General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: 5 Signs the United States Is Undergoing a Coup - James Fallows [View all]Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Was Clinton perfect? Absolutely not. But when you're coming out of essentially 30 years of Republican dominance, as was the case in 1992, you're not going to be able to lurch the country in a dramatically new direction. Clinton had his faults, but I think even most liberals would agree he was infinitely better than what we got from 2001-'09. The problem with that thinking, that you'll be apathetic, is that you continually lose ground. Bush was able to claim a mandate out of a narrow victory because Republicans, at the time, the Democrats had held the White House for all of twelve years between '69-'01. That stretch is unrivaled in modern American politics and ALLOWED the Republicans to tear everything Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Kennedy & LBJ built down.
The problem is that to build it back up, you need far more than eight years. Had liberals, and Americans, gone out and supported Gore in '00, instead of just sitting home and letting Bush win, liberalism would be so far more advanced today than it currently is. But because we regressed to pre-Clinton levels after such a short amount of time, we're at a point where every major policy has been, in some ways, shaped by the Reagan era - from trade agreements, to labor unions, to welfare.
What liberals need to understand is that it takes time to build that ideal society. Do you think the Republicans overturned the Progressive Era in one or two election cycles? Of course not. Eisenhower was far more moderate than Nixon and Nixon was more moderate than Reagan and Reagan was more moderate, in some ways, than Bush and Bush, fuck me sideways, is more moderate than these assholes running now. It took time. It took sucking it up and getting moderate politicians in there just to gain power. The only reason the Republicans went with Eisenhower in the 50s is because they knew he was their only chance to win. Without Eisenhower, the party doesn't see the White House again for at least another four years, maybe more. There is no Nixon run eight years later. There is no right-ward lurch because the party is so marginalized that it wouldn't exist anymore.
Politics is about adaption. The Republicans have been adapting and evolving and laying their foundation for the past 40 years. Democrats? It took them a while to figure it out. Prior to that, they were still nominating the same template of candidates that failed election after election - McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis. Clinton, warts and all, was the first Democrat to break through nationally and he did it because he was different than those three. Yes, he was more conservative. Yes, he did things that should make liberals squirm, but without him, we would have probably had Republican control for a generation and Lord knows where this country would be with an even longer extension of Reagan economics.
We're facing a similar situation in this election. Become apathetic because Obama isn't good enough and then you're going to watch the Republicans walk into the White House and absolutely destroy everything we've worked for and they'll do it with ease because Democrats can't hold on to power long enough to undo their whole fucking foundation, so it's far easier to build on that shit. When Democrats get in, they've got to not only fix the shit left by Republicans, but then turn around and pass their own agenda.
It's not easy.
Finally, if you're not voting, if you're voting third party, if you're sitting home on that first Tuesday in November, no matter what year, you shouldn't be considered a member of the party. It sounds harsh, but if you're not going to support the Democratic presidential candidate, whether it was Clinton, Gore, Kerry or Obama, you're not really a Democrat then in my book.