Three (well, two) days down, one day left to go. The big day, the one where we finally get the "tall, somewhat charming" fellow that is the GOP nominee for President. I'm guessing for his senior staff, it couldn't be a day too soon, considering how Ryan and Christie did their best to overshadow him.
However, that recap is for tomorrow. Today is about yesterday, which was all about "We Can Change That".
(Paul Ryan tells another lie about Barack Obama and Medicare)
Hmm, it appears we were interrupted by Paul Ryan. Let's hope that doesn't happen again. Anyways, night three of the convention was a showcase for some senators, a few more governors (former and current), and two really annoying Attorneys General from Florida and Georgia. With Senator John "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" McCain and former Secretary of State Condolezza Rice speaking, it was also a night for neoconning it up in regards to Foreign Affairs. They also finally recognized that the Bushes existed, with a short tribute video that we unfortunately missed. For a second there I thought the GOP had forgotten that there was a President from their party in office between Clinton and Obama. It appears they've still forgotten about NCLB, Cutting taxes while fighting two wars, and creating Medicare Part D, as well as turning those Clinton surpluses into deficits. You gotta feel sorry for the poor saps, don't ya?
(Paul Ryan blames the 30 Year War on Barack Obama, despite the fact that it started centuries before he was President)
Ugh, will he quit that? We're getting tired of all the interruptions, even more so because they are so damn full of lies. Well, where were we? Oh yeah, we were talking about Foreign Affairs night at the GOP. Condi Rice appears to be fairly intelligent, and I doubt she believes most of the crap her party spews. Were we facing a world of the Eisenhower or Kennedy administrations, she probably would be an excellent foreign affairs specialist. But like a lot of her peers in that field, they were trained for a world with the USSR, and just can't handle that it is gone. They can't work without that black hat to glare at. As we saw in Iraq and may yet see in Iran and/or Syria, this confusion and angst has caused us great problems. But hey, the speech was entertaining and probably the least offensive thing spewed forth by a professional political figure at the convention.
(Paul Ryan takes what was Republican obstruction over the debt ceiling, and blames it on President Obama)
GORRAMIT, PAUL RYAN! WILL YOU STOP INTERRUPTING US WITH THIS DRIVEL. CLEARLY IT WAS YOU AND YOUR ILK IN THE HOUSE THAT CAUSED OUR CREDIT RATING TO BE LOWERED. THE AGENCY EVEN SAID OBSTRUCTIONISM WAS THE SOURCE. AUGGHGHGHGHGARGLEBARGLEFOOFERAWBlahagoighewagpvhapgewgeagphewpgoewuepw9
-----------
(SIGH)
OK, we're better now. We've muted any way Paul Ryan could interrupt us, and we've triple locked the doors, so he won't try to come in and interrupt as well. Now back to the coverage. Man, wasn't Pawlenty and Portman both boring and disingenuous. A real winning combination there, ain't it. And of course there was also Mike Huckabee, and the birther Attorney General from Georgia, and that governor of New Mexico who balanced her budget without raising taxes (in part with Federal monies, but she forgot to mention that). I'm sure she's working real hard to get that blue meth off of the streets of Albuquerque.
And now on to the centerpiece of the night, the speech by Paul Rya-
(Paul Ryan tells same lie about Barack Obama and Medicare from before)
GAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHSCREWCRSERPWWTWEPGUWPEWPTWPEOSPCREWPUPWPREWPUPSFPFPUPGWDJFPWEOUPWEOJGFPLGDPOGUWEPOUEPOR42FGPWOEWEU$#$$PGPDJGPWOUPTOEWUJVMppgoaugpoeuepwotapotewuoagpagaowtepwpagmagowewepwea
OK, enough of this crap, that's all for this recap. See you tomorrow for the recap of Mitt Romney's speech. I'm sure Chris Matthews will love it, then five minutes later hate it.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
2012 Republican National Convention Recap: Day Two
The theme for Day Two (effectively Day One) of the Republican National Convention was "We Built It". To me, that seemed like an odd choice, as it sounds awful close to the Obama campaigns theme. Of course, what they really mean by it is "I Built It", a response to the incorrect assumption based upon heavily edited comments from Obama that made it look like he said small business owners didn't build their company.* If you were to pick the theme based upon the small business owners that spoke yesterday, the appropriate theme would have been "We Built It with Government Assistance and Contracts".
Another theme would be "We're the Republican governors, and we'd make MUCH better Presidents than this idiot." These governors liked to tout their record, while trying to make the contrasting point that Obama is a failure. On top of that balancing act, they also had to say all of this in spite of either contradictory evidence, or the fact that their state's revival was due in part to Federal funds or the auto bailout.
The crown jewel of these governor speeches was the keynote address by New Jersey governor Chris Christie. In many ways it resembled the speech given by then Illinois senate candidate Barack Obama in 2004, albeit with a meaner and more divisive tone.** Effectively it was a speech that touted the speaker far more than the Presidential candidate it was supposed to support. The result was a speech that overshadowed Mitt Romney, who was clearly not impressed by it as he sat there watching it awkwardly. There is little doubt that Christie's speech was more about launching his 2016 GOP nomination campaign.
Looking forward to tonight's line up, it appears there will be plenty more governors speaking, as well as a cavalcade of senators. This all will lead up to the speech by the Republican candidate for Vice President Paul Ryan, where I assume he will try to play down his own budget ideas, while totally winking to the crowd that he still will push for those ideas.
Like last night, we here at August Prairie will be live tweeting about the convention, so if you haven't followed us yet on Twitter, please go do so now. We'll wait.
As for Thursday, it is unlikely that there will be any live coverage, at least not early in the evening. Real life has imposed itself, and we'll be on the road for much of the day. Hopefully we'll be back to cover the main event, which will be the speech by the candidate himself. No matter what, we'll definitely have a recap of at least that speech come Friday.
*Obama was talking about roads, bridges, and helpful teachers, the GOP likes to cut that part of his speech out. Note that they don't show the video of him saying it, as that would clearly show the editing job.
**It also wasn't anywhere near as great as a speech as the 2004 DNC speech. You can't doubt Christie's energy, though. You can doubt his sense in killing needed infrastructure upgrades, while giving away large tax breaks to the wealthy in NJ.
Another theme would be "We're the Republican governors, and we'd make MUCH better Presidents than this idiot." These governors liked to tout their record, while trying to make the contrasting point that Obama is a failure. On top of that balancing act, they also had to say all of this in spite of either contradictory evidence, or the fact that their state's revival was due in part to Federal funds or the auto bailout.
The crown jewel of these governor speeches was the keynote address by New Jersey governor Chris Christie. In many ways it resembled the speech given by then Illinois senate candidate Barack Obama in 2004, albeit with a meaner and more divisive tone.** Effectively it was a speech that touted the speaker far more than the Presidential candidate it was supposed to support. The result was a speech that overshadowed Mitt Romney, who was clearly not impressed by it as he sat there watching it awkwardly. There is little doubt that Christie's speech was more about launching his 2016 GOP nomination campaign.
Looking forward to tonight's line up, it appears there will be plenty more governors speaking, as well as a cavalcade of senators. This all will lead up to the speech by the Republican candidate for Vice President Paul Ryan, where I assume he will try to play down his own budget ideas, while totally winking to the crowd that he still will push for those ideas.
Like last night, we here at August Prairie will be live tweeting about the convention, so if you haven't followed us yet on Twitter, please go do so now. We'll wait.
As for Thursday, it is unlikely that there will be any live coverage, at least not early in the evening. Real life has imposed itself, and we'll be on the road for much of the day. Hopefully we'll be back to cover the main event, which will be the speech by the candidate himself. No matter what, we'll definitely have a recap of at least that speech come Friday.
*Obama was talking about roads, bridges, and helpful teachers, the GOP likes to cut that part of his speech out. Note that they don't show the video of him saying it, as that would clearly show the editing job.
**It also wasn't anywhere near as great as a speech as the 2004 DNC speech. You can't doubt Christie's energy, though. You can doubt his sense in killing needed infrastructure upgrades, while giving away large tax breaks to the wealthy in NJ.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
2012 Republican National Convention Recap: Day One
Thanks to Tropical Storm Isaac, which at one time appeared to be heading straight for Tampa, but instead is heading much farther west, the first day of the RNC was rather short. Nevertheless, in just about five minutes of time it already had me wondering if covering this Klassic Komedy Kavalcade* is a good idea.
Perhaps it was those annoying "debt clocks"** that they had, including one that started when RNC Chair Reince Priebus*** gaveled the session to order (before immediately adjourning until later today). Perhaps it was the blinding whiteness of hundreds of puffy red faced middle aged men and women that was giving me a headache. Whatever it was, I was not looking forward to day two.
At least Trump won't be showing up, so there's that.
Stay tuned for more as the day continues.
*As there will be plenty of dog-whistles being used in the speeches this week, I figure I'd use a not so subtle half-assed Simpsons reference in response.
**Seriously, where the hell were these clocks whenSt. Gipper the Jellybean King Reagan and Bush 43 were loading up our deficits? Oh that's right, debt is bad only if a Democrat is President.
***When your party chair's name sounds like either a) a tertiary character from Star Wars or b) a shampoo used to wash the mane of the Romney's dressage horse, you probably are going to have some problems. I know, I know, this is glib and unfair. Because the GOP has never made fun of the President's name.
Perhaps it was those annoying "debt clocks"** that they had, including one that started when RNC Chair Reince Priebus*** gaveled the session to order (before immediately adjourning until later today). Perhaps it was the blinding whiteness of hundreds of puffy red faced middle aged men and women that was giving me a headache. Whatever it was, I was not looking forward to day two.
At least Trump won't be showing up, so there's that.
Stay tuned for more as the day continues.
*As there will be plenty of dog-whistles being used in the speeches this week, I figure I'd use a not so subtle half-assed Simpsons reference in response.
**Seriously, where the hell were these clocks when
***When your party chair's name sounds like either a) a tertiary character from Star Wars or b) a shampoo used to wash the mane of the Romney's dressage horse, you probably are going to have some problems. I know, I know, this is glib and unfair. Because the GOP has never made fun of the President's name.
How we got here, Part 2: 1824
Remember how I said that 1796 was the beginning of two party politics in the United States? Well, it was, but only the first beginning. You see, after 1800, the Federalists, always little more than a minority party primarily centered around the elites of New England, started to wane in importance. Sure, they ran candidates for the Presidency up through the 1816 election, and a few held on even longer in Congress and the Supreme Court. However the party's power had diminished as Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe each served two terms. By 1820, James Monroe ran virtually unopposed for his reelection, with one elector voting for John Quincy Adams. It was the "Era of Good Feeling", and it appeared that our partisan divide had been eliminated.
Of course, just because everybody called themselves "republicans" didn't mean that they were in harmony on every issue. As the "American System", a combination of tariffs and internal improvements, was pushed by leaders such as John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay, many southern and western leaders pushed back, arguing that tariffs hurt their constituents, and that internal improvements were the domain of the states, not the Federal government. In the middle of these fights came the contentious debate over the admittance of Missouri, and the ultimate compromise which brought Maine and Missouri into the Union, and kept a nation divided over the issue of slavery together for another three decades. Everybody was a part of one party, sure, but as the 1820s dragged on there became a clear division between two factions of that party.
Thus, as the nation came together to choose it's next President in 1824, it was clear that a near unanimous vote was unlikely. In fact, quite the opposite was to occur. Four candidates won electoral votes in the race, with Adams and Andrew Jackson, a war hero and lawyer from Tennessee being the two clear favorites. Jackson won the popular vote and the electoral vote, but did not reach the necessary majority of the latter. For the second time in our country's history, a Presidential election headed to the House of Representatives.
As per Constitutional rules, only the three candidates with the most electoral votes were allowed to be selected by the House. Therefore, the House could choose from Adams, Jackson, and William Crawford of Georgia. The fourth major candidate, Henry Clay of Kentucky, was left out. However, as he was Speaker of the House, it was likely he would play a major role in the selection of the next president.
Unlike the contentious 1800 House vote for President, the 1824 vote picked a president on the first vote. The winner was Adams, who beat Jackson and Crawford 13-7-4. Clay, who agreed with Adams on his plan of tariffs and internal improvements and did not like Jackson at all, played a big role. He put all of his support behind Adams and was a big reason that the Massachusetts politician took the office his father had held previously. Whether part of a "corrupt bargain", or because Adams thought Clay was the best man for the job, Clay would become Adams' Secretary of State.
With good reason, Jackson was incensed. He had won the popular and electoral vote, albeit with pluralities instead of majorities. For him and his supporters, it was clear that Clay had bargained the Presidency for the job as Secretary of State. For the next four years this would be their rallying cry, as they were determined to right that wrong in 1828. Jackson supporters, which included a large amount of poor and middling Americans who could vote now that property restrictions were falling away, started calling themselves Democrats. Adams, Clay, and their supporters chose instead to call themselves National Republicans. Partisanship was back in America in a big way.
Next Time: Anti-Masons get their trip into the history books, as the birth of nominating conventions come about in 1832
The source for this post is the Wikipedia article on the 1824 Presidential election. Yeah, I used Wikipedia as a source. This is a little read political blog, not a scholarly paper. Also, I know for a fact that Napoleon helped Adams make his agreement with Henry Clay and Magneto.
Of course, just because everybody called themselves "republicans" didn't mean that they were in harmony on every issue. As the "American System", a combination of tariffs and internal improvements, was pushed by leaders such as John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay, many southern and western leaders pushed back, arguing that tariffs hurt their constituents, and that internal improvements were the domain of the states, not the Federal government. In the middle of these fights came the contentious debate over the admittance of Missouri, and the ultimate compromise which brought Maine and Missouri into the Union, and kept a nation divided over the issue of slavery together for another three decades. Everybody was a part of one party, sure, but as the 1820s dragged on there became a clear division between two factions of that party.
Thus, as the nation came together to choose it's next President in 1824, it was clear that a near unanimous vote was unlikely. In fact, quite the opposite was to occur. Four candidates won electoral votes in the race, with Adams and Andrew Jackson, a war hero and lawyer from Tennessee being the two clear favorites. Jackson won the popular vote and the electoral vote, but did not reach the necessary majority of the latter. For the second time in our country's history, a Presidential election headed to the House of Representatives.
As per Constitutional rules, only the three candidates with the most electoral votes were allowed to be selected by the House. Therefore, the House could choose from Adams, Jackson, and William Crawford of Georgia. The fourth major candidate, Henry Clay of Kentucky, was left out. However, as he was Speaker of the House, it was likely he would play a major role in the selection of the next president.
Unlike the contentious 1800 House vote for President, the 1824 vote picked a president on the first vote. The winner was Adams, who beat Jackson and Crawford 13-7-4. Clay, who agreed with Adams on his plan of tariffs and internal improvements and did not like Jackson at all, played a big role. He put all of his support behind Adams and was a big reason that the Massachusetts politician took the office his father had held previously. Whether part of a "corrupt bargain", or because Adams thought Clay was the best man for the job, Clay would become Adams' Secretary of State.
With good reason, Jackson was incensed. He had won the popular and electoral vote, albeit with pluralities instead of majorities. For him and his supporters, it was clear that Clay had bargained the Presidency for the job as Secretary of State. For the next four years this would be their rallying cry, as they were determined to right that wrong in 1828. Jackson supporters, which included a large amount of poor and middling Americans who could vote now that property restrictions were falling away, started calling themselves Democrats. Adams, Clay, and their supporters chose instead to call themselves National Republicans. Partisanship was back in America in a big way.
Next Time: Anti-Masons get their trip into the history books, as the birth of nominating conventions come about in 1832
The source for this post is the Wikipedia article on the 1824 Presidential election. Yeah, I used Wikipedia as a source. This is a little read political blog, not a scholarly paper. Also, I know for a fact that Napoleon helped Adams make his agreement with Henry Clay and Magneto.
Friday, August 24, 2012
UPDATED: Apologies in Advance to My Neighbors: August Prairie Covers the 2012 RNC
Assuming it isn't washed away by Tropical Storm/Hurricane Isaac, August Prairie will be covering the Republican National Convention. No, not in Tampa, but from the comfort of our living room. We can't promise our coverage will be thorough, entertaining, or even coherent. Honestly, it may just be a string of profanities and drunk ramblings. However, we do promise to try to try and give meaningful coverage.
We'll be live blogging each of the main speakers, such as the keynote by New Jersey governor Chris Christie, Vice-Presidential candidate and Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan, and of course the acceptance speech by former Massachusetts governor Willard "Mitt" Romney. Expect other posts throughout each afternoon and evening, and for stuff that is too ephemeral or unworthy of a major post can be found via twitter.
Because I'm an effete, arugula nibbling islamofasciocommunosocioanticolonial community organizer with a fancy-schmancy Opossum League degree*, I'll be watching MSNBC's coverage, with occasional jaunts to CNN or CSPAN if MSNBC is showing Pat Buchanan, Tweety Matthews is having feelings go down his leg, or they switch to a prison lockup show. You couldn't pay me enough (okay, if I were getting paid MAYBE) to watch Fox News.
Please note that short of him announcing a floor challenge to Romney, or that he was a Democratic plant all along, we will NOT be covering whatever that fat-fingered vulgarian Donald Trump has to say.
UPDATE: Obviously, there won't be any coverage on Monday, because the RNC cancelled its Monday session due to weather concerns. We'll see if there are further changes because of Isaac. Stay tuned...
*To everyone but me, this is known as the Ohio Valley Conference. GO EIU PANTHERS!
We'll be live blogging each of the main speakers, such as the keynote by New Jersey governor Chris Christie, Vice-Presidential candidate and Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan, and of course the acceptance speech by former Massachusetts governor Willard "Mitt" Romney. Expect other posts throughout each afternoon and evening, and for stuff that is too ephemeral or unworthy of a major post can be found via twitter.
Because I'm an effete, arugula nibbling islamofasciocommunosocioanticolonial community organizer with a fancy-schmancy Opossum League degree*, I'll be watching MSNBC's coverage, with occasional jaunts to CNN or CSPAN if MSNBC is showing Pat Buchanan, Tweety Matthews is having feelings go down his leg, or they switch to a prison lockup show. You couldn't pay me enough (okay, if I were getting paid MAYBE) to watch Fox News.
Please note that short of him announcing a floor challenge to Romney, or that he was a Democratic plant all along, we will NOT be covering whatever that fat-fingered vulgarian Donald Trump has to say.
UPDATE: Obviously, there won't be any coverage on Monday, because the RNC cancelled its Monday session due to weather concerns. We'll see if there are further changes because of Isaac. Stay tuned...
*To everyone but me, this is known as the Ohio Valley Conference. GO EIU PANTHERS!
Thursday, August 23, 2012
How we got here: A history of partisan politics in America
For about twenty years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the vast majority of the leaders of the young United States of America attempted to rise above partisan politics. It wasn't that they agreed with each other (far from it), but more that as "gentlemen" they were supposed to be above the rough, seemingly destructive nature of party politics. Sure, there had been an informal division between supporters of the Constitution (Federalists) and those who had doubts about parts, or even the entire document (Anti-Federalists). Still, these groups were far from the nineteenth century parties, let alone our modern concept of parties.
By the time George Washington set a very important precedent by stepping down at the end of his second term, partisanship was already well entrenched. On one side were the Federalists, led by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton. There power was based in the aspiring aristocracy of the Northeast, with a much smaller base centered around the lowland plantations of South Carolina. On the whole, they were proponents of a strong activist government, a central bank, and good relations with Great Britain. They were suspicious of too much democracy, rattled by the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania, as well as the deteriorating mess of the French Revolution.
The other group would eventually be known as the Democratic-Republican. Led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, their power base were the farmers and most (but not all) of the plantation owners of the south, as well as many of the business owners and merchants in the Middle Atlantic and New England states. They were generally in favor of smaller government, and shunned most of the pomp and ceremony held dear by Federalists. Most of them were skeptical of a central bank, mistrustful of its power over the economy. They tended to favor the French, seeing them as fellow republicans amidst a sea of absolutists and aristocrats. Unlike the Federalists, they were incredibly wary of standing armies, and believed commerce between republics would ultimately end the need for war.
The election of 1796 was the first contested Presidential election in the history of the United States. At the time only nine of the sixteen states at the time bound their electoral college votes to the popular vote. Just a small percentage of the population could vote even in the states where it mattered, in most cases only white property owning men 21 years or older. John Adams won the most electoral votes and Thomas Jefferson came in second. Under the Constitution at the time this made him Vice-President. As Adams' term went on, it was clear that having a hostile Vice President was not exactly the best idea, particularly in a partisan world.
As the European wars continued, and both French and British fleets harassed American merchant ships, tensions continued to rise. At various times it appeared the USA would go to war against Great Britain, France, or both. The Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition acts, which led Madison and Jefferson to push for the theory of nullification, first by the young state of Kentucky, and later by the Old Dominion of Virginia. By the election of 1800, which would pit Adams and Jefferson against each other again, it was clear partisan politics were here to stay.
Over the next couple of weeks, as the Republicans congregate in Tampa and the Democrats meet in Charlotte, I'll be taking a trip through our nation's tumultuous history of partisan politics. My main purpose for this is to shed some light on how the modern parties became what they are. I figure the best way to do this is to divide posts up by various election years that I find most important. Note that these years don't always line up with Presidential election years, or with the most obvious years. However, they are the years which to me seem most pivotal in the development of our two party system. Two of the years will be midterm elections, harbingers of much larger developments for the waves that would happen the next Presidential elections. Since they are so recent, and we have yet to see their last impact, I'll tackle 2006, 2008, and 2010 together.
One final note before I give you the list of years I'll be writing about. Clearly this blog is tinted a deep, dark blue. However, I have no intention of clouding these posts with any sort of judgement, merely to document what led to these shifts, and what impact they would have for years to come. The one exception is the last post, which will detail where we sit here in 2012, and where I see things going.
And now, here are the years we'll be visiting.
Part 1: Introduction and 1796 (This post)
Part 2: A Return to Partisanship: 1824
Part 3: The Legacy of the Anti-Masons: 1832
Part 4: The Junior Party is Born: 1856
Part 5: Silver and Gold: 1896
Part 6: Progressives Ascendant: 1912
Part 7: The Business of Americans is Business: 1920
Part 8: The New Deal Coalition Emerges: 1930
Part 9: The Great Southern Shift Begins: 1964
Part 10: The Rise of the Rabid Right: 1978
Part 11: The New Democrats and Triangulation: 1992
Part 12: Bush v. Gore: 2000
Part 13: A Partisan Roller Coaster Ride: 2006, 2008, and 2010
Part 14: Where We Stand Today: 2012
By the time George Washington set a very important precedent by stepping down at the end of his second term, partisanship was already well entrenched. On one side were the Federalists, led by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton. There power was based in the aspiring aristocracy of the Northeast, with a much smaller base centered around the lowland plantations of South Carolina. On the whole, they were proponents of a strong activist government, a central bank, and good relations with Great Britain. They were suspicious of too much democracy, rattled by the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania, as well as the deteriorating mess of the French Revolution.
The other group would eventually be known as the Democratic-Republican. Led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, their power base were the farmers and most (but not all) of the plantation owners of the south, as well as many of the business owners and merchants in the Middle Atlantic and New England states. They were generally in favor of smaller government, and shunned most of the pomp and ceremony held dear by Federalists. Most of them were skeptical of a central bank, mistrustful of its power over the economy. They tended to favor the French, seeing them as fellow republicans amidst a sea of absolutists and aristocrats. Unlike the Federalists, they were incredibly wary of standing armies, and believed commerce between republics would ultimately end the need for war.
The election of 1796 was the first contested Presidential election in the history of the United States. At the time only nine of the sixteen states at the time bound their electoral college votes to the popular vote. Just a small percentage of the population could vote even in the states where it mattered, in most cases only white property owning men 21 years or older. John Adams won the most electoral votes and Thomas Jefferson came in second. Under the Constitution at the time this made him Vice-President. As Adams' term went on, it was clear that having a hostile Vice President was not exactly the best idea, particularly in a partisan world.
As the European wars continued, and both French and British fleets harassed American merchant ships, tensions continued to rise. At various times it appeared the USA would go to war against Great Britain, France, or both. The Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition acts, which led Madison and Jefferson to push for the theory of nullification, first by the young state of Kentucky, and later by the Old Dominion of Virginia. By the election of 1800, which would pit Adams and Jefferson against each other again, it was clear partisan politics were here to stay.
Over the next couple of weeks, as the Republicans congregate in Tampa and the Democrats meet in Charlotte, I'll be taking a trip through our nation's tumultuous history of partisan politics. My main purpose for this is to shed some light on how the modern parties became what they are. I figure the best way to do this is to divide posts up by various election years that I find most important. Note that these years don't always line up with Presidential election years, or with the most obvious years. However, they are the years which to me seem most pivotal in the development of our two party system. Two of the years will be midterm elections, harbingers of much larger developments for the waves that would happen the next Presidential elections. Since they are so recent, and we have yet to see their last impact, I'll tackle 2006, 2008, and 2010 together.
One final note before I give you the list of years I'll be writing about. Clearly this blog is tinted a deep, dark blue. However, I have no intention of clouding these posts with any sort of judgement, merely to document what led to these shifts, and what impact they would have for years to come. The one exception is the last post, which will detail where we sit here in 2012, and where I see things going.
And now, here are the years we'll be visiting.
Part 1: Introduction and 1796 (This post)
Part 2: A Return to Partisanship: 1824
Part 3: The Legacy of the Anti-Masons: 1832
Part 4: The Junior Party is Born: 1856
Part 5: Silver and Gold: 1896
Part 6: Progressives Ascendant: 1912
Part 7: The Business of Americans is Business: 1920
Part 8: The New Deal Coalition Emerges: 1930
Part 9: The Great Southern Shift Begins: 1964
Part 10: The Rise of the Rabid Right: 1978
Part 11: The New Democrats and Triangulation: 1992
Part 12: Bush v. Gore: 2000
Part 13: A Partisan Roller Coaster Ride: 2006, 2008, and 2010
Part 14: Where We Stand Today: 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)