Will history repeat itself? (But in a good way)

[Stoic]

I'm reading William E. Leuchtenburg's "Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal" (Harper Torchbooks, pp. 116-117) and came on this (emphasis mine)...

"The outcome of the 1934 elections demonstrated the force both of the radical spirit and of Roosevelt's popularity. Traditionally, the party in power loses a substantial number of seats in an off-year election. As the November, 1934, congressional elections approached, the tide was running so strongly Democratic that John Garner guessed that the Republicans would win only thirty-seven seats in the House, a gain so small it could be regarded as "a complete victory" for the Roosevelt administration. Most observers thought the G.O.P. gains would be more substantial. No one was prepared for the actual results. Expected to pick up a few score seats, the Republicans lost thirteen instead. The voters elected a new House of 322 Democrats, 103 Republicans, and ten Progressives or Farmer-Laborites. Never in the history of the Republican party had its percentage of house seats fallen so low. In the Senate the rout of the G.O.P. was even more devastating. There the Democrats won better than two-thirds majority, the greatest margin either party had ever held in the history of the upper house. The nine new Democratic senators-one was Missouri's Judge Harry Truman- swelled the party's total to a dazzling sixty-nine seats.

If there was an issue in the campaign, it was Roosevelt: the election was a thumping personal victory for the President. Even Republicans had invoked Roosevelt's name to get elected. William Allen White commented: "He has been all but crowned by the people." The elections almost erased the Republican party as a national force. They left the G.O.P. with only seven governorships, less than a third of Congress, no program of any substance, no leader with a popular appeal and none on the horizon."

Now, of course, this was an off-year congressional election. But the general election that brought Roosevelt to the White House (i.e. an immensely unpopular Republican administration) is looking a lot like today. If we can put a popular, smart, BOLD candidate in the WH next year, I wouldn't be surprised if history would repeat itself in 2010.

[monmouth]

1. From your keyboard to God's ear...n/t

[smirkymonkey]

2. K&R!

:kick:

[Demeter]

3. Marx said, "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."

No happy endings there....

I'm expecting that whatever is left of the GOP after 2008 will be RICOed out of existence for organized crimes.

[Peace Patriot]

4. What struck me about this description is how similar it was to Hugo Chavez's '06 victory.

Chavez has steadily increased his percentage of votes, over several elections, to an overwhelming 63% in 2006. I think his popularity stands at about 70%, currently. And the rightwing opposition is in disarray. They committed the stupid error of boycotting the last legislative elections, and lost more seats, leaving Chavez with a National Assembly that is overwhelmingly pro-Chavez (although made up of many parties). It should also be noted that Venezuela's elections are among the most highly monitored on earth--are far, far more transparent than our own--and have been certified as honest and aboveboard by the Carter Center, the OAS and EU election monitoring groups. So these are real numbers. Chavez is hugely popular, and for much the same reason as FDR. He has been pulling the country--and the region--out of desperate financial straits and poverty--by visionary progressive programs.

Faced with a real convergence of leadership with the will of the people, the rightwing has little to say, except that the leader is a "dictator." They said it of FDR. The Bushites, collusive Democrats, the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, and certain Vatican prelates, say it of Chavez. He's not, you know. But they say it. As with FDR, these forces fear not so much the man as the people who support him. They fear democracy and social justice.

I don't see the resemblance between the 1934 Congressional elections and today--partly because I don't see a "radical spirit" in the Democratic Party leadership. I see some change, and some insurgent leftist (majorityist) movements within the party, but nothing like FDR and the New Deal. And the current Democratic Congress seems VERY retro.

Another important factor is our party's leadership's betrayal of us, and of democracy, in their support for non-transparent vote counting by "trade secret" code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, in extremely insecure and insider riggable electronic voting systems. I think these Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia election theft machines have greatly influenced the composition of the Congress (toward fascism) and kept Bush/Cheney in the White House in 2004. Money was/is also a factor. But the "trade secret" vote counting is the coup de grace, in an already corrupt election system. It makes change and reform impossible.

These are VERY DIFFERENT conditions than those current in the mid-1930s. Today, you have to have at least a million dollars to even think of running for Congress. This bars ordinary people--and many potential great representatives of the people--from office. The campaign contributions and lobbying systems are so-o-o-o filthy, so entrenched, with billions and billions of dollars in the mix. And when you add Diebold/ES&S "trade secret" vote counting, you have a nearly immovable political system.

Finally, this entrenched and very fascist and corrupt political system is desperately trying to establish the candidate who will put a 'Democratic' brand on Corporate Rule and corporate resource wars. Once our Corporate Rulers have settled upon that candidate, they will Diebold him or her into office, and "swift-boat" all the others into the dustbin.* I think that's their plan anyway. I think Hillary is probably their pick. They are certainly giving her every advantage in the corporate media. But whether that is the case or not, we have some very difficult political and election system problems that are unique to our era, to today, that we have never faced before.

Two questions we must ask: If there is a Democratic sweep (bigger than in '06), what kind of Democrats are we talking about? Real Democrats, or Bushites in sheep's clothing? Is it a "radical spirit" that is winning, or merely a change from "R" to "D," with essentially the same policies? What will a Corporatist and "free trader" and supporter of Mideast War, with a "D" by his or her name, DO--with the powers of an emperor and dictator that Bush/Cheney have pioneered? And what will a similarly constituted Congress DO--be merely a compliant lapdog to the new Emperor or Empress?

Until we restore transparent vote counting, I don't think a "radical spirit"--such as that of the New Deal--can win. POSSIBLY, the right candidate could so inspire people that they will outvote the machines--blow the machines away, with an overwhelming vote. It has occurred to me that Al Gore is capable of such a blowout success. Edwards might be. But Clinton is not in the running (for new FDR) because of her policies; Obama is much too careful of the Corporate Rulers to inspire such a vote; Kucinich has the ideas but not the screen presence. And the rest of the field (Dodd, Richardson) are such slimebags I won't even go into it. And there may well be some "radical spirit" Congressfolk and Senators elected, but Diebold/ES&S control of election outcomes guarantees that there will be no "radical spirit" sweep--and no majority.

This is OUR situation--very different from the one that FDR was first elected in. Some other things are, indeed, similar--a hated Republican regime, a greedy and irresponsible rich elite, and economic meltdown (looming, in this case) following vast military expenditures for a vastly wasteful and unnecessary war (WW I). In our case, not exactly breadlines, millions homeless and out of work, and the 'Dust Bowl'--not quite yet. But certainly very serious economic hardship, and no one doing anything about it.

Also, I think we are in much more danger of a true Hitler arising than was the case in the 1930s here--perhaps after four years of more Corporatism and looting (and a military Draft) under a "D" regime. We need a president and congress who will act to prevent that--who will UNDO all the fascist powers that Bush/Cheney have grabbed. Undo them definitively and forever. Disavow them. I do not see that in ANY candidate (except Kucinich). They are all running for Emperor, even Edwards.

---------------------------------------------

*(This may be one of the purposes of the pervasive domestic spying--it's really Corporate Ruler spying. And I think it's already been used at least once--to drive Calif Sec of State Kevin Shelley from office, on bogus corruption charges. Shelley had sued Diebold, decertified their touchscreens and demanded to see their source code, six months before the 2004 election.)

[illinoisprogressive]

5. I have studied Roosevelt and have felt this to be a FDR kind of election.

I keep thinking of FDR this season. This was an incredible man. I have wondered what it was like to live then and see him campaign. He was concidered a lightweight by the pundits in 32. charismatic and not too much the policy heavyweight. The country was hurting they needed a hero. The people chose him because he seemed like a hero. He made them feel like things would be okay.
And he had new ideas for the country.
A famous series on it had as the first book, crisis of the old order. the crash.
then, the other two were the new order. The new deal and the rise of FDR.

[AtomicKitten]

6. we can hope

[Odin2005]

7. Yes, political realignments happen in cycles and we are due for one.

We are currently shifting to the communitarian "government is a force for good" part of the cycle, like in the time period 1929 to 1964.