesmanship. Given his goal of owning the libs lock, stock, and barrel, I suspect he relishes the fact that millions of them aspire to piss on his grave once he is gone.
Provocative comment, Charlie, and possibly even true. I believe Al Gore would have been a good president, too, if all the votes had been counted. It’s even possible that 9/11 would not have happened with either of them in the Oval Office, as they both had a tendency to read intelligence reports that were placed on their desk.
P.S. You have a common name, but a rather unique set of descriptors.
While I generally agree, I suspect 9/11 would have happened. We generally are surprised by something completely unexpected - and 9/11 changed forever how hijackers were seen.
Yes, and many of them are the same people who thought there was no real difference between Gore and Bush and Democrats and Republicans and who therefore thought it would be a good idea to vote for Nader. If they're not the same people (young voters, for instance), they're cut from the same cloth.
GWB was nowhere close to as bad as Trump was/is-- I still maintain he's a good man but was a bad president-- but much of where we are now can be traced back to the 2000 election.
Or really, a bit further back... Reagan set it up for tRump to knock it all down. And he did.
Actually I'd take it a step further and credit Newt Gingrich in the early- to mid-1990s for creating the environment that made the 2000 election outcome and so much else possible in our modern toxic politics. His widespread introduction of grievance, anger, and outright hatred of opposition into the political process on the right set the table for MAGA and the sort of dysfunctional, win-at-all-costs GOP mindset that now prevails after marinating for a couple of decades. Nothing has been the same since he weaponized conservative victimization and the need to blame every conceivable ill on liberals, and making it personal, as an either-or proposition rather than the consensus-building process that had prevailed.
I do not like to see the word grievance used in association with the GOP without a modifier. It makes it all too easy to dismiss any criticism as irgnorable grievance. If there is a real grievance, it needs to be addressed and rectified. However, what we see is a lot of fake grievance like the guy I was talking to today who was upset that it was unfair (according to him) that blue state residents pre-2018 got to deduct a lot more for state taxes paid and mortgage insurance and therefore cut down on their tax liability because then red state taxpayers were subsidizing blue state. Fake grievance.
Other than that I agree that Gingrich's widespread introduction of FAKE grievance to stoke anger and hatred set the table for MAGA.
I with you on the blame-Gingrich bandwagon. Assume you read the Atlantic piece on him ("Man Who Broke Politics"). One of the ways that I can tell the analysis is spot on is how poor the conservative rebuttals to it were.
Agree re Gingrich. This was when moderate Republicans (like those in NJ) were pushed out of Congress - made irrelevant.
Yes, good point. I've long felt that the two most influential Republicans of the modern era, without ever attaining the White House, are Gingrich and Mitch McConnell. Some good books and documentaries are waiting to be made about how profoundly they have reshaped the fate of our nation through their guidance, Newt for the reasons cited above and Mitch for his own many actions, foremost essentially seizing the Supreme Court for his side and reshaping its impact for at least a generation to come. I often think about how 5-4 conservative rulings, including abortion recently, would be different if Merrick Garland had not been jobbed out of the seat by McConnell's gamesmanship. Given his goal of owning the libs lock, stock, and barrel, I suspect he relishes the fact that millions of them aspire to piss on his grave once he is gone.
Provocative comment, Charlie, and possibly even true. I believe Al Gore would have been a good president, too, if all the votes had been counted. It’s even possible that 9/11 would not have happened with either of them in the Oval Office, as they both had a tendency to read intelligence reports that were placed on their desk.
P.S. You have a common name, but a rather unique set of descriptors.
While I generally agree, I suspect 9/11 would have happened. We generally are surprised by something completely unexpected - and 9/11 changed forever how hijackers were seen.