It was apparent after the disgraceful spectacle at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago that the Democratic party was finished. It would've taken a miracle for the Democratic nominee, then Vice President Hubert Humphrey to win the Presidency. With the country on the brink of anarchy, Richard Nixon and his team devloped a plan that reached out to the dark side of the American Conscience. The goal was to appeal to the left out American. You know, the one who didn't do all the shouting and protesting. The one who was dismayed at the way the Vietnam War was being conducted, but did not, DID NOT want America to lose the war.
The strategy worked. Even though the polls showed an incredibly close race, Richard Nixon dramatically altered the electoral map, thus, winning in my opinion a "mandate" from the American people.
Now, you're probably scratching your head and wondering, "what can you possibly be talking about? There is no way that Richard Nixon one a mandate in '68."
In accordance to the polls you're obviously correct.
The final poll tally from the 1968 Presidential Election reads as follows:
Nixon : 31,783,783: 43.4%
Humphrey: 31,271,839: 43.0%
Wallace: 9,901,118: 14.0%
Extremely close, yes, but what occurred was that Nixon won 32 of the 44 states that Lyndon Johnson won in 1964. Second, it was said that the direction of the American people wanted to go into was vague. I disagreed. Judging by the Nixon win and the Wallace candidacy, the country was none to be pleased about the changes that were happening. Especially the changes that were being spearheaded by the counter-culture. To many Americans, Nixon and Wallace represented good old fashion American values. A longing for the America they knew before the revoultions of the late 60's exploded on every television set across the country. The issues of the '68 election were said to be about Civil Rights, Vietnam, and law and order. But the real issue was Change. The country in '68 was rapidly changing, and even though there are those who believed that yes, change was happening in the country, the people who voted for Nixon and Wallace A.)didn't like the change that was occuring B.)Knew it was happening, but felt it was going about too fast.
The '68 Election was demoralizing for the Democratic party. Since then, the Democrats have had to play defense. Everytime the word "Liberal" comes up into the conversation, the Democrats run from it like if "Liberal" was a person infected with leprosy. Two instances come to mind: One, the famous photo of Michael Dukakis riding in a tank during the 1988 Presidential Election. And, two, the photo of John Kerry wearing an orange vest and pretending to be a hunter.
The '68 Election made "Liberalism" a dirty word. So, it was to no one's surprised that 4 years later that George McGovern suffered an embarrasing defeat at the hands of then President Nixon. The Silent Majority spoke loudly, thus giving one of the most dishonest and morally corrupt politicans a resounding mandate to do whatever the hell he wanted.
Everyone who lived through the 1976 Presidential Election should've known that the Jimmy Carter win was an aberration. The country was growing increasingly Conservative and it just a matter of time before the next Republican was going to take over the White House. Republican Ronald Reagan won two decisive victories in 1980 and 1984, thus, sending the Democratic party further into the wilderness.
It was obivious that the country couldn't stand the idea of any politician spreading Liberal gospel. So, in order to make themselves digestible to the American public, the Democrats had to behave more like Republicans. The establishment of the New Democrat Movement or Democratic Leadership Council was a way to make the Democratic party more of a feasible alternative to the Republican party. This right-wing of the Democratic party is characterized by its neoliberal economic policies, it's desire to increase defense spending and links to heavy donors and fundraisers. The mission statement of the DLC was that the "left-wing" positions held by the party weren't politically viable. That it needed to be more moderate and more pro-growth. The group has been successful. Just ask Bill Clinton and the many members who currently hold key positions of power in Washington.
Now, something strange is going now.
We've heard a lot of talk about this country being "center-right." Which if you ask anyone with an original thought, is quite lame. The Republican party, since their last successful electoral win in 1988, hasn't made any strides in the Northwest and Midwest regions.
George H.W. Bush won California, Illinois, Michigan, Vermont, Maine, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland.
Those said states haven't gone red since 1988.
The victories of George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, were very shady. Had Al Gore carried either New Hampshire, Tennessee, and yes, the highly disputed Florida, we wouldn't be talking about George W. Bush. And, if John Kerry had carried Ohio in 2004, we probably be talking about a Kerry 2nd term.
It's my belief that the Republican Cycle which started in 1968 went on a bit longer that it was supposed to be. And, it's becoming quite clearer that the candidates that the GOP have been giving us are nothing more than a bunch low-rent, incompetent individuals who couldn't Govern if they were even blind. Hell, I don't think not one of them could manage to pull the Detroit Lions out of their current mess.
The astonshing aspect of Mr. Obama's win nearly two weeks ago was the fact that for the first time in my lifetime, A Democrat was willing to compete in states that normally would never go Democratic and be successful. The Obama campaign pulled two states (Indiana and Virginia) that haven't gone Democratic since 1964. And, one state (North Carolina)that hasn't gone Democratic since 1976. The 50 State strategy, once derided by many in the DLC showed success two weeks ago.
The talk of this being a "Center-Right" country from many Conservatives is talk from individuals unwilling to admit that the tide is starting to shift.
The Rancid dialogue coming from the McCain-Palin camp was a way to steer Americans away from the most pressing issue today, the economy.
The failure to paint Obama as a black radical with socialist impulses and terrorist ties is proof that at least the country is starting to get the sense that issues do matter and not the image of a certain candidate.
George W. Bush won reelection because he was not only tough and had values, but because he was a person most likely to have a beer with. Mr. Obama won not because we want to have a beer with him, but because he at least understands the magnitude of what we're facing. John McCain and Sarah Palin clearly didn't.
The recent talk from several Republicans has got me to thinking about what might be happening.
First off, John McCain didn't lose because he strayed from Republican principles. He lost because he had no intentions of straying away from those principles. George W. Bush unsuccessful presidency is not due to a lost of Conservative ideals. It's because he was way TOO Conservative.
Second, if Republicans want to remain relevant, then they must immune themselves from the far-right agenda that has dominated their party for a generation. Apparently, current Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who made an appearance on CBS' Meet the Press, appears to agree with me that there is something not quite right with the party:
"Number one, we have got to stop defending the kind of spending and out-of-control spending that we would never tolerate in the other side. You know, when voters tell us that they trust Democrats more to cut their taxes [and] control spending, that tells you something is wrong with the Republican Party. We've got to match our actions with our rhetoric.
"Number two, we've got to stop defending the kinds of corruption we would rightfully criticize in the other party. The week before the election, our most senior senator is convicted on federal charges - and that's only the latest example.
"Number three, we have got to be the party that offers real solutions to the problems that American voters, American families are worried about. We don't need to abandon our conservative principles; we can't just be the 'party of no.' We need to offer real solutions on making health care more affordable, on the economic challenges facing families, on the international threats."
The key sentence in that statement was "we can't just be the party of no. It appears that the gentleman who is highly touted to be the next Ronald Reagan believes that Government should do something, rather than nothing.
This statement comes on the heels of what Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty said when asked how should the GOP redefine itself:
"Republicans need to be farsighted on such issues as energy, health care and education, and broaden their appeal to working-class families and small-business owners, he said."
Hmm...sounds like Rush, Ann, Michelle, and the other ghouls that make up the far-right won't sound please at all.
I keep hearing from folks like Gingrich and others that don't count out the GOP. Remember 1964 and 1994. The success of 1994 was due in part to a far-right agenda. Now it seems that the election of Barack Obama as our next President is a repudiation of the far-right agenda that has put us into this mess.
So, I think it wouldn't be so much but to ask the Republicans to the cut the cord and distance yourselves from the political pornographers, theocrats, and free-market fundamentalists that have put this country on the wrong track.
The elevation of Sarah Palin proves that the Republican party doesn't get it. Even the talk of Newt Gingrich as the GOP nominee in 2012 is a clear sign that the party has no intentions of giving up their precious far-right agenda.
To all Republicans who might be reading:
Cut the Cord.
Get rid of these people.
The country is in so much trouble that we can't afford to listen anymore to the folks who have had a hand in putting us in this situation.
Cut the Cord.
Cut the Crap.
Even a religious nut like Bobby Jindal says it's time to face reality.