Skip to main content

View Diary: Polyphemus (259 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  future of republican party (6+ / 0-)

    i disagree with the destruction of the republican party. we need two parties -- fighting for the center and keeping extremists out of power.  there was a time, when Eisenhower, an honest, decent man, an internationalist, a great compromiser, took the republican party away from robert taft, and turned it toward the useful and the good. his great mistake was nixon. i sincerely doubt that eisenhower would have got tangled up in vietnam. kennedy, charming as he was, could not control the cia or the military. we slid into vietnam, and johnson, on the advice of some foolish believers in the domino theory got us into a war that was too big to lose. dulles had a lot of responsiobility. we considered going in in 1954, as the french were losing dienbienphu.
    The democrats, and i am a lifetime democrat, never voted against them, fought in their wars, were far from perfect. if you remember the democratic party i remember from 1948 when Strom Thurmond led the dixiecrats out and henry wallace led the progressives out, leaving behind Truman with a champion disapproval rating was the first time as an adult i was really proud to be a democrat (although i was a wallace partisan).
    We need two centrist parties, with democrats being most of the let of center, and the republicans with most of the right of center, and a few per cent of mavericks on either side of the center who swing back and forth when one party was been in office so long as to be corrupt, warlike, or misguided.

    •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

      i disagree with the destruction of the republican party. we need two parties -- fighting for the center and keeping extremists out of power.

      And what do you consider Bush and Cheney, if not extremists?  If the only reason that we need two parties is to keep the extremists out of power, it is pretty clear that the two party system has failed.

      I believe that we need two parties, but I would rather that each party provided a large enough umbrella to encompass both ends of the political spectrum.  I remember liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats.

      Piffle crack eat monkey snow. Really. Leonard Pitts, Miami Herald

      by Susan Grigsby on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 05:54:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  you can have a second party (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      quotemstr, page394

      just not Republicans.  if they morph into something more moderate by a different name, fine.

      I'm a blue drop in a red bucket.

      by blue drop on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 07:03:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Your far to kind on the Eisenhower thing (5+ / 0-)

      In 1952 Eisenhower could have gone either way - Democrat or Republican.  In fact Truman offered to let Eisenhower run in 1948. (I read McCollough's Biography of Truman).  Eisenhower demurred. By 1952, the Republicans had been out of power for 20 years and were desperate. They wooed Eisenhower with everything they had.

      Because of the defections you raised above plus disapproval with the Korean war, the ball seemed to be swinging the other way and so Eisenhower went with the Republicans.  Dispite a long time very thin connection with the Republican party, he was a Republican in name only by 1952. As my father mentioned, the military is the most 'socialist function' organization in the United States (command economy, no market insentives, etc...). (In 1940 the Republicans nominated Wendall Wilkie of only a short persuasion with the Republican party - so pedigree was of dubious importance for the nominee).  

      During the 1950s the U.S. was already deeply invested in Vietnam.  This was the result of Republican hysteria that was created by McCarthyism scares. Republican cries of "Who lost China" - nobody wanted to be seen as soft on Communism or appeasing in the face of aggression. If you read Graham Green's book, or watch the more recent movie "The Quiet American" he predicted the history of the next 20 years in Vietnam as early as 1952.

      By the time Eisenhower left, its quiet evident that he realized that he had made a mistake in his party affiliations. You can see it in his eyes and hear it in his tone of voice as he's talking about the "military industrial complex" which even he was unable to control. Eisenhower was a great man, with a good mind. He predicted the collapse of Communism under its own weight in 1954. He had good foresight.  He looks truly afraid of what he sees coming at the United States in 1960, on the eve of his departure. A future he helped cement by his republican affiliation in 1952.

    •  Absolutely! Democracy requires it! (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site