- Dec 16, 2006
- 7,401
- 785
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
1. One way of looking at the 2016 election is the time-honoured method of taking sides, with voters picking Republican or Democrat candidates irrespective of the actual reality.
Going back to 1916 it was the Democrat candidate reelected on the slogan "he kept us out of war".
But there was an inconsistency in his thinking, although anti war he was also strongly pro British.
So it came down to the big money. Gun and ammo makers, uniform makers, big banks, rail and shipping all could see the advantages of the government pouring money into their pockets, and the media shed all pretensions of accuracy and copying the British propaganda methods, turned public opinion around and we had war.
So hold a Democrat responsible for that one, and the consequences too. Though progress was slow and halting some might argue the European powers might have produced a meaningful Armistice. With the US joining the Allied Powers, although called an 'Armistice' it was actually a victory and the subsequent fines had a key role in starting WW2.
A Democrat in the WH at the start of WW2, ditto getting engaged into the Vietnam War, and that war was a big one by the way, contrary to public opinion.
But the parties have switched about several times since then.
Around 1973 the oil companies switched to, well basically took over, the Republican Party, and all the small government prudent fiscal policy traditions and membership just got pushed off the table as the Republican Party was now the party of war and huge military expenditure.
But by 2016 the table was the other way around again, the Democrat candidate having already started a few wars, the Republican candidate talking to the Russians in the hope of avoiding a war.
But unlike 1916 now the big money isn't playing second fiddle, it is in charge whoever gets in, so the difference is more a way of thinking of things than it is a reality, more what we chose than what we are going to get.
Here is lunch. You can call it a hamburger, you can call it a meat sandwich, I call it a laminated multi-source food, it is still exactly the same thing. But I'm really pleased we elected the multi-source food instead of a meat sandwich.
Talking Democrat / Republican is easy but not generally causes more confusion than there was there in the first place, and from the first couple of weeks after the election the Washington Consensus runs the show anyway, so it is mainly the words that are different.
Going back to 1916 it was the Democrat candidate reelected on the slogan "he kept us out of war".
But there was an inconsistency in his thinking, although anti war he was also strongly pro British.
So it came down to the big money. Gun and ammo makers, uniform makers, big banks, rail and shipping all could see the advantages of the government pouring money into their pockets, and the media shed all pretensions of accuracy and copying the British propaganda methods, turned public opinion around and we had war.
So hold a Democrat responsible for that one, and the consequences too. Though progress was slow and halting some might argue the European powers might have produced a meaningful Armistice. With the US joining the Allied Powers, although called an 'Armistice' it was actually a victory and the subsequent fines had a key role in starting WW2.
A Democrat in the WH at the start of WW2, ditto getting engaged into the Vietnam War, and that war was a big one by the way, contrary to public opinion.
But the parties have switched about several times since then.
Around 1973 the oil companies switched to, well basically took over, the Republican Party, and all the small government prudent fiscal policy traditions and membership just got pushed off the table as the Republican Party was now the party of war and huge military expenditure.
But by 2016 the table was the other way around again, the Democrat candidate having already started a few wars, the Republican candidate talking to the Russians in the hope of avoiding a war.
But unlike 1916 now the big money isn't playing second fiddle, it is in charge whoever gets in, so the difference is more a way of thinking of things than it is a reality, more what we chose than what we are going to get.
Here is lunch. You can call it a hamburger, you can call it a meat sandwich, I call it a laminated multi-source food, it is still exactly the same thing. But I'm really pleased we elected the multi-source food instead of a meat sandwich.
Talking Democrat / Republican is easy but not generally causes more confusion than there was there in the first place, and from the first couple of weeks after the election the Washington Consensus runs the show anyway, so it is mainly the words that are different.