Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

JohnnyRingo

(18,634 posts)
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 06:16 PM Mar 2014

What did you say, history? Could you repeat yourself?

I don't do much of my driving staring into the rear view mirror. It's better to look far down the road, but sometimes danger may approach from that runaway semi I safely passed miles ago, and it's good to warn those ahead of the impending peril bearing down on them. Objects in the mirror are, after all, closer than they appear.

Looking back on my gratefully long trip through life, I recall the Lyndon Johnson years. I was young draft bait as he neared the end of his tenure and absolutely loathed the man. I was one of those motivated teens chanting "hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today" in the public square. It was only decades later that I learned of the great legislation he was signing with his right hand, even as I envisioned him using his left to pile up my classmates like so much cord wood. He passed most of these good deeds while I was an adolescent and preoccupied with my discovery of sex, drugs, and rock & roll, but I suddenly found myself more politically aware as I became old enough to be sent off to war.

I can assure with first hand knowledge that LBJ was not a popular president, to say the least. Of course, the reasons for this disapproval varied greatly, the left generally for the war, and the right for his "Great Society" that brought about Medicare and equal rights, but the disdain was indeed universal. I don't know for sure how the election in '68 would have gone if he decided to run for re-election, but I think he read the writing on the wall correctly and stepped down. I believe one of the prime reasons Nixon entered the Oval Office that year was a combination of the negative perception that democrats were inept nanny-state spendthrifts and Nixon's spurious promise to end the war. I proudly cast my very first presidential vote for George McGovern in 1972 in a fruitless effort to deny Nixon his woefully fated second term.

That was the same year I began what would become a 30 year union career on an assembly line at GM, and it was the next election cycle when I did my part to seat a young Jimmy Carter into office. I have to break it to many here that Carter was also not the respected sage that he's seen as today. The disdain for Carter was loud and widespread. Back then we didn't have the internet, of course, our forum was the break room and the bar across the street from the plant was our Facebook.

It was there that democrats - good union democrats - would pound the lunch table between bites of their McDLT, or order up a round of the new Michelobs at the local bar and carp about how the peanut farmer was taking us down. He was perceived as being weak on foreign policy, what with the Iranian hostage crisis, and incapable of handling the economy, considering our cheapest cars were quickly approaching the $10,000 mark, a price point that precluded many of us from buying our own product.

The vocal dissenters were adamant that being told to turn down our thermostats by some yokel in a dorky sweater was the end of the American dream. Of course I now realize these were the tantrums of spoiled baby boomers who grew up with color TVs, Sansui stereos, and a new sedan in the garage every two years. They felt deeply slighted by the Carter administration and a declining middle class that was beyond his control by that time.

Those malcontents at the time never said it was time to vote for a republican - they'd never say that - but the sentiment was one for a change. It's now that I will make a confession I seldom admit to: I bought into this hype back then, and in 1980 my vote helped elect a good looking charismatic and glib Ronald Reagan. Within the next two years, especially after that POS declared war on organized labor, I understood that I made a horrible mistake, and vowed to never be duped by the whining opinions of chronic complainers again.

When I read a post now in DU that carps outrageously about how Obama isn't the president we expected, those not so distant memories flood back to me. No one here is saying that we should elect a republican in 2016 of course, but the message often is that Obama, and democrats in general, are scarcely better. I'm reading that failure to close Gitmo is akin to burning the Bill of Rights, and his lack of Wall Street oversight is tantamount to economic malfeasance. I hear complaints that drone attacks are as much a horrendous war crime as his reluctance to shut down the Keystone pipeline is purposeful environmental sabotage. The bottom line is always, and once again, that we're disillusioned and need change.

I pretty sure no one here is going to turn to the GOP in 2016, but I'm certain the same people who express such disdain here do the same elsewhere. Perhaps it's complaints at the Thanksgiving table with extended family members, or to fellow drinkers at the local watering hole, or even on other websites in some cases, but the message that we aren't happy with Obama does get out. In a rare political discussion with my conservative cousin a couple months ago, she pointed out that "even democrats are sorry they voted for this president". Though I know it's not for the reasons she assumed, I unfortunately have to give her that technical point now, don't I?

I don't remember now who the tools were that propagated the perception to me that Jimmy Carter was an ineffectually lame goofball of a president and helped usher in the era of Ronald Reagan 30 years ago, but if a young energetic face like Paul Ryan or (shudder) Ted Cruz takes the oath in 2017, the blame will be partly on those who worked five days a week slamming their fist and exclaiming to the electorate, the tavern, and yes, DU, what a disappointing failure Obama was to them.

Maybe decades from now, Obama will be hawking his own 38th book with whoever takes over for Jimmy Fallon's Tonight Show, and we can all come here to DU XII to fawn about how he accomplished so much good in spite of such fervent opposition. From the Lily Ledbetter Act and the Financial Protection Agency to the genesis of healthcare reform and raising the minimum wage, we will finally agree that these were the good old days. Our perception of the president has always had consequences, and that often changes when we're driving down a newly pot-holed road and see him in the rear view mirror.

-JohnnyRingo

28 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
What did you say, history? Could you repeat yourself? (Original Post) JohnnyRingo Mar 2014 OP
Nice post. n/t Laelth Mar 2014 #1
big kick and big rec ! nt steve2470 Mar 2014 #2
I remember the times very well indeed hollysmom Mar 2014 #3
Most interesting..... JohnnyRingo Mar 2014 #6
A great post. Jackpine Radical Mar 2014 #4
Kicking so others won't miss your awesome post! n/t etherealtruth Mar 2014 #5
You have outdone yourself in this post samplegirl Mar 2014 #7
I remember when Carter was in office Mr.Bill Mar 2014 #8
The year after the '80 election, Art_from_Ark Apr 2014 #25
Yep, and the irony was Mr.Bill Apr 2014 #27
And a further irony was Art_from_Ark Apr 2014 #28
Rec'd! nt babylonsister Mar 2014 #9
A most timely, relevant and salient post Trust Buster Mar 2014 #10
We must continue to respond to the anti-Obama talking points. samplegirl Mar 2014 #11
Beautifully written K&R passiveporcupine Mar 2014 #12
+1 treestar Mar 2014 #13
The President is miles better than his Republican equivelent. Oakenshield Mar 2014 #14
I'd love to see Warren in office JohnnyRingo Mar 2014 #15
You want to be cautious, I get that. Oakenshield Mar 2014 #16
I never heard our non-voting base referred to as "reserved". JohnnyRingo Mar 2014 #20
Yet those of us who didn't vote for Reagan are now the enemy Fumesucker Mar 2014 #17
The joke is on you? RobertEarl Mar 2014 #22
I'm not even sure myself, it started as humor and seems to be segueing into irony Fumesucker Apr 2014 #23
It is becoming clear RobertEarl Apr 2014 #24
As Bullwinkle would say, Art_from_Ark Apr 2014 #26
You nailed it madokie Mar 2014 #18
Very nicely said. nt UtahLib Mar 2014 #19
Excellent post BainsBane Mar 2014 #21

hollysmom

(5,946 posts)
3. I remember the times very well indeed
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 06:49 PM
Mar 2014

My husband was dead set against voting for Johnson because of the war so he voted for Nixon, I had mixed feelings about Johnson, but really did not trust Nixon, he was just... sleazy. I did not believe he knew how to stop the war, I did respect and like Humphrey. Now it turns out he screwed up the war and made it last longer. The dems would have won, Johnson would have won if the peace talks took place. I did like so much of the great society and even like Lady Bird's anti bill board stand because I am not fond of billboards messing with scenery.

The Carter hate was the beginning of the right wing misinformation/hate that grew larger with Clinton and has become to disgusting with Obama. He got screwed as much as Johnson with the Iran hostages being interrupted by republicans - don't you find it so funny that people who actively work against this country wrap themselves in the flag? But don't try and disburse this information, the righties won't believe it for a moment, they are more into the public media crap.

JohnnyRingo

(18,634 posts)
6. Most interesting.....
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 08:01 PM
Mar 2014

...is your reference to Lady Bird's "anti-billboard" campaign.

I don't remember that at all, but as I mentioned, I was intently focused on events in SE Asia near the end of that decade and might not have heard about it. I too would like to see less corporate clutter. Maybe not to the point of downtown Warsaw, but at least some regulation for the sake of aesthetics. Perhaps it's more a locally legislated issue now.

Now I'm off to Google it and find out more.
Thanx for your informative and thoughtful reply.

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
4. A great post.
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 07:16 PM
Mar 2014

I hope you publish it somewhere besides here. Kos, maybe.

BTW, I think you might want to change "paramount" to "tantamount" above.

And incidentally, I often criticize the President's actions, but am pretty prudent about my audiences and don't do so in front of conservatives.

samplegirl

(11,479 posts)
7. You have outdone yourself in this post
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 08:09 PM
Mar 2014

you are not only brilliant but a positive democrat that should make others think!

Mr.Bill

(24,296 posts)
8. I remember when Carter was in office
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 08:18 PM
Mar 2014

my dad worked for United Airlines, and belonged to the IAM. He was a lifelong Democrat and union man. There was a story that Carter wanted to tax the value of the free or discounted airline passes the employees got as income. This was no small matter to a mechanic who used thousands of dollars worth of these passes every year. The IAM union was so enraged about this the told their members in their newsletter to not vote for Carter in 1980. My dad voted for Reagan and regretted it for the rest of his life.

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
28. And a further irony was
Tue Apr 1, 2014, 02:39 AM
Apr 2014

that the Republicans went and changed the name of an airport to honor the man who fired the Patco workers

 

Trust Buster

(7,299 posts)
10. A most timely, relevant and salient post
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 08:35 PM
Mar 2014

I am hopeful that the 24/7 news cycle and social media will make it much tougher for the Republicans to pull the wool over the nation's eyes again. They want to limit the amount of Republican primary debates because, it seems, the more our countrymen hear them speak, the less likely they are to vote for them. We must continue to respond to the anti-Obama talking points.

samplegirl

(11,479 posts)
11. We must continue to respond to the anti-Obama talking points.
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 08:38 PM
Mar 2014

That starts here in what was a truly Democratic Forum at one time!!!

treestar

(82,383 posts)
13. +1
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 09:18 PM
Mar 2014

I don't see any good in it. It just lets the Rs, as you say, pound the pavement with how no one likes him, not even those who voted for him. How does that do anything but help Republicans? I just do not see the good that is allegedly accomplished. It's not going to bring about single payer. It's going to bring about Republicans in power, and that means more wars.

Oakenshield

(614 posts)
14. The President is miles better than his Republican equivelent.
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 09:19 PM
Mar 2014

I'll stand by that firmly. Our party and our country however will be far better served when we elect more populist representatives like Elizabeth Warren.

JohnnyRingo

(18,634 posts)
15. I'd love to see Warren in office
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 09:42 PM
Mar 2014

Populist does not equate to popular, however.

What you and I see as a good common sense candidate can be considered far left by the greater majority. I'm admittedly left of center, but practical as well. As was my original point, it's not about her great ideas on boosting the middle class via finacial reform and equal rights, but what the perception of her is, and I believe that view among the voting electorate to be one of a liberal.

If by 2016 the perception of liberals, or even those defined by the synonym progressive, is a positive one, then she's a shoe in for president. Otherwise America at large will look to a moderate who does no good and hopefully no harm. I think it's sad that this may be true, and I sincerely hope people wake up and learn to vote their better interests (especially in the gulf states).

Until that day, it's essential that a democrat holds the all powerful veto pen, lest we slide further into the abyss of the working poor. What do we call middle class now, owning a smart phone? That's sad.

Oakenshield

(614 posts)
16. You want to be cautious, I get that.
Mon Mar 31, 2014, 07:09 AM
Mar 2014

Make concessions if we have to maintain as much power as possible. In theory, playing the game of politics defensively would be a safe road to travel. However I would argue that method is why we've lost ground over the last thirty years. We outnumber the old and cantankerous Republicans. Staggeringly. Our voter turn-out is shitty though, because unlike Republicans who are always full of piss and vinegar we are consistently more reserved.

Some might see that as trying to rise above the filthy and regressive tactics Republicans use. And you know what, that's probably quite accurate. The majority however see that as being weak-willed. If we really want to defeat the Republicans, we need to stir up a fervor of our own in the Democratic political base. I guarantee you, if a fire-breathing Democrat is put on the stage, you will get the votes to put him or her into office.

JohnnyRingo

(18,634 posts)
20. I never heard our non-voting base referred to as "reserved".
Mon Mar 31, 2014, 12:06 PM
Mar 2014

That's a pretty polite term.

I get a bit more heated about it when I try to talk potential votes into the polls. I make it a point to sign up one new person every election to double my own vote, and it can be frustrating indeed. Republicans accuse us of voting more than once, and in my case that's often true in a way.

Considering the uphill battle I have every year, and the lame excuses I get for not registering, I use words like complacent, unmotivated, indifferent, or just plain lazy. I believe there are far more potential democrats in the country than there are republicans however. Democrats stay home, while republicans march to the polls as a birthright. That's why when the vote count is low, republicans win. They know this and work to suppress the number of people willing to cast a vote. We often say it's racism, but they try to bar white working poor people too who may vote blue, ex-felons and union members for two examples.

As for the great majority voting for a liberal, or a self described socialist like Bernie Sanders, I remain a skeptic. The party still has a lot of PR work ahead to convince the voting masses that they would be better off with a candidate from anywhere near the far left. Six years or so ago, I read here where people were sure that if we could just get Dennis Kucinich and his Dept Of Peace on the ballot, he'd win in a landslide. I think that was very naive. The majority wants someone who works both sides toward the middle. Much to the dismay of many at DU, that's what we got with Obama... and Clinton... and yes, even Jimmy Carter.

The RNC is already aware of this, and they knew it would be Romney from the very beginning because considered him a moderate. He behaved like one too, until he opened his mouth at a secretly taped fundraiser. The RNC even actively sabotaged Ron Paul's chances to keep him off the ballot. The RNC knew "libertarian" or "Tea Party" was not something that inspired the majority to their side on election day. The DNC knows the same about the term "liberal", and is unlikely to make such a suicide move like that that happen anytime soon.

I know it's frustrating, and I'm absolutely on your side, but before we can put up a candidate from anywhere except slightly left of center, we have to do some PR work on what's good for the so called working class. Just putting someone like Elizabeth or Bernie on the ballot is not enough to waylay the rooted fears of extremism held by millions of voters who don't follow politics every day like we do. I don't know who that eventual candidate is, but I'm sure the DNC has a short list by now.

I may sound like a Negative Ned to you, but I'm being sadly realistic. As I've pointed out all along, it's dire that we not give up the Oval Office in 2016 just because we have these deeply held liberal ideals for a candidate. Far right purity tests are what keeps the Tea Party from gaining anything other than local representation, and I look for a candidate perceived as a middle of the road do no harm candidate from the GOP next year. That's why the DNC is working overtime to tarnish Christie now before he gains more popular momentum in the public eye, an image the RNC was working on before finding themselves distracted by that confounded bridge.

If you think about it, "Bridgegate" isn't really the high crime we play it up to be. A couple people from one town were late for work, and that's about it, or at least that's how most people across the country see it. It was an act of stupid political pettiness on the governor's part, but the DNC is doing their job to turn it into a treasonous act akin to poisoning the water supply in an effort to disqualify him early. For that, I'm grateful. It'll hopefully narrow their potential field of what they see as common sense moderate choices by one, and he's a big one (enter bad pun groan here).

It's wise to assume that nothing really happens in politics by accident, anymore than a rook just "accidentally" moves into a check position while a bishop just "happens" to block your exit move.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
17. Yet those of us who didn't vote for Reagan are now the enemy
Mon Mar 31, 2014, 07:39 AM
Mar 2014

Funny how things work out, innit?

I've been jokingly referring to the Reagan Democrats as the "base" of the Democratic party lately, evidently the joke is now on me.

Bear in mind it's the claque and not the purists who have been defending those NJ Democrats who endorsed Christie.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
22. The joke is on you?
Mon Mar 31, 2014, 10:52 PM
Mar 2014

You weren't joking, were you? It is quite evident that if it wasn't for the center who voted for Reagan and now become edumacated enough to vote for Obama, that we'd have Romney.

Y'know, that is pretty amazing when you think about it.... all those Reagan voters who switched and voted for Obama.

I wonder how that happened?

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
23. I'm not even sure myself, it started as humor and seems to be segueing into irony
Tue Apr 1, 2014, 12:08 AM
Apr 2014

As I said in my last post though, take a look at which group was "understanding" of those NJ Dems who endorsed Christie for Gov and who was less tolerant of that.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
24. It is becoming clear
Tue Apr 1, 2014, 12:32 AM
Apr 2014

That we must adopt the RW if we are ever to have another chance of getting someone like Obama elected. It seems that since we on DU are arguing, the republic will turn away in horror! Forcing the base - the reagan democrats - to feel better about voting, and about how we can move our country back to the days where reagan is the true saint, the base of the party once thought he was.

Garblegoksmorklybrot. Long live ron!!

madokie

(51,076 posts)
18. You nailed it
Mon Mar 31, 2014, 07:53 AM
Mar 2014

Everything except the voting for reagan pretty much could be said for me. I didn't work for the car companies but I was working building our streets, houses and later parts for the machinery that help build those things. I seen reagan for what he was, a chameleon at best, huckster at worst. Carter had the same problems that every democratic President since Kennedy had had and that was a puke party hell bent on destroying him. The pukes vowed to not work with any democratic President after it was seen by them that the dems had a vendetta for nixon and would have impeached him if he hadn't resigned. Nixon was gold to the pukes at the time.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What did you say, history...