Riddle me this: what happened to the United States during the aughts?
If you ask people how the nation is doing, it normally depends almost entirely on the economy. If we're in a recession, America is going in the wrong direction. If the economy is expanding, America is going in the right direction. We aren't complicated people, it turns out.
Most of the time, anyway. We all got more satisfied during the Reagan expansion of the '80s. And the Clinton expansion of the '90s. And the Obama expansion of the teens.
But then there's the Bush expansion of the aughts, when opinions about America went straight to hell and never recovered—despite the fact that personal satisfaction with our lives stayed high and steady. Aside from one outlier year in the Gallup poll above, the share of Americans satisfied with the direction of the country hasn't topped 30% since.
What happened around the year 2000 to cause this? There are (at least) four big possibilities:
- Bush v. Gore
- 9/11
- China's admission into the WTO along with the US granting them Permanent Normal Trade Relations
- The rise of Fox News
Let's go through them. After a decade of spadework from the likes of Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, #1 is what finally set off the red America/blue America brawl that still dominates American politics today. The 2000 recount debacle left both sides with a conviction that the other side had tried to steal the election.
#2 produced a simmering background of fear and retaliation that permeated the country as we engaged in two overseas wars.
#3 sucked manufacturing out of the United States, producing a stagnant job market and causing millions of blue-collar workers to lose good paying jobs.
And with all that as background, #4 sealed the deal with relentless programming that built on this fear and blamed it on liberals:
By 2010 we had a Black president and the job was done. By 2020 liberals had followed suit and we were as scared of conservatives as they were of us:
"Affective polarization" is the most important thing you've never heard of, but it's not complicated. It's just academese for "how much I hate the other party." Affective polarization was fairly low in the decades following World War II, increased a bit after Watergate, and then settled down for a couple of decades during the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton presidencies.
But in 2000 it suddenly started to shoot up. By the 2012 election, on average, dislike of the other party was 41% higher than dislike of your own party. By 2020 it was 52 points higher. It was no longer enough to say that Republicans merely disliked Democrats, they hated and feared Democrats:
Nearly a majority of Republicans (48%) gave the Democratic Party a zero on the 0-to-100 scale. This marks a nearly 600% increase in two decades. Slightly fewer Democrats (39%) give the opposition a 0.
....According to a 2020 poll from the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, 64% of Democrats see Republican policies as so misguided that they pose a serious threat to the country. Among Republicans, 75% believe Democratic Party policies are so misguided that they pose a serious threat to the country.
Fears of political Armageddon are a bit lower among Democrats than Republicans, but they're catching up. In fact, these numbers are from 2020, and I wouldn't be surprised if the combination of the 1/6 insurrection; the ongoing Republican program to corrupt the vote; and the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision have brought Democrats fully even with Republicans in the hate and fear department. Let's check out a few quotes from both sides of the aisle.
On the left: Trump’s tilt of U.S. foreign policy in the direction of anti-democratic forces everywhere is reminiscent of fascist fellow travelers everywhere who justified repression and violence in the fight against the international left.
On the right: We, as a movement, are at war with the forces that want to destroy the American order, root and branch.
On the left: The Republican Party is the biggest threat to American democracy today. It is a radical, obstructionist faction that has become hostile to the most basic democratic norm: that the other side should get to wield power when it wins elections.
On the right: We are confronted now by a systematic effort to dismantle our society, our traditions, our economy, and our way of life.
On the left: If historians of the future are forced to record this country’s descent into tyranny, they’ll be required to sift through the grim record and identify a few decisive moments when the tide turned.
On the right: Democrats are purposefully trying to destroy our country as we know it in their quest to change America into the world’s next failed socialist state. From the open borders disaster, the defund police violent crime spike, critical race theory, choking off domestic energy production, to trillions upon trillions in wasteful spending — none of it’s a mistake. In fact, it’s all part of the left’s grand plan.
I could go on and on—and keep in mind that all of this is sincere. Conservatives believe that liberals routinely engage in mass election fraud and deliberately encourage destructive policies in order to bring down a nation they hold responsible for the world's ill. Liberals believe that conservatives have become a fascist cult that's openly trying to destroy democracy in order to keep power permanently.
So how does this end? On possibility is that it doesn't, and the United States falls to either fascism or moral collapse. Another possibility is that our intense hatred eventually burns itself out and we return to normal. Yet another is that, somehow, both Fox News and MSNBC are put out of business and we stop poisoning ourselves.
Other guesses?
So... what is it with this "aughts" thing? Are we back in the 17th century, or something?
He just spent time in Europe, cut Kevin some slack ok? It’ll take him a while to readjust to improper American English
What do you call that decade, the death-zeroes?
It's a stupid brit thing.
I call it the pre-teens.
Matt Gaetz wants to go back... back to the future, now.
Both parties might be sincere, but the view that "conservatives have become a fascist cult that's openly trying to destroy democracy in order to keep power permanently" seems evidence-based and is a mainstream view in the Republican party.
The view that "liberals routinely engage in mass election fraud and deliberately encourage destructive policies in order to bring down a nation they hold responsible for the world's ills" seems utterly false. There is no evidence for mass election fraud by liberals (or even teeny election fraud), and the Democrats are trying to maintain American values and institutions, not tear them down.
What about algore gaming the count in Volusia County?
Or do you Racial Justice Warriors in the Democrat Party no longer care about the Reconstruction Amendents?
... Sheesh. George W. Bush was right about you people & Dred Scott at his 2004 debate with John Forbes Surfboard
Off your meds?
Monty is facetiously engaging in the same kind of disingenuous both sides rhetoric that Kevin is unintentionally(?) doing in this piece.
read: *whooooosh*
Sure but does it really matter who’s right if both sides decide they want a war over it? I think Islam is wrong but recognizing that fact doesn’t mean they won’t blow themselves up over it, or that putting a Sunni in charge of a Shia country is any less dumb
And yes, the comparison between Trumpists and a religious cult is a deliberate choice in this case 🙃
So, you don't support your GQP favorites coaxing Israel & the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia into an alliance to fight a war against Shi'a Iran & achieve one true winner for Allah?
Like they had anything to do with it.
Thank you for this. Also note, in supporting evidence that "liberals" have actually been GOOD for the United States, the charts Mr Drum produced that show the economy thriving under Democratic presidents, and economic crashes under their Republican succesors.
Of course, crashes and recessions are actually GOOD for the rich! (aka GOP). It allows them to buy up the assets of those with less at bargain basement rates, often pennies on the dollar, thus promoting a further concentration of wealth at the top. And further inflames those at the bottom, making them more susceptible to the politics of personal resentment. Win-win!!
+1
KD said:
"So how does this end? On possibility is that it doesn't, and the United States falls to either fascism or moral collapse."
It will end when the Boomers die off.
We are a belligerent lot, all of us. We KNOW better, had MORE life experiences and although we are the least educated of the generations, we believe we are smarter than most !! And even if you HAVE a college degree it's worthless in our eyes because you learned from a liberal college.
When we die off who will replace us?
Will the next generation have the self awareness needed to admit they were wrong? We boomers certainly don't. We believed in the Shamwow guy, Ron Popei,, Mike Lindell, and Donald Trump because they were on TV and everything on TV was (is) the truth because Cronkite told the truth as did Huntley Brinkley so EVERYTHING on TV is true.
The internet is the same. Yes, I will gladly give my bank info to the nice sounding Nigerian prince in Africa who wants to give me money !!!!
We fall for this and many other things time, and time, and time again. The Shamwow guy was loud, arrogant and not "pretty" just like boomers.
Lindell touched upon making my pillows right here in America! (It's also why WalMart is so popular with us = 'ol Sam Walton used the same ad pitch). And Trump was a self made millionaire who was on TV a LOT.
What we DON'T do is admit we were wrong. It's a sign of weakness. So we forgive Jerry Falwell for his indiscretions, and we ignore facts that show tax cuts benefited the 1% ONLY and that republicans are protectors of the federal debt.
When we die off there will be a new generation FOX will have to indoctrinate
The 69 year old cancer stricken grandmother being sentenced for her role in the January 6, 2021, March on Washington is the platonic ideal of Boomer Mythology & Victimization.
I hope they don't serve chemo in the big house.
"I hope they don't serve chemo in the big house."
They don't.
It's too much of a financial burden for the prison system
So they'll let her go so Medicare will cover the Chemo
After all, Medicare is NOT the government insurance like Obamacare is!!!!!!
*sigh*
Barry Hussein needs to keep his cottonpickin' hands off my Medicare!
Ron Popeil is nothing like El Jefe Maximo de Maralago nor Mypillow Lindell.
& Billy Mays's only similarity with the latter two is an affection for COCAINE!!
We clearly don't run in the same circles. You have a pretty warped view of boomers. Are you one?
I believe he is, as his comments confesses. He might be accused of hyperbole, but what he's saying isn't warped. Trump's cult is made up disproportionately with boomers. Over the years, our generation has shown a remarkable susceptibility to con artists. I wish I were as sanguine as Vog46 about the promise of succeeding generations. I think ALL humanity is susceptible to grifters, and that the only difference between now and pre-WWII is that the technology (TV, internet, etc.) has made grifting a whole lot more ubiquitous.
All of my friends are in the 38-50 range, which are definitely not boomers. Almost all of them are republicans and the majority of them are (or at least, were) Trump supporters. Sure, a large % of Boomers are Trump supporters but to say his supporters only consist of Boomers is nonsense.
I bet they're happy Joey Bishop's showtrial in Portland for starting a riot in May 2019 ended in acquittal.
Not up to speed on that. Most of us are too busy with normal life (shuttling kids around to sports practices, school activities, household projects, etc.) to spend an inordinate amount of time discussing minor news stories.
The Patriots Pride of Vancouver, WA, is not a minor story. It's the vanguard of the coming American Restoration.
Many Aethiopaeans will die.
I wonder, are more liberal boomers motivated by the same beliefs as more conservative boomers?
From what I can tell conservative boomers are also patriarchal Christians. That would make them much more susceptible to a strong man candidate like Trump. Add in the fact that they are mostly white, it's easier to appeal to their fear of losing their white superior status, even if it's only in their heads.
More liberal boomers, of which I am one, have done a much better job of keeping pace with changes in this country toward increased equality for everyone. They are not impressed with Trump's boss man act. In fact it's pretty disgusting to watch.
sfbay
I am indeed a boomer
I am a Christian
But I am not a conservative either.
What astonishes me about my generation is our inability or lack of desire to learn anything "new". It seems to have gotten more widespread as the boomers have aged.
Am I hopeful about the future? Absolutely for several reasons
First our kids and their kids are much better educated than we were. Technology is being used by them much more efficiently than we use it..
Another thing is that our demographics are changing. Religion is slowly losing its grip on our population. There are far fewer people who consider themselves Christian than there were in the 50s and 60s
And whites are either equal to other minorities or are a minority themselves right now as far as the make up of our population is concerned. The old school WASPs are breathing their last breath(s) and they just don't like it and I suspect they are lashing out as a last resort
We are a weird group
What is a "patriarchal Christian"?
When the Shamwow guy got beaten up did he clean it up with a Shamwow?
That stained towel could be the ultimate collectible, like a Shroud of Turin of television.
BUT, WAIT -- THERE'S GORE...
Conservatives are openly embracing an arbitrary Christian theocracy, dismantling the administrative state, and selectively binding some people to laws that others are unrestrained by, depending on your income and status, primarily through the (re)interpretation of the Constitution.
I expect people to take Ginni at her word and by her actions (and the Federalists and the Evangelicals), after all.
Progressives are expressly expanding guaranteed rights, pushing for a collectivism that shares the costs of the basic needs of everyone, looking to curtail the minority rule of a democratic republic via direct democracy, primarily through pushing the extension of prior interpretations of the Constitution.
How this ends: Political violence, of course.
We will keep inching our way back and forth to the edge of explosive political violence that shakes up the confidence in our domestic tranquility. So long as far-right (Evangelicals, for instance) people keep using doomsday rhetoric, invoking righteousness and the justification of violence, we will keep seeing people attempting to use political violence as a means to trigger what the conservative hopes is a civil war.
There's pending legislation from a "pro-life" male in North Carolina to permit "deadly force" against anyone involved in an abortion.
How these people can loudly proclaim that they are "pro-life" & Christian! - is incomprehensible to me - but they cannot be shamed.
Honor killings are a thing.
Um, so, the Progressives are making "a systematic effort to dismantle our society, our traditions, our economy, and our way of life."
😉
Of course, that's what progressives do. The weird thing is that the so-called conservatives are also making that systemic effort to change things.
"Conservatives are openly embracing an arbitrary Christian theocracy,"
Ahhhhh
You just provided the answer to a problem
The democrats just need to call the 15% global corporate tax a tithe in accordance with Scripture and our Christian corporate brethren will gladly give it
#3 manufacturing decline
Manufacturing is usually at a fixed location with lots of workers, which is the best environment for unions to emerge or continue. And unions help establish "standards" that benefit other non-union workers. When manufacturing declines due to free trade with NON developed nations, unions do as well, and we all suffer.
I don't really buy the Fox News idea as a significant driver. Counting radio and web, on a good day, Fox reaches 20 million Americans: basically, on a big day, 6% of Americans get the Fox propaganda.. Hard to see how that moves the needle that much.
Basically, the Fox News audience has always existed and would remain if Fox closed down. Perhaps Fox is marginally better that another, theoretical conservative news (lol) organization.
I think Democrats spend way too much time focused on Fox: if Fox disappeared, I suspect, little would change in the US.
Because of our political system, 20 million Republican PRIMARY voters sure the hell can drive the whole damn country off a cliff.
I've known too many reasonable people turn into complete PRIMARY voting idiots after getting hooked on Fox News. Commodified outrage is killing us.
+1
Fox News is one of Kevin's hobby horses. Talk radio has far greater reach.
people still listen to a.m.? the thing about fox news is that people are exposed to it whether they like or not. one of the TVs in my gym is permanently tuned to fox. sit in the waiting room at the car dealership while my car is being worked on and guess what's on the tv? ... and again, as someone pointed out above, the number of viewers might not be great in the cosmic scheme of things, but they punch above their weight class because they reliably vote in republican primaries
That’s what so pathetic about right-wingers. Their preferred media are AM radio and cable television.
After 250 years, we’re flushing our democracy down the drain so that an Australian billionaire with one foot in the grave can suck more millions out of rubes by advertising gold bullion and “nutritional” supplements.
"AM Radio" by Everclear is still a good song.
& by virtue of covering "Brown eyed Girl" for the same album, there's no reason to listen to Plandemic Truther Van Morrison, anymore.
people still listen to a.m.? the thing about fox news is that people are exposed to it whether they like or not. one of the TVs in my gym is permanently tuned to fox. sit in the waiting room at the car dealership while my car is being worked on and guess what's on the tv? ... and again, as someone above pointed out, the number of viewers might not be great in the cosmic scheme of things, but they punch above their weight class because they reliably vote in republican primaries
People whose jobs require them to spend lots of time in their vehicles listen to a lot of radio. There's a lot of talk radio on SiriusXM.
Interviewed in a Starbucks, I later discovered the small office featured aTV tuned to Fox. Found another job with a better commute - & NO TV.
Not since KKKlay Travis & Kukk Sexton came to town...
That's close to ten percent of adults, and probably close to one in eight who vote. And that's just one day: if you add up the number of voters who catch Fox News over the course of week, it's (far) higher still. And there are clips that go viral.
In my view Kevin is on to something. And the special sauce is Fox News's positioning as an "objective" legitimate news network. It may be that this last dynamic gave viewers "permission" to slavishly follow its inane propagandizing in a way that talk radio (which is more clearly a form of "entertainment") never did. After all, if it's on the news, it must be true...
Republicans: income inequality explodes...
Democrates: get handed a mess to clean up...and helps everyone do better...
Hmmm......
Culture wars to the rescue!!!
I started hating republicans in 1989 / 1990 due to Rush limbaugh and the hatefest he got going. But I tolerated them through the 1990's until they impeached the lecherous clinton. He deserved the criticism, but they went overboard. Then Bush took the election and the hatefest grew louder. By now, I refuse to talk to them period. Family and co-workers have been banished from my life. As far as I'm concerned they can all drop dead.
I had a good decade. Worked continuously in manufacturing even. Had some fun. Life was good - still is really. I'm sure I don't give a crap about the welfare anyone I don't know personally. Sadness and tragedy are all over these days. There is too much to process so it's best to ignore it.
What do you want me to do? Kiss and make up? Not gonna happen. But as I said, I don't know any republicans well enough to give a crap what they think.
I'm sorry.
It's not Fox News that's creating the hatred of the Republican party from the Left.
And, your argument for both-sideisms fails. "We are confronted now by a systematic effort to dismantle our society, our traditions, our economy, and our way of life." Is not just a quote from the Right. 1/26. Reducing democracy through limiting the vote and gerrymandering. Presidents that lie every time they open their mouth. Presidents that disrespect woman. Policies that keep the median wage flat while enriching CEOs. Canceling Roe vs Wade. Removing Separation of Church vs State.
Yes, Kevin's faux objectivity can be tiresome. I've commented further below.
I’m not seeing the binary in “either fascism or moral collapse.”*
How isn’t turning into a fascist state a moral collapse?
How isn’t the moral collapse of a country either a form of fascism or anarchy?
*Not to mention the false equivalency of treating the political right in this country as if it was a normal political movement.
This post reeks of false equivalence. The fact is that polls over the years have shown that large portions of the Republican electorate, in some cases majorities, have believed an/or continue to believe in factual claims that are demonstrably false, e.g., that Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim, that the earth is 10,000 years old, that climate change is mostly a hoax, that rampant fraud decided the 2020 election. There is simply no counterpart on the Democratic left of widespread demonstrably false belief. And what about the QAnon and varied other nutty conspiracy theories that have gained a large following on the right--again, no counterpart on the Democratic left.
it doesn't matter if what the right believes is false. they still believe it and that's what matters.
Before the China Virus, ANTIVAXXXIA used to be the Leftwing analog to Birtherism, ba k when ANTIVAXXX meant granola-ass wine-mom from Marin County*, but now that MAGA has risen up as one to defy Dr. Fauci's moneygrab, there's not even that.
*Even in the Neoliberal 90s, to sat ANTIVAXXX was ideologically coded was a lie. It was always a current on both sides, just leftwing heavy in Vermont & California, rightwing heavy in Idaho & New Hampshire, & a mixed bag in Washington, Oregon, Montana, & Michigan.
Now, it's altright, altright, altright in all of those states, save Vermont, Oregon, & maybe Michigan.
I don't get the "both-siding" of Fox and MSNBC. MSNBC, while clearly left-leaning, at least doesn't make shit up on a massive scale or try to keep its viewers ignorant (at best) or misinformed.
+1
So how does this end? On possibility ... is that, somehow, both Fox News and MSNBC are put out of business and we stop poisoning ourselves.
Joni Mitchell on Line 1 says KD needs to stop playing "Both Sides, Now." It's a wonderful song but a fatally flawed way to analyze US politics. True, Fox and MSNBC are more or less house organs for their respective parties. And yes, Republicans believe the lie that Democrats are engaged in massive election fraud. Also yes, Democrats believe the mountain of evidence that Republicans have turned into a proto-fascist cult. But these are not equivalent. Anyone who treats them that way is a fool.
In a comment decrying both sidesing you did just that in claiming MSNBC is a "house organ" of the Democratic party. It is most definitely not that at all.
The party doesn't run the network but the views of the two are closely aligned. News coverage leans heavily pro-Dem. In some ways, that's a reflection of reality. MSNBC tends to avoid the errors of much mainstream news, where Afghanistan was a never-ending disaster and high gas prices are Joe Biden's fault. But its coverage of politics is openly pro-Dem and it's where the party gets its message out to the base. It's no way equivalent to Fox but MSNBC provides important functions for the D party that no other news venue does.
It's a house organ of Democrat Socialists of America, if anything.
They may not as frequently make things up as Fox does but they certainly strategically omit stories. When's the last time you've seen anything on MSNBC about what's happening at the border? Or reporters talking about "mostly peaceful protests" while there's burning buildings in the background.
Point out some burning buildings.
A building was burned in Minneapolis and Fox News continually showed that building burning whenever they reported on Seattle.
I had people from all around the country asking whether I had survived the terrible fires and had no idea what they were talking about.
The Minneapolis police station set ablaze was an inside job by the cops working there, & the AutoZone was burned by known GQP Booqaloo Boi "Umbrella Men".
You actually don't watch MSNBC. Otherwise you'd know they cover those topics but from a truthful standpoint, pointing out that after dark folks take advantage of the situations and get violent, some infamous arson was done by right wing folks to make trouble, others were garden variety thieves, not the actual protesters.
Border? It gets regular coverage again from a factual standpoint, human beings desperate for a better life.
For every one of I watch of Fox News I probably watch 10 hours of MSNBC. I do not agree with your anecdotal evidence.
In 2000, the Republicans didn't actually steal the election; they out-lawyered the Democrats. Gore's team pursued a flawed legal strategy.
If Gore had simply won his home state of Tennessee (which Clinton/Gore carried twice), Florida wouldn't have mattered.
It was more than out-lawyering. The FL gov & sect'y of state were Bush's brother & pet poodle and pulled every advantage they could. The Brooks Bros. riot was not about legal maneuvering but about intimidation with threats of violence. Then, SCOTUS ruled in one of the most shameful decisions in history. If you don't believe me, read J.P. Stevens's dissent.
Republicans showed their jackboots during the recount and in the end got their man across the finish line. (The next year, an independent group counted all the votes and showed Gore should have won.)
A couple of months before the 2020 election, Richard Hatch won the first season of Survivor. It was a phenomenon and a break with anything that anybody had seen on network TV before. The liar and cheater had won and was roundly celebrated for it. Lying and cheating had become the new path to victory and the culture couldn't get enough of it. Don't follow the rules. Break the rules and don't be ashamed about it. All that matters is winning.
That was the moment in our culture and Republicans learned the lesson well. (Democrats are still stuck following rules nobody but themselves adhere to.) That's how we got eight years of Bush-Cheney, and later a dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks con man for president, whose SCOTUS appointees who openly lied under oath in their Senate hearings on their way to overturning a century of once-"settled" law.
Before 2000, American ideals were something to live up to. Now, to many, they're for suckers. That's the split between our two parties. Do we want to live in a country where liars or cheaters are punished or rewarded?
Thank you for setting that record straight. Gore behaved better than W would have.
I am wondering how much reality TV has to do with the state of the country today. The belief that if you act outrageous enough you'll be rewarded with fame and fortune and that knowledge and experience are unimportant seems to underlie many of our issues. Hatch was one of the early adopters for sure.
I, too, have always gotten an eerie vibe that Bush v Gore was something of an inflection point in US history. Bush took office just as the booming years of Clinton's prosperity were coming to an end, and even as his security team were brushing off the urgent warnings about Bin Laden urged on them by the outgoing administration. In all probability, an Electoral College-clinching majority of American voters headed to the polls that day intending to make Al Gore president. Maybe it's the moment the real past ended and we entered the plot of a Philip K. Dick novel.
And then we were off and running to the shitshow we now enjoy.
He gave up. Stop whining.
It's hard to say anyone was outlawyered when the SCOTUS decision in Bush v Gore that ended the recount was complete and utter nonsense. What better lawyering would have prevented that awful decision?
One thing I haven’t seen mentioned here re Bush v Gore was that butterfly ballot in West Palm Beach that had the anti-Semite Pat Buchanan get a very suspiciously large amount of votes from the mostly Jewish area. I don’t know if it was proved to be deliberate but I do remember Republicans mocking older people for being confused by the ballot.
Theresa LePore the Palm Beach official who designed the ballot was a registered Democrat. From all evidence it looks to be a case of incompetence not malice.
From Wikipedia:
“In 1996 LePore changed her political party registration to Democratic after deciding to run for the position of Supervisor of Elections“
“ After leaving the Supervisor of Elections Office in January, 2005, she was employed by the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office for a short period, enabling her to receive her full pension from Palm Beach County.”
As a Democrat, I don’t engage in conspiracy theories.
She joined the Democrat Party at about the same time Elizabeth Warren left the Federalist Society.
Lol, nope. Buchanan is part Jewish on his mother's side.
And how many of Bush's lawyers are not on the Supreme Court???
(meant now on, but kinda works either way)
What better lawyering would have prevented that awful decision?
Pretty sure Atticus Finch might have been able to convince the rightists on the court to allow for the possibility of a Gore Presidency.
Anarchy is what leads to totalitarianism whether on the Left or Right. People gravitate to leaders those who provide order and structure regardless of where they are on the political continumn.
"It will end when the Boomers die off."
No kidding! So many of these arguments have their roots in or go back to the 60s. Even though all generations participate, the Boomers are the ones who have set the arguments.
Going back to the Election of 2000, the thing I remember the day before was thinking how Bush II would easily. Gore had run a terrible campaign, botched his use of Bill Clinton, took no advantage of his popularity or defended his record, lost home state along with Kentucky and Arkansas which Clinton carries easily, couldn't figure out who he was as a candidate and thus left an opening for Nader to exploit on the Left. That he won the popular vote was just shocking and in Nader's and you realize how many more people for Liberal/Left side more so than the Center Right - GOP then 12 years of Rush Limbaugh being the No. 1 talk radio star with his so-called 20 million listeners or whatever and it meant nothing (on his broadcast the day after even he was shocked "I guess there are more liberals out there than I thought". he said. Yeah and you helped to create them, but that was the plan all along wasn't it?) As is it turned out, Bush II was the one who ran the bad campaign, top heavy and too reliant on TV ads, bogus excuses about evangelicals not turning out to vote because of a 1974 drunk driving conviction on his record notwithstanding.
So Bush II won and conducted one of the worst Presidencies in American history, far worse than Trump because he had eight years to fuck up the country leaving the U.S. in a losing war and economic collapse that it took Obama eight years to fix and left Trump reaping the reward of it (until the pandemic struck) economically (unfortunately not socially). It is this mess of a Presidency that basically distablized the Republican Party to the point where Trump could take over. Bush II's Presidency defined the aughts and what happened on his watch: 9-11, failed war, failed economy in terms of trade, manufacturing, immigration, you name it. And the following decade, the teens and now into the '20s we're reaping the awful things he sewed.
It's easy, in the wake of Trump, to look at Bush II in a more sympathetic light but I urge you to resist it. We would not have had Trump if not for Bush II.
Totally agree. Gore's advisers had him stay away from talking about global warming while Bush claimed he was going to do something about it. I remember thinking that whoever won, we'd surely do something. Even the woman Bush nominated for his first EPA administrator thought so until Cheney sat her down and told her to forget it.
Then the weapons of mass destruction lies. More tax cuts for the rich and money pissed away on defense.
Global warming was not a factor in 2000. Most models didn't support a large surge.
MSNBC is a pretty feeble counterbalance to Fox News, it's really comparing apples to oranges.
Fox News is built entirely on provoking a fantasy world to validate harming as many people as they can get away with, MSNBC thinks that is wrong. To always try and contrast the two is absurd.
Yep. No one on the mainstream left is willing to lie in journalistic setting simply to advance the cause of the Democratic Party. That's a big disadvantage.
Mehdi Hassan is a journalistic Hannity, but from the (alt)left.
So, basically, he's Hannity. Full stop.
FOX and MSNBC are not remotely comparable. Terrible analysis.
Although the "Daily Howler" seems to think that MSNBC is much, much worse. (snort)
The left has failed to create a media ecosystem comparable to that of the right. In the '90s and the '00s there were attempts to create a liberal/left version of rightwing talk radio (Air America was one) and those attempts failed. Although the right constantly hammers the mainstream media as liberal, it really isn't.
For a while, I held out hope that one of the Silicon Valley tech billionaires would start up a new media network to counter Fox. Unfortunately, other than some progressive views on a few social issues, the tech billionaires are a bunch of libertarian assholes. I have no idea how to counter the right's media advantages.
Because lefties don't blindly accept propaganda. We are a group of "well axshully" folks
Jeremy Scahill & Ryan Grim erasure.
It doesn’t seem that most left-center folks have the patience or the ability to deaden their brain cells sufficiently to listen to hours of ranting at a time on the patently ridiculous lie if the day, interspersed with relentless advertisements for scams like gold bullion and nutritional supplements.
Pod Save America is way better than some blathering radio station.
At bottom this all reflects the mass over-representation of the hayseed psychotic vote in the Electoral College and the Senate.
Without addressing both those issues nothing will resolve.
To be fair, there are a few extremists on the far left who insisted that, for example, Hillary had to _earn_ their votes (the voters-as-consumers model) as opposed to citizens doing their homewwork and voting accordingly (the voters-taking-their- responsibilties-seriously model.) Would the former type of voters swung the 2016 election the other way had they voted for Clinton? Possibly. But the rot was always there on the other side -- extensive as well as deep -- and it was only a matter of time beforae it reared its ugly head.
Clearly it happened in 2004-2006 not earlier. You're really reaching here.
Anyway the future is like the Troubles with the authorities on the side of oppression just like in N. Ireland except across the whole country.
I haven't read the whole thread but so far none have commented on what is obvious to me.
A country which outsources well paying working class jobs and hammers the working class (no 4 year college degree) for decades and decades despite what a large share of the population they comprise...
...this country does not deserve the status of a democracy. Our political discourse is just catching up to the fact.
If we continue to cling to neo-liberalism we will become fascist. Hail Peter Theil.
My personal view is that the only thing that can save our democracy is a working class labor revolt, definitely not led by the college educated wokesters.
Hanging by a thread.
Well, that’s what happened in 1968. Labor decided they hated hippies so much they would rather throw their lot in with the Republicans. Democrats continued to try to woo them, but labor found Nixon’s Southern Strategy (very much) to their liking. George Wallace overwhelmingly won the Michigan Democratic primary in 1972.
Labor has shown extremely little interest in leaving the racist Republican Party to join the Democratic Party of environmentalists and backers of civil rights. And if they’re not going to support the Democrats, then the Democrats aren’t really going to throw the people that do vote for them to the wolves in hopes that the people who don’t vote for them will.
Yup.
George Meany & the White Power Working Class chose White over Wage, & now they can suffer the descent into Global Appalachia with J.D. ANTIVAXXX.
If only Richard Trumpka could have lived to see it to fruition...
What came to fruition in the 2000s were the results of policies enacted and begun with Reagan in the 80s. Tax rates for the wealthiest Americans were cut drastically. The top rate was reduced from 70% in 1980 to 28% by the end of Reagan's second term in 1988. The resulting and ever-widening gap between the wealthiest and the rest of us, trickle-down economics, is probably the primary cause of most of the economic and political devastation we've endured since 2000, Bush, and 911. (Pretty sure it was policies enacted during Reagan that enabled the rise of Fox News in the 90s and 2000s.)
The ability of the wealthy to spend their newly found gains on political activism didn't help.
I'm a wimp so I tend to think what comes next is what Stu Stevens (big GOP campaign consultant turned anti-GOP activist) says is next: when Texas goes blue the Republican party HAS to change because they cannot possibly win the presidency without Texas (since it's a big chunk of the electoral college; it would be like Democrats trying to win without California or New York). Long story short, Texas has been moving blue by about 3 points every 4 years (with a little detour for Obama; racism appears to have boosted the GOP in Texas during that time), and the Dems can expect to be competitive in '24 and almost certainly win in '28.
The dynamic would be that once Texas is blue(ish) a more moderate candidate (Liz Cheney?) would have a chance to win the GOP nomination for president and would re-set the tone for the party.
Given the dynamic we've seen from the GOP in recent years, of course, the rise of moderates will surely cause a backlash from the troglodytes who want the Supreme Court to declare government itself unconstitutional (except of course for issuing automatic weapons to everyone to protect against "chaos at the border"). So who knows if we can survive the backlash. Assuming we do, I think GOP moderation is on the way.
I HOPE the Democratic plan is not to wait for Texas to turn blue: while it might happen, that is FAR from certain. The recent movement of many Texas Hispanics into the GOP voter block is problematic. Further, the Beto like positions on guns (in Texas) are a challenge...
It's a myth that Hispanics are moving right -- though excellent for generating clicks. Look up Ron Brownstein on the subject.
It's true that Trump did a bit better with Hispanics in '20 than he did in '16 (when his pitch was: build the wall), but he only achieved that by giving up on the wall pitch and on demonizing immigrants, thus destroying the enthusiasm of his base and ensuring he lost.
The Republicans have figured out how to stop the drift through voter suppression. We really need to let Stacey Abrams recreate what she did in Georgia.
2001/WTO is irrelevant. Offshoring to "Blue China" started in the 50's and Mexico in the 70's, "red" China in 1997 . Lower real investment and automation from computers whipped out a bunch of jobs. The slow slowdown in nonres investment since 1982 shows the end of the boomers to the end of the industrial revolution. Based on capitol expansion, those kind of jobs are dying out.
Enough of the Fascism blather. Fascism is a collectivist idelogy from the left hegelian movement. America and authoritarians is debt liquidation and bankruptcy. The dollar will collapse, credit liquidation and state bankruptcies. Kevin will be in the supply lines bartering for food from black gangs.
OTOH, here's something that I believe might get significant play:
One of my favorite quotes and one which I firmly believe. On the gripping hand, I suspect this on a par with “Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." True. But not vey useful.
I saw someone (I forget who) say that if our current state of inflamed polarization turns to civil war, it won't look like the 1860s, when a bunch of states seceded, formed a new government and attempted to become a separate country. Nor are we going to see armies on the march. Rather, it'll look like the Troubles of Northern Ireland or the Years of Lead in Italy, with paramilitaries, terror cells, and lone wolves committing political murders and terrorist attacks while we continue to have one government. I find this persuasive. The Federal government has vastly more firepower than it did in 1860, and trying to stand against it on an open field is nuts; the only way to resist it is from the shadows. The good news is that it won't be a massive bloodbath with hundreds of thousands dead; the bad news is that everyone will be at risk, with no front line and no real distinction between combatants and civilians.
I hope it doesn't come to that, of course. Maybe Fox News will develop a conscience and start enforcing real fact-checking; maybe the woke wave will crest and crash; maybe Biden will get some wind in his sails and pull things together. And even if it does come to that, hopefully it won't last forever. Northern Ireland and Italy both came out of it without descending into tyranny, so presumably we can too.
Just wait til Pres. De Santis pardons Terry Nichols & Eric Robert Rudolph.
Terry Nichols was a Democrat. The 90's militia stuff ain't what you think.
LOL.
Lol, right back. Amazing when both be and McVeigh voted for Clinton.
Even after Bill & Hillary did Ruby Ridge?
Sure. It will be 10 different civil wars
Of course, the difference between these beliefs is that what Democrats believe is largely true, whereas what Republicans believe are largely silly lies.
Republicans did assault the Capitol and are subverting democracy.
Democrats are not destroying the economy (all three of our last recessions have been under Republicans—one each). Nor are Democrats seeking to put the government in charge of the means of production.
It’s true that Democrats are trying to dismantle three centuries of affirmative action and quotas for white men—and this is what enrages Republicans.
You’re on a roll, here, kk, with this comment and the one on (white) labor and the Democrats.
On please. Like Republicans care about "white men". Republicans care more about rich black men than they do poor white male slobs. You still don't get it. Maybe a eye ball gouged out would help???
Kevin - Can you find stats like this for Britain? They are pretty well sorted into left and right. Does the left fear the right and vice versa like us?
Manufacturing employment was about 20% in 1945, and continued a steady gradual decline until 2018. There was no plunge in blue-collar employment when China entered the WTA.
But in this Black Block Meeting House in Seattle, November 1999, they aren't so sure...
Don't forget the 86-03 oil recession ended in 2004. What If Oil stayed around 20$????? My guess a more popular expansion and faster bubble driven growth to 4+% before the crash.