Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MrLucky who wrote (21817)	6/22/2006 9:48:15 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541900

I wonder how Krugman squares the depression period and any resulting partisanship with the period of prosperity the clintons' claim to have given us? There was plenty of partisanship during clinton that had little to do with Monica's dress. Doubt if it only involved the middle class. I don't recall that he wrote much about the Clinton period but would guess that since the income disparities continued to increase during Clinton's time in office, as well as the declining size of the middle class, he would feel it fit. Is he suggesting that Vietnam and the current war issues are not causing partisan divides? Does he think that, a small versus large middle class, is less relevant in regard to a question about war than it might be if the question was about personal wealth? All good questions. I don't have the foggiest how he would respond. It might be that he would say he was talking about partisanship between elected politicians at the national level. That would work since during the Vietnam War era even, both senators and reps from opposite sides of the aisles and even opposite political convictions entertained in one another's houses, famously engaged in a variety of sports together, were close friends, etc. Thomas Fleming wrote that the USA entry into World War II created substantial political debate - partly caused by the FDR promise that he would not send "our boys" to war when he ran for his third term. I don't doubt that's true but there is a great difference between "debate" and hostile attacks the likes of which we've been seeing in the past fifteen years or so. Or even the last twenty five. And much of the foreign policy of that era was premised on the notion that political debate and conflict ended at the water's edge. Consensus was the enforced norm. As for links to the Krugman article it's here: select.nytimes.com. But that won't do you any good, unless you subscribe to the NYTimes or are willing to pay the fee to read their "Select" postings online. And you don't strike me as someone likely to do so.

To: MrLucky who wrote (21817)	6/23/2006 2:35:01 AM
From: RMF	Respond to of 541900

I think "partisanship" in this country is mostly related to social issues. Without the gay-marriage issue in the last election, Bush could easily have lost despite Kerry's glaring deficiencies as a candidate. Since the 1960's, the republicans have latched onto "down-home" values as a rallying cry. Roe v. Wade allowed them to add a religious aspect to their message. They then not only represented good manners and a disciplined love of country, they also represented the "GOOD BOOK" and its precepts. WHOOOOA....then the GAY thing came along. Manna from heaven for the republicans. They were the true Christian Party when it came to abortion....and NOW they were the ONLY defenders against a Deviancy so hideous that it could not be spoken of in mixed company. Beginning with Reagan, they were not only the TRUE party of GOD, they were also the only true party of FREEDOM. And what represents a lack of freedom to MOST Americans? TAXES are the shackles that bind Americans. The insidious infringement on their daily lives is financed with TAXES. By cutting taxes you not only free them from an unwanted financial burden, you also free them from the suffocating intrusion of government into their daily lives. So that's where partisanship came from in the last 30 some years or so....<grin>