[Peace-discuss] The past is prologue

[C. G. Estabrook]

I've clearly failed to make myself clear, at least to Mort.

I was talking about electoral psychology in the US, given that elections are 
rarely about issues and usually about marketing.  What makes people decide 
between a Ford of a Chevrolet (or, perhaps, stop buying...)?

The presidents elected in 1952, 1968, and 2000 were hardly "antiwar heroes" -- 
and the president elected in 2008, whoever he is, probably won't be either, 
altho' many people who see themselves on the Left seem to think so.

I was pointing out that in those years the candidate elected garnered votes by 
criticizing the handling of a war that he'd inherited from Democrats. What they 
did in office was however in line with consistent American policy.  One might 
even say, "We can demand all the changes we want, but we won't get them..., 
given our electoral system..."

In 1952 people voted for Eisenhower in part because he said "I will go to 
Korea!": many voters thought that the victor of Normandy would be able to handle 
the peculiar mess halfway around the globe. In 1968 people voted for Nixon in 
part because he said "I have a secret plan for ending the Vietnam War!": many 
voters thought that the experienced negotiator (cf. Khrushchev) would be able to 
handle the peculiar mess halfway around the globe...  In 2000 people voted for 
Bush in part because he condemned "nation-building," the term for the war policy 
in Serbia about which Gore had been so enthusiastic: perhaps voters thought that 
the draft-dodger could dodge the equivalent of a draft for all of us...

"An attempt to sabotage clear thinking"? Why would I do that?  --CGE


Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> This is truly whistling in the dark. The Republicans, McCain at the 
> helm, now hold our hopes for peace.
> 
> Nixon, as Carl ought to know, carried on the Vietnam war for several 
> more years after '68, and Bush I initiated the first Gulf War. Antiwar 
> heroes they? With Bush? As for Eisenhower, the Korean war ended in his 
> administration, after threatening nuclear war.
> 
> This ratiocination, an attempt to sabotage clear thinking,  can only be 
> called perverse.
> 
> --mkb
> 
> 
> On Aug 24, 2008, at 10:39 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
>> The 20th-century bromide was, "With the Democrats, you get war; with 
>> the Republicans, recession."  Among the 15 presidential elections 
>> since WWII, the Democrats could win the presidency when they ran 
>> against a Republican recession: 1960, 1976, 1992; the Republicans 
>> could win the presidency when they ran against a Democratic war: 1952, 
>> 1968, 2000.  Obviously that leaves nine elections when the patterns 
>> didn't obtain.  But this year they may clash.
>>
>> Since most Americans today see themselves to be in the midst of a 
>> recession, and the Republicans control the presidency, 2008 should be 
>> like the first set. But the Democrats have made the current Mideast 
>> war their own: given control of Congress in 2006 to end it, they 
>> refused to do so.  Obama tried to garner the anti-war vote, but it 
>> became clear that, far from being opposed to war in the Mideast, he 
>> was actually calling for more.  McCain can be like Eisenhower in 1952, 
>> Nixon in 1968, and Bush in 2000: while insisting on his patriotism, he 
>> can condemn the Democrats' handling of the war.   So the 2008 election 
>> might be like the second set.
>>
>> Which pattern will prevail?  In 1992, the Democrats said. "It's the 
>> economy, stupid."  But this time it might be the war. --CGE