Game-changing elections (a history thread)

[Kent_Clark]

The problem with transformative elections is that it takes awhile to judge whether they’re truly transformative.

1960 was seen at the time as being transformative. For the first time, both candidates came from the WW2 generation. For the first time, a Catholic was elected. As it turned out, the only “tranformative” thing that came out of the election was the impact of television on campaigns.

1976 was also supposed to be seen as transformative. The first post-Watergate presidency, the emergence of “outsider” Jimmy Carter. It really wasn’t.

By contrast, 1968 featured Nixon and Humphrey, two insiders. The candidacy of George Wallace was seen simply as a spoiler, not the end of the Democrats" “solid South.” While Kevin Phillipsgot it right, few others did at the time.

And the election of 1980 didn’t seem to be transformative at the time. Reagan was seen as a nice old guy, but not as someone who’d be able to effect so many changes in the direction the U.S. would take.

[2sense]

@Freddy_the_Pig

That strikes me as an extremely cartoonish characterization of the advocates of the First B.U.S. Stable banking and a credit-worthy government benefit all classes in society. (As we see in the current subprime mess, too-easy credit isn’t exactly a panacea for the less wealthy.) I could just as well characterize the opponents of the BUS as landed aristocrats eager to forestall competition from upstart merchants.

I hadn’t intended it as a characterization but merely as a description of one aspect of the overall banking plan. Certainly there was more to the bank than strengthening the economic, and thus social, position of gentlemen.

[Sage_Rat]

@2sense

Gentlemen were the upper class

But like I said, they did not think of it in those terms. It’s like complaining that, in modern day, we are unfair to gorillas by not giving them the chance to ask for a loan.

2sense, you are oppressing the gorilla people!