RE: Ronald Reagan running for president in 1980
I wasn't deeply involved in the 1980 campaign. For most of that year I was in a submarine and I got out of the Navy a week after the election. I have some strong recollections of certain things, though.
The entire country was sick to death of Jimmy Carter. It was far worse than the current Bush fatigue. Interest rates and unemployment had the economy in a shambles. Carter's complete bungling of every single foreign policy issue had the Soviets licking their chops. Carter tried to blame it on some ill-defined national malaise, but everyone knew the malaise was actually that we were all ready for Carter to disappear. Little did we know that he never would.
All the pundits and party insiders kept telling us that Reagan was a nobody. He was unelectable. The country wouldn't turn over the solemn reigns of power to a B-movie actor. What they failed to consider was that those solemn reigns were in the grip of a clown at the time. A B-movie actor was a definite step up. I can't think of a single person I knew at the time, Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, who doubted that Reagan would be the next President.
Then, as now, the GOP was its own worst enemy. The country-clubbers had managed to rework Nixon's image as that of a conservative. In that, they were aided and abetted by the media. They combined that with the sing-song of unelectability from the punditry and made a strong push on grounds that Reagan couldn't pull in moderates unless he picked up a moderate VP. I think the Reagan campaign made a tactical blunder at that time. I think even they underestimated how well Reagan would do. When they announced that Reagan had picked Bush, everyone knew that the country-clubbers had muscled the Reagan campaign into the deal. I always thought that was a mistake. I was right.
With respect to the quality of the conventions, if they were better, it was probably because there was a more clear-cut delineation between the parties back then. Also, I suspect the party insiders were better at holding the press at arm's length when it came to the "smoky back room." The GOP "moderates" hadn't quite figured out how to take advantage of any position as welfare Santa Claus, that stance still belonged solely to the Democrats. The GOP was still offering at least the hope of libertarianism. As well, there was still some drama surrounding the conventions. No one had been "anointed" by the time they rolled around, so the convention actually still had a little meaning. At conventions today, the candidates have already been selected by the party oligarchs, so the delegates are merely fighting for issue scraps. The party machinery has become so ingrained in the election process that the conventions are little more than ceremonial.
Consider this: the American electoral process pretty much froze after 1984. We have been in the grip of dynastic succession since 1988. It is very likely that Hillary will succeed to the throne in the Oval Office and there is no reason to believe she won't be there for eight years. I would say that probably will finish off even the veneer of democracy that exists now. We will have operated under an oligarchy for thirty years. I expect the power class will drop any pretense of needing the approval of the masses. I couldn't predict whether we will continue the dynasty-swapping model, it really can't go on much longer since the only Clinton left after the Beast will be Chelsea. Maybe we'll adopt the late Roman model and split the country between co-emperors. By then, the North American Union should be in place and negotiations for the Trans-American Union will be well underway. Maybe we'll have Northern and Southern emperors. That would certainly be cleaner that any dynasty-swapping arrangement.
Whatever happens, there won't ever be a return to the political model that existed in 1980.
The entire country was sick to death of Jimmy Carter. It was far worse than the current Bush fatigue. Interest rates and unemployment had the economy in a shambles. Carter's complete bungling of every single foreign policy issue had the Soviets licking their chops. Carter tried to blame it on some ill-defined national malaise, but everyone knew the malaise was actually that we were all ready for Carter to disappear. Little did we know that he never would.
All the pundits and party insiders kept telling us that Reagan was a nobody. He was unelectable. The country wouldn't turn over the solemn reigns of power to a B-movie actor. What they failed to consider was that those solemn reigns were in the grip of a clown at the time. A B-movie actor was a definite step up. I can't think of a single person I knew at the time, Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, who doubted that Reagan would be the next President.
Then, as now, the GOP was its own worst enemy. The country-clubbers had managed to rework Nixon's image as that of a conservative. In that, they were aided and abetted by the media. They combined that with the sing-song of unelectability from the punditry and made a strong push on grounds that Reagan couldn't pull in moderates unless he picked up a moderate VP. I think the Reagan campaign made a tactical blunder at that time. I think even they underestimated how well Reagan would do. When they announced that Reagan had picked Bush, everyone knew that the country-clubbers had muscled the Reagan campaign into the deal. I always thought that was a mistake. I was right.
With respect to the quality of the conventions, if they were better, it was probably because there was a more clear-cut delineation between the parties back then. Also, I suspect the party insiders were better at holding the press at arm's length when it came to the "smoky back room." The GOP "moderates" hadn't quite figured out how to take advantage of any position as welfare Santa Claus, that stance still belonged solely to the Democrats. The GOP was still offering at least the hope of libertarianism. As well, there was still some drama surrounding the conventions. No one had been "anointed" by the time they rolled around, so the convention actually still had a little meaning. At conventions today, the candidates have already been selected by the party oligarchs, so the delegates are merely fighting for issue scraps. The party machinery has become so ingrained in the election process that the conventions are little more than ceremonial.
Consider this: the American electoral process pretty much froze after 1984. We have been in the grip of dynastic succession since 1988. It is very likely that Hillary will succeed to the throne in the Oval Office and there is no reason to believe she won't be there for eight years. I would say that probably will finish off even the veneer of democracy that exists now. We will have operated under an oligarchy for thirty years. I expect the power class will drop any pretense of needing the approval of the masses. I couldn't predict whether we will continue the dynasty-swapping model, it really can't go on much longer since the only Clinton left after the Beast will be Chelsea. Maybe we'll adopt the late Roman model and split the country between co-emperors. By then, the North American Union should be in place and negotiations for the Trans-American Union will be well underway. Maybe we'll have Northern and Southern emperors. That would certainly be cleaner that any dynasty-swapping arrangement.
Whatever happens, there won't ever be a return to the political model that existed in 1980.
posted by Anonymous | 9:21 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home