Thursday, July 28, 2011

In Memory of the GOP

Today it reads almost like science fiction. It strains the imagination to realize that it was penned by a man who was at the time the Republican candidate for president of the Unites States:

"Should any
political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

-Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952
in a letter to
his brother Milton

Whoa! That "tiny splinter group" of yore has grown into a freaking redwood tree. When Eisenhower was president the wealthiest Americans were in a ninety-percent tax bracket. How do you think we paid for our marvelous interstate highway system? It is doubtful that old Ike, were he to run as a Republican in 2011, could get nominated to run as sewer inspector of Abilene, Kansas. He'd be condemned as a radical Communist. Things have gotten that weird.

I think what we are now witnes
sing are the dying gasps of what used to be known as "the party of Lincoln". They may survive for a few years in the statehouses and small-town municipalities, but I just can't foresee, given their present condition - overtaken by half-wits and extremists - their ever occupying the White House again. The first piece I ever posted on this site on June 2, 2006 was called, "George W. Bush: The Last Republican President". At the time I thought it was merely wishful thinking on my part. Now I'm not too sure.

From the vantage point of one-hundred and fifty-five years, it's next-to-impossible to remember that it started out with the best of intentions. Today the Republican party thrives on a single issue: "GOVERNMENT IS BAAAAAD!!!" In 1856 they were also a one-issue party. But what an issue!

It should n
ever be forgotten by history that it was, at its inception, the party of freedom and that their platform was vehemently anti-slavery. It's kind of hard to find fault with so noble a stand, huh? Its first national ticket, John C. Fremont of California and running mate, William L. Dayton of New Jersey, went down in flames in the general election, losing handily to Democrat James Buchanan of Pennsylvania, generally regarded by historians to be the worst president in American history. Four years later in 1860, the people would send Abraham Lincoln, an obscure lawyer from Springfield, Illinois, to the White House. His name would rightfully be retained down through the ages as their finest president - Republican or Democratic.

"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends hims
elf in a worthy cause; who at best, if he wins, knows the thrills of high achievement, and, if he fails, at least fails daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."

-Theodore Roosevelt

Yes, boys and girls, there
used to be such a thing as a "progressive Republican" That very term today sounds so oxy-moronic, it's almost hard to pronounce. The vision of a "Square Deal" and a living wage "for every man and every woman in the United States" was represented by Theodore Roosevelt, our 26th president. January 6, 2009 marked the 90th anniversary of his passing at the age of sixty. I think the time has come (in fact, it's long overdue) that people who describe themselves as "registered Republicans", most of whom are reasonable people (unlike their counterparts on the RNC), take a good, long look at this man, his incredible life, and his legacy to the American people.

His was an administration dedicated to the environment, almost a century before such a stand would be politically popular. As president, he set aside millions of acres of forest as national parkland, to keep them from being ravaged by the timber industry. He would negotiate an end to the Japanese/Russian war which would earn him the Nobel Peace Prize - the first for a US president. He would initiate the building of the Panama Canal. He would seriously impair the stranglehold that Big Business in general - and J.P. Morgan in particular - held on the American economy. In May 1902, coal miners struck for a wage increase, an eight hour day and recognition of their union. In October of that year, President Roosevelt forced the mine owners to meet with the striking miners. For the first time in history, government influence was able to oversee impartial arbitration.

The death of the progressive wing of the Republican party can be traced to their convention of 1912. Almost four years after his administration came to an end, Roosevelt was bitterly disappointed in the performance of his friend and hand-picked successor William Howard Taft. It angered him that the jovial but easily-led Taft had undone much of what he believed to be his greatest accomplishments. Challenging the incumbent president in the Republican primaries, Roosevelt arrived at the convention that summer with all of the delegates needed (and then some) to seize the mantle of standard bearer and claim the nomination. The GOP power brokers, though, had other ideas. They had had enough of the progressive enlightenment of Theodore Roosevelt and were determined that the Plutocracy - not the people - would dictate America's future. Taft was re-nominated to run for a second term.

Roosevelt bolted the Republican Party at that moment and formed the Progressive or - as it was popularly known - The Bull Moose Party. His third-party candidacy wound up splitting the Republican vote, thereby - for good and ill - making the presidency of Woodrow Wilson possible. It was during that campaign, on his way to make a speech in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, that a would-be assassin shot him, point blank in the chest. "I will make this speech or die!" he told his terrified entourage. He strode to the podium, speech in hand, his shirt soaked with blood, and told his audience that it took more than a bullet to stop a Bull Moose. The guy was incredible.

Ironically, Roosevelt's insurgent campaign of 1912 had a lasting effect on the political make up of the Grand Old Party. Many of the progressives who walked out of the convention with him never returned to the Republicans. The liberal wing of that party, to this very day - almost a century later - has never re-emerged.

I think it is quite telling that all these decades later, in their campaign literature and propaganda, the Republican Party - his party - never even mentions the name of Theodore Roosevelt - one of the three or four greatest presidents in American history. One needs not a degree in history to figure out the reason for that: Teddy Roosevelt believed, in every fiber his being, that corporate America served at the pleasure of the people - not the other way around. That sort of thinking is anathema to the modern day GOP.

They just don't make Republicans like that anymore. Come to think about it they don't make Democrats like that anymore either. How the hell did we get from there to here? The other day I had a bit of an epiphany:

The problem with the Republicans is that they have forgotten that they are the party of Roosevelt - Theodore.

The problem with the Democrats is that they have forgotten that they are the party of Roosevelt - Franklin D.

Well now! That sums things up rather neatly, doesn't it? But while the Dems are inflicted by timidity and scattered pockets of corruption, there are still a few members of that comical party whose hearts are in the right place and who want to do right by the American people. That's not the case with the GOP. They're beyond redemption.

"....that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government - of the people, by the people, for the people - shall not perish from the earth."

Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863

All good things must come to an end I suppose.

It's interesting to speculate what Lincoln and Roosevelt would make of their party today. It's not much of a stretch to say that the both of them would be just a tad dismayed to see that it has been overtaken by half-wits and crazy people. I think that Eisenhower might have been onto something when he predicted that a political party that attempted to do away with vital social programs would disappear from the pages of history. We shall see.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
tomdegan@frontiernet.net

SUGGESTED READING:

Eisenhower
by Stephen Ambrose

With Malice Toward None
by Stephen B. Oates

Theodore Roosevelt
by Nathan Miller

For more recent postings on this embarrassingly LIBERAL, undoubtedly SUBVERSIVE site, please go to the following link:

"The Rant" by Tom Degan

Why I'm not sitting in a federal prison cell is a mystery.

37 Comments:

At 9:21 AM, Anonymous boltok said...

$21,000,000,000,000 (projected deficit under Obama at end of an 8 year presidency). This amount will be higher if the economu weakens. 150% of the value of all current economic activity in the USA.

$14,000,000,000,000 (current size of all economic activity in the USA and its citizens abroad)

$750,000,000,000 (annual interest in 2016 at 3% weighed interest rate)

$1,250,000,000,000 (annual interest in 2016 at 5%), the rate will be much higher if we have true credit default, failed auctions, treasury bond liquidations, etc., etc.

I suspect that you are nostalgic about the GOP because they are at least changing the dialog, if not trimming the budget by a few bucks. For all your self education, you need to learn basic math. If this rant blog is your profession, you will wake one day to the reality of time wasted spewing idiocy. Unfortunately, the day that will force such an involuntary reassessment is not that far off.

Who will get all of these "entitlements" when we are BANKRUPT.

 
At 9:25 AM, Blogger Ellis D., Esq. said...

So Kucinich and who else will save the now pathetic Dems ?? First we need to get rid of this so called Democrat President, don't we ?? Can anyone here say PRIMARY ?? Obummer is an embarrassment to anyone with the intelligence to know what he should be as opposed to what he has been. He has been a corporate puppet and has done almost nothing for the average working class Amerikan. He has managed to disgust and enrage his base especially those on the left. I myself was fooled by his bullshit but now I see right through him and can't help feeling conned by his campaign promises. But then again what else should one expect from a politician ?? Honesty ?? My bad !!

 
At 9:33 AM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

Ellis

You are not going to believe this but I agree with your post 100%.

The far left was lied to by candidate Obama and his performance from the far left's view point is awful. In fact I think it could be said that the majority of his voters feel that based on his performance they were tricked and lied to.

I support the idea of a Dem primary and or a 3rd party candidate for a true liberal choice in 2012!

 
At 9:52 AM, Blogger Ellis D., Esq. said...

Far out man !!!

 
At 10:41 AM, Anonymous Annie Mouse Too said...

Boltok, you said: If this rant blog is your profession, you will wake one day to the reality of time wasted spewing idiocy.

And what about you? How much time have you spent spewing idiocy?

 
At 11:30 AM, Blogger Catharine said...

This post makes me happy... and sad....

And then happy again, because it brings out the slathering, teeth-gnashing, hair-pulling commentary....

So entertaining....

Someday, when we're happily ensconced in our position as a secondary world power, and we are no longer invested in being "The Greatest Country on Earth" (and our kids are fed and educated and have health care they can rely on), we'll look back on all this and we'll lauuughh... OH, how we'll laugh....

Or... maybe not....

 
At 12:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello Tom -

The republicans (sorry, do we still need to capitalize that?) may have been taken over by half-wits and extremists, but I think you're making a mistake to think a republican won't get back into the White House. We still vote (well, sort of) and the general populace has been taken over by the same two groups.

Victor David

 
At 2:43 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Can’t disagree with you. Give me a Teddy Roosevelt any day! There has been no one put forward by either party that is even in the same category. The category seems to no longer exist.

Regarding the current debacle, our legislators and executive are in so far over their heads, it is sad and scary. I’m to the point where I’d personally be willing to entertain some type of “tax the rich” concession as a compromise, though I think it could damage the economy if overdone and would affect the bottom line very marginally. It would make the entitlement-promising Huey Long politicians feel better and, perhaps, be open to the spending cuts that need to take place maybe, I don’t know.

The only problem is, as I mentioned above, there’s no one to drive the REAL fiscal responsibility that needs to take place, so the concessions would be pointless.

THERE APPEARS TO BE NO ONE AT THE HELM. That was evident when Obama addressed America – it appeared as if someone had shoved him out front and he’s whispering behind him “what do you want me to say?” The reply, “I don’t know, something about corporate jets and rich people – just wing it – it’ll be fine…”

And all of them act like this was some sort of shocking development that took them by surprise. They knew we were headed here for years and have consistently chosen to say and do NOTHING.

 
At 3:34 PM, Blogger Ellis D., Esq. said...

Taxing the wealthy will not hurt job creation. That is a bullshit myth. An owner of a small printing business called in Ed Schultz radio show and said he normally makes $250k per year and he can afford a higher income tax contribution. He also said that the folks in his tax bracket and higher ARE NOT the job creators. The job creators he says are the folks with the $30k, $40k, 50k etc. jobs that give average Amerikans spendable income they use to BUY the goods and services produced by the businesses. When demand for these goods and services ceases due to lack of spendable income these business must downsize and lay off workers. Until demand increases these business owners are not able to hire and unemployment remains high. This isn't rocket science folks. Simple supply and demand capitalism here. So raising the taxes on the rich will only serve to raise needed revenue. Of course even the thought of it makes those rich bastards impotent !!

 
At 8:53 PM, Blogger Nance said...

I do so hope you're right, Tom.

I can't applaud Teddy Roosevelt because I've read The Imperial Cruise recently. But I'll applaud you for giving me something to hang on to for tonight. I've not been sleeping well this week; I need happy endings, whether truth or wishful thinking.

 
At 9:02 PM, Blogger Tom Degan's Daily Rant said...

Whether truth or wishful thinking, sleep well, Nance. We'll get through this.

Love and Peace,

Tom

 
At 2:28 AM, Blogger YhuntressE said...

You should also check out the works of Republican politician and agnostic thinker, Robert Green Ingersol. He also was an advocate for a lot of the things Ike and Teddy stood for, I think you'd like it.

Since I was a small child when Regan was president, that's what I was use to. And I agree, both Ike and Teddy would be outcasts in their own party now a days. Though it would be amusing to see how the later would react and hopefully punch Glenn Beck in the face.

 
At 1:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ellis D, I agree with your excellent analysis of obama.

I find it particularly annoying when an empty suit like Obama who has never produced anything or held a real job sports a condescending attitude and tries to lecture us about business confidence and economics. Who does he think he is? I prefer to listen to folks who have hard-won experience from competing successfully in the marketplace, not some lawyer whose ideas come from a socialist faculty lounge.

 
At 2:23 PM, Blogger Leslie Parsley said...

Strolling past all the Obama-haters on the left and the right (who both possess the same level of ass-hattedness), and responding to the POINT of this article. A bitter-sweat analysis, Tom. Whether or not one agreed with the Republican Party as a whole, these men were exemplary leaders. And there have been many in Congress who were honorable public servants and who put the country first. The idea of destroying it out of some misguided ideological extremist agenda would be repellent to them.

Today's Republican Party has sold it's soul to the devil and now they're paying the price. I could laugh and say "I told you so, stupid" but it isn't funny and the entire country - as well as the global economy - is at risk.

Too good a piece not to share.

 
At 3:26 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Just because a person doesn’t feel Obama is doing a good job doesn’t mean he/she is an “Obama hater”. If you think he’s a good leader - then tell us why you think that – show us where we are wrong. Ad hominem attacks are for those with no argument…

Also, if you follow blogs regularly, it is not unusual (rather, it is fairly normative) for the blog to weave among other tangential points. And, sometimes they leave the point altogether. They rarely remain spot on topic forever. The “hey, great job Tom” posts are nice and I’m sure Tom enjoys them (I would). But, they do little to advance conversation which ostensibly is the point of a blog.

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president... is morally treasonable to the American public.” - T. Roosevelt

 
At 4:45 PM, Blogger Leslie Parsley said...

Mr Harley: You're being condescending, to say nothing of insulting my intelligence. I have a damn good blog and have probably been writing and researching since before you were a gleam in your parents' eyes.

 
At 5:38 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Razor sharp truth can feel condescending and insulting. You may FEEL insulted because I did indeed take issue with YOUR truly insulting post. You started off calling Obama detractors “ass-hats”. I rebutted that remark clearly and articulately. You now claim that I am the one being condescending and insulting. Ok – we’ll leave it at that. I’ll allow the record to speak for itself.

 
At 5:55 PM, Blogger Leslie Parsley said...

It was you lecture on blogs that was so condescending. As for criticism of Obama, I have never indicated anywhere anytime that constructive criticism of Obama isn't healthy. What I have a problem with are Firebaggers who started bashing him before he took the oath of office and haven't let up since - using innuendo, hysterics and downright lies that are no different in tone, vitriol and fabrication than what we see on Fox.

 
At 7:31 PM, Anonymous Earl Degan (Tom's Uncle) said...

Leslie Parsley,

I saw a title on your blog "How Bullshit Gets Started" with a picture of Obama. You are right on! The Bullshit started when Obama's communist parents conceived him.

Obama has clearly shown that he only knows how to give speeches and is an excellent campaigner. Too bad he has turned out to be a loser as President.

You state that you have been around a long time. Then you must know what I mean by saying "Where's the Beef?" when it comes to the "Hope & Change"!

LOL on the "Hope & Change" Leslie that you swallowed "Hook, Line, and Sinker"!

 
At 8:49 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

Leslie P.
Here's my problem with Mr. Obama. While running for President he wanted to "spread the wealth around".
I wonder if you could explain to me how his idea is different than this "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"?

 
At 12:35 AM, Blogger Leslie Parsley said...

"Extremism is so easy. You've got your position, and that's it. It doesn't take much thought. And when you go far enough to the right you meet the same idiots coming around from the left."
— Clint Eastwood

 
At 12:41 AM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

Leslie P
So, what's your answer again?

 
At 11:45 AM, Blogger Mack Lyons said...

"Here's my problem with Mr. Obama. While running for President he wanted to "spread the wealth around".
I wonder if you could explain to me how his idea is different than this "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"?"


Because making sure that every American is financially secure is not a zero-sum game. Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to believe so, equating such things with "Communism" or "Socialism" or any other scary-sounding "ism". Somehow, they see nothing wrong with one man owning 95% of a nation's wealth and the people owning only 5% -- after all, he earned it!

Tom, I remember you asking when I was going to open a blog. Well, it's in my profile now ;)

 
At 12:29 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

"Because making sure that every American is financially secure is not a zero-sum game." Mack Lyons``

Explain how sharing/spreading the wealth/ increasing taxes on the rich, taking from each according to his abilities,giving to each according to his needs, will ensure "that every American is financially secure"?

Still waiting for an answer to what the difference is between the above.

Maybe Leslie P can answer along with Mack?

 
At 12:59 PM, Blogger Darlene said...

Harley said "great posts are nice" and then went on to say that they don't contribute much to the conversation. (I am paraphrasing.)

I am going to turn it around. Ranting is fun, but it doesn't change anyone's mind and just makes the 'ranter' feel good to appear to be intelligent. Note" I said 'appear.' (I plead guilty to doing so myself).

If commentators could debate ONE subject and stick to it I would enjoy it, but name calling and veering off on other subjects leaves me cold.

Well, I just changed the topic myself. I will add that I am not contributing much to the conversation by telling you that I think you did a fantastic job with this history lesson, Tom. It is well researched and fair and that's why you keep me coming back.

 
At 9:42 PM, Blogger Mack Lyons said...

"Explain how sharing/spreading the wealth/ increasing taxes on the rich, taking from each according to his abilities,giving to each according to his needs, will ensure "that every American is financially secure"?"

For starters, take out the "each according to his abilities,giving to each according to his needs" crap. It's a straw-man tactic designed to appeal to conservative mindsets that are still spooked at the very mention of Marxist tenet. We're not doing Marxism here.

1) Consider the spending habits of the wealthy. They don't spend their money on the same things middle classers spend their money on. Granted they spend much larger amounts, but this spending usually goes toward a)financial investments and savings, for the sole purpose of gaining interest and dividends, and b)extravagant purchases that are rarely, if ever, purchased by the middle class (i.e. mansions, yachts, fine arts and jewelry, etc.) These purchases are priced in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars, but these items are relatively low in number, and the wealthy don't necessarily go on buying sprees -- at least not the ones who want to keep their wealth over generations.

2) Consider the spending habits of the middle class. They have far less money, yet it ends up going farther places due to the things they spend it on -- essential items such as food, clothing and shelter, entertainment items, mass-produced automobiles and other items that cater to the average American. This spending goes on to fuel America's economic engine in ways that catering solely to the wealthy simply cannot.

3) Since the wealth of the wealthy is used largely to maintain and grow wealth, placing the burden of taxation upon the wealthy will not pose the societal strain that punitive taxation places on the middle and lower classes. 15% federal income taxes places a greater strain on someone making just $15k/year or $50k/year than it does someone making $1m/year or $10m/year. By using the infrastructure, markets and resources built by the American people, the wealthy have an obligation to contribute financially towards the maintenance and upkeep of the infrastructure.

 
At 9:42 PM, Blogger Mack Lyons said...

4) Keeping Americans financially secure will help kick-start the economy and spur on economic growth, as Americans will feel confident enough to start spending their money again. On the other hand, handing tax break upon tax break to the wealthy will keep the economy mired in this current recession, as they are currently content with letting their money accrue interest and dividends, and they have no desire to create situations where they will be forced to hand over money to middle and lower class Americans, even if it would still mean more profits for them (i.e. job creation). This recession's taught them they can reduce their workforce down to a skeleton crew and still receive the same amount of productivity from the remaining workers, all the while receiving more in pure profit. In short, they have no desire to "waste" money by hiring more American workers.

5) Again, look at the spending habits of the wealthy. Going by the trickle-down theory, the proceeds from the purchase of a yacht should filter down from the well-heeled buyer to the company that commissioned the build, to the dozen or so skilled men and women who were paid a modest sum in comparison to build the yacht, to the various services those people frequent (doctors, grocery stores, clothing stores, etc.) Consider how the company has to acquire materials and tools, add those and the people those companies pay and so forth and so on. Unfortunately, there are but a few yacht builders around the country, and even fewer well-heeled buyers who'd spring for one on a moment's notice. In the end, the wealth of that particular "job-creator" doesn't "trickle down" that far. And compared to someone netting hundreds of millions, even billions in profit from investments, the purchase of a $20m yacht is chump change, in comparison.

If taxes are kept low, but corporations still have no desire to hire workers, how are Americans going to have the means and confidence to spend as the corporations still intend for them to? If the wealthy are still being showered with tax breaks at the expense of the government's bottom line, how will the government manage to pay off its debts and keep services and infrastructure going without drowing itself in the proverbial bathtub by ruthlessly cutting programs that help the lower and middle classes, forgo staying on top of and replacing infrastructure, and punitively taxing the living daylights out of people who can least afford it -- the lower and middle classes?

Sheesh. Too many words spent on someone who will most likely NOT get it. Not because they can't, but because they don't want to.

 
At 10:44 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

"For starters, take out the "each according to his abilities,giving to each according to his needs" crap. It's a straw-man tactic designed to appeal to conservative mindsets that are still spooked at the very mention of Marxist tenet. We're not doing Marxism here.
"
Why take it out, when my question is what is the difference? If your "not doing Marxism here", you should have not problem providing the difference.

 
At 11:09 PM, Blogger Mack Lyons said...

"Why take it out, when my question is what is the difference? If your "not doing Marxism here", you should have not problem providing the difference."

Oh. I thought your question was "Explain how sharing/spreading the wealth/ increasing taxes on the rich will ensure "that every American is financially secure"?", and that the "taking from each according to his abilities,giving to each according to his needs" bit was just thrown in for shits and giggles. My bad :D

 
At 1:27 AM, Blogger Dearest Friend said...

Sad, my parents' generation venerated F.D. Roosevelt. Their parents HATED FDR...why, I have no idea. Their grandparents LOVED FDR...why, again- I don't know...

It's chilling to see know so many people who has hopes and aspirations depending on this bill to raise or not raise the debt ceiling. So much rising on this one bill...is it good bye, USA or hello to some sort of minimalist verion of a new hope?

Again, I don't know...I'm scared...really scared.

 
At 6:37 PM, Anonymous James said...

Hey Mack, that was a superbly crafted post, too bad the pinhead you addressed it to did not have the intelligence or the courage to acknowledge how well you summarized the whole tax issue.

 
At 7:39 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

Hey Mack, pinhead here,

Whats the difference?

 
At 10:50 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

If these guys were worried about the country, they'd compromise. Repubs could give some concessions on tax code. Truth be told, many of the Republicans thought Bush's tax bill was too much at the time, and I think there's an argument to be made that maybe it was. I think the overall "take" is enough but pressure needs to be taken off the middle income brackets.

On the flip side, the Democrats need to understand that the Fed has gotten too big. In the past 100 years, the Fed's take has jumped from about 8% (pre income tax) to over 35%. So, now the Fed leverages policy through state funding. That's too much central power - the pendulum needs to swing back to the states in general. But, I'm not going to hold my breath on that one...

 
At 10:52 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Percentage #'s above being % of GDP - to clarify.

 
At 3:55 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

Enjoy!

PRINCETON, NJ (Gallup) — Americans’ political ideology at the midyear point of 2011 looks similar to 2009 and 2010, with 41% self-identifying as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 21% as liberal.

If this pattern continues, 2011 will be the third straight year that conservatives significantly outnumber moderates — the next largest ideological bloc. Liberalism has been holding steady for the past six years, averaging either 21% or 22%, although notably higher than the 17% average seen in Gallup polling during the early to middle ’90s.

Longer term, the Gallup ideology trend, dating from 1992, documents increased political polarization in the country. The percentage of moderates has fallen to the mid-30s from the low 40s, while the combined percentage either liberal or conservative is now 62%, up from 53%.

 
At 5:12 PM, Blogger Mack Lyons said...

"Hey Mack, pinhead here,

Whats the difference?"


I already told you.

 
At 6:17 PM, Anonymous Just the Facts! said...

Sorry Mack, I'm a product of public schools taught by union teachers, you're gonna have to be patient with me and explain.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home