george bush & harry truman
I was wondering if there were any historical parallels for Bush’s victory, and Harry Truman popped into mind. (Note: In 1948, when Truman ran for re-election, he had been President for almost four years -- FDR having died a few months into his fourth term.)
The parallels:
Like Bush, Truman was a hick from the south.
Like Bush, he seemed at first glance to be utterly unequipped for the job he had gotten almost by accident.
Like Bush, he had taken a controversial and deadly action -- dropping an atom bomb on two defenseless Japanese cities.
Like Bush, he had a wild-hair-up-the-ass idea: that he could reconstruct Europe if Congress passed something called the Marshall Plan.
Like Bush, he was universally regarded as a lightweight by the media (okay, newspapers) elite based in Boston, New York, and Washington.
And, like Bush, Truman’s opponent in 1948 was a cautious, smooth-talking Ivy Leaguer with lots of friends in the media.
Everyone in the press, everyone who was anyone, assumed Tom Dewey would clean Harry Truman’s clock. They couldn’t quite grasp the possibility that ordinary Americans in the middle of the country might take a gander at Dewey and come to the conclusion that he was snooty and kind of wishy-washy and you couldn't be quite sure where he stood on things. With Truman you knew where he stood, even if you disagreed with him.
And the people who thought they had it all figured out couldn’t read an electoral map.
If you looked at how people voted in 1948, the BLUE (Democrat) states would be in the middle, and the RED (Republican) states would be on the two coasts and in urban areas… precisely the reverse of the electoral map today. (Truman did win California, but barely).
In 1948, it was the Democrats in middle America who had the hopeful vision of what a democratic Europe might look like. Sure, it was going to cost taxpayers some money, and require some sacrifices on America's part in the short term, but in the long term, most of those farmers and factory workers with a high school education but a graduate degree in common sense seemed to sense they'd be better off in the long run living on the other side of the ocean from an economically secure Europe where people had the vote. And it was the timid Republicans on the two coasts who were saying, Oooh, gee, what about spending that money on jobs here at home? while they sipped their martinis and chuckled at New Yorker cartoons.
In 1948, it was the Democrats who were the military hawks and the Republicans who were the isolationist doves. In 1948, it was the Democrats who were the inclusive and tolerant party of the people in the middle of the country. The party favored by wealthy, educated, and sophisticated urbanites -- exclusive and intolerant -- was the Republicans back then.
The political parties in America have done an almost perfect 180 degree spin.
The Democrats of Harry Truman’s time (salt of the earth kind of people) have become George Bush Republicans.
And all those stylish bi-coastal Republicans who thought Truman was an unsophisticated hick have morphed into (gasp!) John Kerry Democrats.
No wonder I’m having trouble with my party affiliation.
The parallels:
Like Bush, Truman was a hick from the south.
Like Bush, he seemed at first glance to be utterly unequipped for the job he had gotten almost by accident.
Like Bush, he had taken a controversial and deadly action -- dropping an atom bomb on two defenseless Japanese cities.
Like Bush, he had a wild-hair-up-the-ass idea: that he could reconstruct Europe if Congress passed something called the Marshall Plan.
Like Bush, he was universally regarded as a lightweight by the media (okay, newspapers) elite based in Boston, New York, and Washington.
And, like Bush, Truman’s opponent in 1948 was a cautious, smooth-talking Ivy Leaguer with lots of friends in the media.
Everyone in the press, everyone who was anyone, assumed Tom Dewey would clean Harry Truman’s clock. They couldn’t quite grasp the possibility that ordinary Americans in the middle of the country might take a gander at Dewey and come to the conclusion that he was snooty and kind of wishy-washy and you couldn't be quite sure where he stood on things. With Truman you knew where he stood, even if you disagreed with him.
And the people who thought they had it all figured out couldn’t read an electoral map.
If you looked at how people voted in 1948, the BLUE (Democrat) states would be in the middle, and the RED (Republican) states would be on the two coasts and in urban areas… precisely the reverse of the electoral map today. (Truman did win California, but barely).
In 1948, it was the Democrats in middle America who had the hopeful vision of what a democratic Europe might look like. Sure, it was going to cost taxpayers some money, and require some sacrifices on America's part in the short term, but in the long term, most of those farmers and factory workers with a high school education but a graduate degree in common sense seemed to sense they'd be better off in the long run living on the other side of the ocean from an economically secure Europe where people had the vote. And it was the timid Republicans on the two coasts who were saying, Oooh, gee, what about spending that money on jobs here at home? while they sipped their martinis and chuckled at New Yorker cartoons.
In 1948, it was the Democrats who were the military hawks and the Republicans who were the isolationist doves. In 1948, it was the Democrats who were the inclusive and tolerant party of the people in the middle of the country. The party favored by wealthy, educated, and sophisticated urbanites -- exclusive and intolerant -- was the Republicans back then.
The political parties in America have done an almost perfect 180 degree spin.
The Democrats of Harry Truman’s time (salt of the earth kind of people) have become George Bush Republicans.
And all those stylish bi-coastal Republicans who thought Truman was an unsophisticated hick have morphed into (gasp!) John Kerry Democrats.
No wonder I’m having trouble with my party affiliation.
posted by patrickhenry at 1:44 AM
1 Comments:
When Ronald Reagan was asked why he became a Republican, he quipped:
"I didn't leave the Domocratic Party -- the Democratic Party left me."
He made the switch during the 1960s.
It seems to be a general consensus that the Democratic Party of FDR is the Republican Party of today; the same argument probably can be said about the Republican Party.
HR may not have been a typical Democrat of the day. Maybe he was a Reformist. TR wasn't your typical Republican of the day. He went into politics precisely because his family hated politics.
Perhaps you have no identity crisis when it comes to party affiliation. Perhaps HT, a Democrat, was a reformist Democrat, just like TR, a Republican, was a Reformist Republican. Perhaps the Bull Moose Party, TR, and HT all would be part of the Reform Party of today (minus Pat Buchanan). Perhaps your fault is in your attempt to associate yourself with one of the two major parties, rather than the Reform Party. What did you think of Gov Jesse Ventura?
Post a Comment
<< Home