You actually are agreeing with me. Had Kennedy lived he would have handled things differently and smoothed over problems. Picture Cheney having to step in for Bush after an assasination in Iraq. I see Bush keeping things more even keel politically then Cheney for sure. This is why I said we will never know, but what makes the comparison interesting is the fact that by comparison we are at 1964 had Kennedy lived, so it will be different.

Yehudit

I agree and I was making light. I do not look forward to the political landscape of the next decade.

TmjUtah

I agree completely and like I mentioned above, the fact that Bush lives while Kennedy did not makes things very different. The only sure part of my comparison is up until Kennedy’s death, everything past that is what is being currently written, it is live and can be scripted differently. That being said certain aspects won’t. The political strife and divisions will rise, that part I would bet on.

A very interesting set of comparisons between past and present Presidents.

But I think that one of the flaws in this argument (the specifics, not the overall theme that history repeats itself in roughly comparable patterns) is the death of JFK.

As you note, JFK might have had a much tougher time being reelected, had he not been assassinated. His handling of crises, including striking unions and the Cuban Missile Crisis, almost certainly would have been placed under greater scrutiny—the valiant young President defeating Khrushchev in an uncompromising way (never mind those missiles in Turkey) might not have lasted as long, if that young President was running for reelection. Instead, LBJ was able to hold up the image of a martyred President as the legacy he would uphold.

Similarly, from most accounts, JFK was indifferent, at best on civil rights. Would he have pushed as hard as LBJ (ironically) did, to get Civil Rights legislation passed? Would he have been as adroit as LBJ? Most of all, would he have been willing to put at risk the Dems’ access to the South, when he himself had had such a close race in ‘60 (and possibly almost as close a race in ‘64)?

If he had not, and if there’d been no Vietnam (debatable proposition, I’m not sure which way JFK would have gone on that), then the late 1960s might well have been far less radicalized. There would still be Freedom Riders and the like, but whether there’d be a George Wallace evaporating (as happened), undercut by softer Democratic policies, or more fiery, having stood up to the Feds, a “Summer of Love,” and the peace movement (complete with Kent State) is certainly open to question.

I’m not so much worried about the fat ties as about the domestic political violence of the early 70s. Symbionese Liberation Army, anyone? If Bush wins, narrowly or by a landslide, that’s what we’re going to get. (We need to elect him anyway, for all the reasons people here understand, but we will get political violence.)

I expect the new twist on it will be joint ventures in domestic terrorism by local Islamists and local extreme leftists, which we didn’t have in the 70s.

1860 and the Whigs? *grin* It’s late here, too…

The longevity of empire isn’t defined by leadership. It is always defined by how adept the leadership is at avoiding fatal mistakes.

Our system, even after the trend toward government control begun in earnest in the thirties, still runs mostly on the rails laid down by the founders. It works, and frankly it works so damned well the impression it makes on observers is often intimidating. The ultimate arbiter in our political process is still the interests of free citizens as expressed through elections – not any one branch or agency or individual of government. The courts are really pushing the envelope and have in fact pierced it in a few places…but we can recover from that. We should be able to, at least. I hope.

I agree that there is a libertarian/conservative realignment underway on the right. I think the Republicans face no insurmountable challenges as a party there, though. The base principles are almost common – the friction comes from between the professional D.C. set and just about the entire rest of the voting faithful. History has shown that conservative politicians thrive against a challenge but often slack off after they think they’ve won. We’ll see.

The Democrats….well, I stand on my above about the scam angle. The grifters are the folks holding the keys to the Dem station wagon right now. Funny thing is, that set of wheels was a shiny little sports car when they boosted it in front of the liquor store lo those many years ago.

I agree with you one hundred percent about human nature. People ALWAYS base their actions on self-interest. The problem there is that it takes a certain level of book learning, mainly history, to make a man willing to work for long term goals. Without the benefit of perspective we would always be grasping for what is right in front of us. It takes faith to work for anything further down the road, and that’s where understanding what has worked and what hasn’t becomes so important.

Y’all have a fine tomorrow.

Remember I do believe that history is repeated by those that refuse to understand. There is nothing that reqiures there to be a split in the Republican base. There is nothing to keep the Democrats from repeating the role of the fools.

In truth this could be more a repeat of 1864 and the Democrats could go the way of the Whigs for all I know. But up until now the history has been very much as I said and for that I believe the Republicans will increase in the congressional delegation and this will hold for a long time. Whether in the end Bush = JFK or Lincoln doesn’t matter as I believe he will achieve his due of historical greatness.

As for DNC leadership there just is no one on the horizon. In 1964 Reagan appeared and eventually took upon him that mantle of leadership. In my opinion none has come forward. I do believe the stresses between the libertarians and social consrvatives will be tested, the outcome has yet to be determined.

All your variables are true, the patterns of history are repeated. There is always a nation that dominates. It could dominate for a very long time like Rome or a very short time like with Alexander the Great, but the main point is that there is always a dominate culture and right now it is the United States. The same with eventually be true in our two Party system, one will come to dominate and how we arrrive there may vary, but we will arrive there and I just don’t see it being the Democrats any time soon. When it becomes obvious many fence sitters will go with the winner, it is just human nature.

Thank you for the wonderful reply.

I note with interest the contemporary figures possibly in line for party leadership you did mention were mentioned in passing.

History does run in cycles…but where people are concerned, living, breathing, and acting, there is truly nothing written. You could indeed write a hugeous book on the evolution of political geography in America but I think you would overreach by attempting to subject the administrations following Bush 1 to any kind of definitive judgement…at least not just yet. The cards dealt in the hands since are still falling and there are several major rounds of draws, bets, and calls to come.

I must close this much too soon, but please consider a few variables for inclusion into your cycles:

1. An illiterate individual could still find gainful employment in over half the available occupations circa 1930. A highschool education opened up all but the highest professional circles.

2. The wave of socialism that exploded with the New Deal was driven by an elite coterie of closet communists at the highest level of U.S. government and intellectual circles. They believed that socialism, if not outright Stalinist communism, was the ultimate solution to injustice. The children of the depression that came of age in the sixties grew up listening to How FDR Saved Us at their parents’ knees…and by the time they got to any history classes, the fact that it was the war and not the New Deal that dragged us out of the depression was pretty hard to stumble across. Ditto that communism was on its way to killing more people than lost their lives in both world wars and wasn’t looking like changing anytime soon. Government was the solution…so we dipped back into income redistribution and social engineering on a massive scale beginning in the late sixties and right up until the early eighties when Reagan came in. The argument was loud and long…but the True Believers in big government woke up in 1989 to the reality that communism WAS a failure…

3. …and have yet to really accept that their central premise is fraudulent. In spite of owning public education, the entertainment industry, and most of media for over half a century they have lost the ability to convince people that sewage may somehow be made to flow uphill if only enough taxes are paid and said people believe exactly what they are told when they are told it.

4. Backlash. I still contend, in the small little tinfoil covered corner of my soul that I allow this thought to exist, that the failure of socialism and its adjunct philosophies (PoMo, MoRel, MultiCulti, etc) in America or anywhere else it has been embraced has been so profound, and so complete, that it is flat impossible that a highly educated, intelligent individual could honestly embrace the creed as a relevant political agenda for positive change, especially with the lessons of history AND an appreciation for our true strengths independent of government largesse.

That means that the current crop of leading liberal lights around the top of the DNC are either as crazy as they act, or are working a scam. Not the stuff that parties are built on.

Well, I don’t know.

My husband, for sure, has developed some real affection/respect/regard for Bush, Sr. No question about it.

Of course, he’s under a lot of pressure from me to find some common ground we can both live on (and vice versa) . . . but William Raspberry didn’t sound a lot different. Though you may be right.

Still, when you have liberals thinking they have to claim that some of their best friends are Republicans, that’s a change, just as it was a change when people started saying “some of my best friends are black.” That’s a big move away from language like “n*****-lover,” a term people used as recently as the 1950s, right?

(Sadly, I don’t hear a lot of liberals claiming any Republican friends . . . )

I must disagree, at least in part. I think that for a lot of Dems/Libs, praising Bush Senior is a lot like saying “some of my best friends are Jews/Blacks/whatever” – they’re trying to say that “I don’t disagree with all Republicans – but this Bush feller, boy he’s scary! But, see, I like the father – I do have an open mind, I really do!”

Yeah well they can admire the father all they want, but when it came to vote the man was a one termer.

Thanks and sorry for the grammatical errors, speed and length of the post dictated this. I do believe George Bush Sr. deserves equal accolades with Harry Truman, unfortunately he was treated with equal disrespect. History will be kind to Bush Sr. for sure.

Also historically Dubya is JFK, I don’t care how offensive that sounds to some head in the sand liberal. I have many other proofs and statistics to prove my theories of where we are historically. In this the 1990’s = 1950’s (you know the good old days, that is what the 90’s will always be too many, especially Democrats), post WWII = post Cold War, Gulf War = Korea, Iraq = Vietnam, you get the picture. The electoral map and popular vote rehersals are just as mirrored, it is actually quite eerie. The “new” JFK is from the south and this of course means the 2000’s = 1960’s. Expect turbulation and dissent. What could be even scarier is this… Are we about to head into a new stupid decade? (2010’s = 1970’s). Oh no! Polyester suits with fat ties anyone?