This site was created and moderated by Mr. Elbaum, a government and U.S. History teacher at Adlai E. Stevenson High School.

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Paradigm Shifting to the Left



A quick glance at the history of political parties in America reveals a very interesting trend. When one party has been in power for a prolonged period of time, and a major disaster occurs for the United States, a paradigm shift occurs. Political power is transferred.

Democrats (previously called Democratic-Republicans, but same basic party ideology) controlled the White House from Jefferson until 1860, when Springfield’s favorite Republican son won the Electoral College despite winning no southern states. Lincoln’s party would be in power until FDR defeated Herbert Hoover during the midst of the Depression. The Democratic stay on top of the mountain would be short lived, as JFK and LBJ help remind the world that America was not invincible. Vietnam was a knockout punch for the Democratic Party, with Nixon’s massacre of McGovern in 1972 as the exclamation point.

Even through Watergate, the Republicans have never looked back (both Carter and Clinton, although both Democrats, were very moderate).

Iraq has been compared to Vietnam numerous times. Is this a valid analogy? The true test will come in November of 2008. If the nation nominates and elects an anti-war Democrat, and the Democrats are able to retain a majority in Congress, perhaps the paradigm shift in this country will begin. This, in turn, could lead to a liberal social agenda that would make Republicans cringle. If Iraq is as disastrous as the pundits will have you believe, it could usher in a new era of Democratic dominance. Iraq could permanently kill the Republican Party.

5 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Iraq is NOT Vietnam

7:25 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Iraq is NOT Vietnam

7:25 PM

 
Blogger republic loyalist said...

In regards to the shifting of power, I agree completely. It is truely an interesting process that takes place.

Now when it comes to the war on terror, my view (from what I've noticed) is that George W. Bush was able to stay in office for a second term because of the stress the nation was feeling, and because at that point the nation was stronger in their support of the President's actions.

Now, I did have a question. Was it at all possible that a reason that Bush remained in office was that the nation felt that in the middle of a conflict, such as the war, that a complete switch in power could cause chaos? Just wondering...

In recognizing the 2008 elections, I believe that a change in power from republican to democrat will hurt our efforts overseas. The main reason is that the Vice President, along with the leader of the military, suggested and supports the President's plan for troop increasement. With democrats in power who want out of the war, our troops will be pulled out, leaving the countries we've worked so hard to help left in the dust without a completed job. Our mission won't be accomplished.

Sorry to go a little off topic.

8:07 PM

 
Blogger republic loyalist said...

Mr. Elbaum, just so you know who I am, I'm in your 7th hour class. my initials are E.K. Thanks

8:17 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Vietnam was a knockout punch for the Democratic Party, with Nixon’s massacre of McGovern in 1972 as the exclamation point."

Mr. Elbaum, I can't help but recognize your amazingly illustrative metaphors. Bravo!
Any background in teaching English?

Anyway, in regards to your post ---
I honestly don't know enough about the war in Vietnam to be able to evaluate and elaborate an accurate correspondence. BUT, I do know that our world seems to need scapegoats. Valid, invalid? It doesn't matter. The pure and simple truth of playing the "blame game" is appealing. Why? Because then we can say..."we knew better".

So the Democrats are blaming the Republicans. The Americans (well, some) are blaming Bush.

I used to belive that Bush was a disdainful monkey of an idiot (haha?). Others believed it, my parents regretted their contributing votes, teachers publicly announced their utter disapprovals.

Was he wrong? I think so. Are we scapegoating him? Yes.

But why not? He is our president.

I'll stop the incessant rambling. I think I've strayed from the original point.

Eh.

9:40 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home