I have been musing about this subject for a while and thought about posting a few weeks ago and just did not want to engage the conversation at the time. But, with the back and forth on Garafolo's stupid remark and people posting that they are tired of the bickering between the parties and some people disgusted with the Democrats Stink/Republicans Stink ping-pong, I have a theory on how we have gotten to where we are and where we are going from here.

The Republicans were the "House Organ" (note the change in verbiage for clarification) for so many years when Tip O'Neil was in charge of the House and Democrats controlled the Senate for most of that time. The Republicans had well-behaved, non-combative minority leaders like Gerald Ford, Micheal Mansfield and Howard Baker. The Democrats threw the minority a bone every so often to get everyone along.

Then, in the 1980's O'Neil retired and a group of Republicans, under Newt Gingrinch, decided to challenge the orthodoxy. Jim Wright, who had all of the ambition of Tip O'Neil with none of the old Irish graciousness, was outed as the Speaker, the Democrats bork Bork, and, next thing you know, partisonship erupts in Congress.

The partisonship went to a new level with Clarence Thomas, the nation had a "hissy fit" (according to the mainstream media) in 1994, Gingrinch steps into the House Leadership as Speaker (and holds court as the shadow President in the new government), Clinton forces a shut down of the federal government in 1995/1996 and successfully leaves Newt Gingrinch holding the bloody knife when the cameras get there for the scene, and we all know the rest of the story.

The entire cause of "partisonship" in federal government today goes back to a shift in the electorate's preference for conservative government and the old Order's resistance to accept the change in times. The "Watergate Era" media establishment cannot accept the change, either, and is the useful tool of the Democrats in their struggle to thwart the evolution of politics.

We are now seeing a new generation of leaders in both the federal government and in the media beginning to form up behind the lines. They are preparing to very soon take over the functions of the old guard and turn the attention of politics toward a middle ground again, with the Democrats looking for acceptance from the majority, along with the occasional "bone" just to say they are doing something useful.

Look at the races in the Senate. What seat is most likely to turn over to the other party's candidate in November? Tom Daschele's . He is virtually dead even with John Thune even though he is the Democrat's leader in the Senate, a long time South Dakota senator, and has outspent his opponent. What obstructionist senator is most likely not running for reelection in his next term? Ted Kennedy. The Senate will most likely gain seats this term and force the old guard democrats to take their last gasp of devisive breath.

The House has not been the obstruction in the system. The Senate has. Voters understand this even though the old guard democrats will not recognize this in time.

The nation's media is undergoing a change, also. Network television news has lost vast ground to cable, the internet and radio as the public looks for more diversified news coverage. Even the Washington Post has recently been more discerning in its coverage of the election and is more willing to call the news as it is than as it has wished it to be.

Pull up a chair and watch history unfold. It will last a generation.

Did you ever hear the story of Cain and Able? It is human nature.

RandyMc Wrote:I have been musing about this subject for a while and thought about posting a few weeks ago and just did not want to engage the conversation at the time. But, with the back and forth on Garafolo's stupid remark and people posting that they are tired of the bickering between the parties and some people disgusted with the Democrats Stink/Republicans Stink ping-pong, I have a theory on how we have gotten to where we are and where we are going from here.

The Republicans were the "House Organ" (note the change in verbiage for clarification) for so many years when Tip O'Neil was in charge of the House and Democrats controlled the Senate for most of that time. The Republicans had well-behaved, non-combative minority leaders like Gerald Ford, Micheal Mansfield and Howard Baker. The Democrats threw the minority a bone every so often to get everyone along.

Then, in the 1980's O'Neil retired and a group of Republicans, under Newt Gingrinch, decided to challenge the orthodoxy. Jim Wright, who had all of the ambition of Tip O'Neil with none of the old Irish graciousness, was outed as the Speaker, the Democrats bork Bork, and, next thing you know, partisonship erupts in Congress.

The partisonship went to a new level with Clarence Thomas, the nation had a "hissy fit" (according to the mainstream media) in 1994, Gingrinch steps into the House Leadership as Speaker (and holds court as the shadow President in the new government), Clinton forces a shut down of the federal government in 1995/1996 and successfully leaves Newt Gingrinch holding the bloody knife when the cameras get there for the scene, and we all know the rest of the story.

The entire cause of "partisonship" in federal government today goes back to a shift in the electorate's preference for conservative government and the old Order's resistance to accept the change in times. The "Watergate Era" media establishment cannot accept the change, either, and is the useful tool of the Democrats in their struggle to thwart the evolution of politics.

We are now seeing a new generation of leaders in both the federal government and in the media beginning to form up behind the lines. They are preparing to very soon take over the functions of the old guard and turn the attention of politics toward a middle ground again, with the Democrats looking for acceptance from the majority, along with the occasional "bone" just to say they are doing something useful.

Look at the races in the Senate. What seat is most likely to turn over to the other party's candidate in November? Tom Daschele's . He is virtually dead even with John Thune even though he is the Democrat's leader in the Senate, a long time South Dakota senator, and has outspent his opponent. What obstructionist senator is most likely not running for reelection in his next term? Ted Kennedy. The Senate will most likely gain seats this term and force the old guard democrats to take their last gasp of devisive breath.

The House has not been the obstruction in the system. The Senate has. Voters understand this even though the old guard democrats will not recognize this in time.

The nation's media is undergoing a change, also. Network television news has lost vast ground to cable, the internet and radio as the public looks for more diversified news coverage. Even the Washington Post has recently been more discerning in its coverage of the election and is more willing to call the news as it is than as it has wished it to be.

Pull up a chair and watch history unfold. It will last a generation.

I don't know if you've read Joe Klien's outstanding short biography of Bill Clinton, "The Natural", but he dedicates a chapter to exactly this subject (bear in mind though, he is looking back it from the partisanship of the Clinton years, not of today, though granted thats not much difference).

His timeline of events matches pretty clearly with yours. Gingrich was instrumental, but the Watergate effect can't be underestimated, particularly all the reforms, notably the Ethics in Government Act in 1978, the Independent Counsel Statute...campaign finance regulations...all of this created a framework for an environment where congressional investigations could become a primary tool for political fighting. We see this carrying through today. Anytime anything happens in this country, there is a congressional committee of some sort demanding a committee investigation...often with several committees investigating the same issue. its a proliferation of investigation, driven mainly by the motivation to use these inquiries as political tools. Both parties do it.

Also, the rise of the political action committee (PAC) to counter the influence of public advocacy groups during the 1970's played a part. Gingrich's CPAC is a behemoth that changed the face of politics, changed the way the game was played.

But thats just the systemic level issues. Personalities also played a part. Klien talks about how during C-SPAN's early years, Gingrich gave a speech on the floor late at night with nobody else in the chamber, questioning the patriotism of some Democratic members. The cameras, of course, were focused in purely on Newt, per house rules. The video clips don't show the empty chamber. Its a pretty cheap way to attack fellow members when they can't defend themselves, and when there is no indication the the viewer that is the case. So Tip O'Niell decides to change the rules for C-SPAN and demand they pan to show an empty chamber. Gingrich, speaking on the floor the next day, took Tip to task for making the decision unilaterally. Tip snapped back that what Gingrich did was "Un-American" and disgraceful. So Trent Lott, then a House member, demanded that the remarks be stricken from the record due to a House rule about not insulting fellow members. Joe Moakley, acting in the chair of Speaker that day reluctantly agreed to do so, and O'Neill had thus been humiliated by Gingrich. Tip had to hit back.

When he did, in the McLoskey affair in which the Democrats controversially seated an Indiana congressmen that won based on a sketchy recount, it was with the type of arrogant political shenanigans that just fed the fire of the Gingrich partisan machine. Remember, all this was happening against the backdrop of the post-watergate years and the ethics regulations. There was an attitude in the country that Gingrich exploited. So Gingrich hit back with the Jim Wright fiasco, and then Bork followed that.

I reccomend Klein's book if you have time. Recent history is so fascinating because so many of the characters are still with us, though the scenery has changed.

I think you need to study a bit more history. We have two partys with different ideas how to run the country. Partisonship has always been around, sometimes its worse than other times. Study the politics of the civil war or pre civil war where political opponents used to fight duels, now thats partisonship! :D

Skipuno Wrote:I think you need to study a bit more history. We have two partys with different ideas how to run the country. Partisonship has always been around, sometimes its worse than other times. Study the politics of the civil war or pre civil war where political opponents used to fight duels, now thats partisonship! :D

No, the climate is different now than it was 20-30 years ago.

There was a time when congressional Democrats and congressional Republicans were civil to another. People have always disagreed, but its much more an us-them mentality now. A lot of the guys leading the charge in the Senate on the Watergate hearings were Republicans. That would never happen now...its like these guys are bunkered in for a perpetual war with eachother, based on the hope that they will get into power and be able to dominate...it used to be that while the party's had fundemental disagreements, they were both always willing to compromise.

Now the parties never compromise on legislation. They simply don't work toegether. In some sense, you'd think this would be a good thing, because at least government spending would slow. But of course, thats just about the only thing they agree on, they both like wasting taxpayer's money.

20-30 years ago, there were surely strong disagreements, but they manifested themselves in strong, vigorous, and substantive debates on the floor. Now the areas of disagreement are hashed out bitterly on talking head shows and talk radio...and the attacks aren't substantive at all, they are character-based invectives, hyperbole-laced tirades having more to do with style than substance.

I don't know how old you are or how much you know history, but there was a time in American politics when you wouldn't compare a politician to Hitler just because you disagreed with someone's stand on issues. There was a time when you wouldn't see a sitting vice-President drop an F-bomb on a ranking Senate member on the floor of the Senate. There was a time when a suicide of a white-house staffer did not lead to calls for a criminal investigation about whether or not he was murdered by the first lady.

No, things are different now. We've come a long way. Politics used to be about a national conversation...Politicians engaged the public on their ideas, and engaged eachother in substantive debates. Now, not only are leaders on either side not talking to eachother, they aren't really even talking to the broader public, they are mostly talking to their own bases, through their own specialized media outlets. Politics has become the non-stop search for some banal thing to hit the other guy over the head with and then lift his scalp to show to the masses of people who already agreed with you. Thats what this forum is all about.

The best proof of heightened partisanship and bitterness we have now is the glaring lack of discussion on any of the MAJOR substantive issues facing this country...We should be having real debates on our energy policy, our Iran policy, our China policy, Social Security, Healthcare costs rising at what seems like an exponential rate...we're in tough, tough times. These are all major issues, and we've heard NOTHING substantive on any of them that doesn't involve a personal insult.

The second best proof is the failure of the past two administrations to replenish the Federal Bench. Our Federal courts need to fill vacancies...the idea of dragging mere District Court appointees through the mudd to score political points while our bench is nothing more than skeleton of its former self would have seemed disgraceful years ago, and now its par for the course.

Make no mistake, things are VERY different in America now, and we are all to blame.

Its not very hard to understand the current political situation. It started in 92 when the demacrats lost congress, although you started to see some when Reagan was president. For the forty years prior to 92 demacrats were in control and congressional republicans had little power. All that changed, after 92 the demacrats pulled out all the stops to get congress back, saying republicans wanted to kill women and children, bringing up any thing against Newt Gingrich that might stick,etc. Then republicans tried the impeach Clinton, things have gone down hill from there. You seem to think that here and now US politics are the worst they have ever been. You think that the Vice President saying the F-word to and opponent is just terrible, You should read up on Lyndon Baines Johnson sometime. You say there used to be substantive debate but now issues are hashed out on talk shows. During the civil war the issue of slavery was hashed out on the battlefield. Also modern day jounalism is quite tame compared to the media of the past, alot of political reporting of yesteryear would be considered tabloid journalisim by todays standards. As I say you should read more history. :D

Skipuno Wrote:Its not very hard to understand the current political situation. It started in 92 when the demacrats lost congress, although you started to see some when Reagan was president. For the forty years prior to 92 demacrats were in control and congressional republicans had little power. All that changed, after 92 the demacrats pulled out all the stops to get congress back, saying republicans wanted to kill women and children, bringing up any thing against Newt Gingrich that might stick,etc. Then republicans tried the impeach Clinton, things have gone down hill from there. You seem to think that here and now US politics are the worst they have ever been. You think that the Vice President saying the F-word to and opponent is just terrible, You should read up on Lyndon Baines Johnson sometime. You say there used to be substantive debate but now issues are hashed out on talk shows. During the civil war the issue of slavery was hashed out on the battlefield. Also modern day jounalism is quite tame compared to the media of the past, alot of political reporting of yesteryear would be considered tabloid journalisim by todays standards. As I say you should read more history. :D

I think I've read more history than you think...I did read Beschloss' book on LBJ, I've seen the transcripts (those are private phone conversations, by the way, not said in public on the Senate floor while the Senate photo was being taken). And what, do you think I wasn't familiar with the civil war or something?

Perhaps you should read some of the recent history that Randy and I are speaking of. And believe me, you will see that there was a definite beginning to this partisanship and it was more during the 70's and 80's.

You state that this started when Bill Clinton loss Congress in '92. Three problems with that:

1)It contradicts your other contention that this has always existed

2)It ignores a host of issues during the 1980's which you either didn't read or didn't understand from what Randy and I posted? Have you not heard of Robert Bork? John Tower? Willie Horton?

3)Bill Clinton won election in 1992. The Democrats lost congress in 1994.

Perhaps I'm not the one who needs to read more history. :laugh: