I think Krugman is full of prunes. His examples merely show Republicans striving to win electons. There are comparable examples on the other side. Just as there were pro-Bush demonstrations, there were anti-Bush demonstrations, which were quite a bit larger BTW. Just as many Republicans go into industry, many Democrats go into media in key news-realted positions. Consider, e.g., Tim Russert, George Stephenopolis, Chris Matthews, Cokie Roberts, Sam Donaldson, and Dan Rather.
During the last few decades, Democrats in the US have always outnumbered Republicans. The last poll I saw showed that the Republicans were only 2 percentage points behind. It seems overwrought to complain about domination by the Republicans at when they are still a minority party.
OTOH Krugman deserves respect as Princeton professor and well-known pundit. Maybe he’s right. Maybe the Republicans are entering a long period of total dominance.
Was this a Democratic majority in actual political positions held, percentage of citizens identifying themselves with the party, or both? And do you have a cite for this?
This is, of course, assuming that there is any substantial difference between your Republican and Democratic parties. There is a phrase that seems to apply: “the narcissism of small differences”… As much as there are very vocal partisans of the party labels, your two political parties are, to a great many non-Americans, almost indistinguishable… this may go a long way in accounting for the personal vitriol that seems to characterize a lot of American political discussions… the differences between the parties are so small, that the partisans of each party have to resort to personalizing everything.
In agreement with bagkitty, the US has been governed by a rabidly right-wing administration for several decades. I cannot see this changing in the near future.
Krugman is half right- the U.S. is becoming TWO one-party nations. Remember the electoral college map from the last election, showing a mass of red states and a mass of blue states? That appears to be the future, because there are very few “swing” states any more.
The states that went for Al Gore last time are (mostly) safe Democratic states that will never go Republican again, and will never elect Republicans to high offices… unless those Republicans are indistinguishable from the Democrats. And most of the states that went for Bush last time will remain safely and (nearly) unanimously Republican for the foreseeable future.
Don’t fall into the trap of thinking the status quo is all that the future can ever be. Look at CA right now-- the biggest blue state of them all. Gov Davis has inflamed voters to the point that a recall is a real possibility. And GWB is ahead in the polls now.
Krugman’s comments seem to be akin to HRC’s “vast right-wing conspiracy”. I actually thought this thread would be about how little difference there is betweens Dems and Pubs.
Sentient Meat: I guess you’d include Clinton’s 8 years in office as part of the rabid right-wing adminstrations of the last decades?
True. The scary part is that in events where Bush himself was actually present, the pro-Bush demonstraters got to line up along the route, see and be seen. The anti-Bush demonstraters ended up crowded into out-of-the-way parking lots that had been designated as “free speech zones”. It seems to me that turning the apparatus of the state(the police officers who enforce these “zones”) towards your political advantage gets the US a step closer to the kind of single-party stranglehold the PRI had in Mexico for so long. Baby steps are still steps.
I would guess he would Jonh. The Dem.'s are still quite right wing when compared to European left wing thinking eg. Labour in the UK under Blair has moved very much towards the center but on most issues would still be considered considerably left of the Dem.'s
The latter. That is, number of registered voters IIRC.
After a hasty search, I didn’t find the cite. I saw it in the news around a week or two ago.
Mtgman, the “anti-Bush” demonstrations I meant to refer to were formally anti-war demonstrations, just as the “pro-Bush” demonstration that Krugman complained about was really “Support our President on the war.” The “Pro-Bush” demonstration was presented as a way of opposing the anti-war demonstrations.
Obviously the anti-war demonstrations got huge publicity. The size of those demonstrations and the news coverage they received both argue against the idea that we live in a one-party system, where the Republicans control the media.
I do agree with Krugman that there is possibility of a big Republican victory in 2004, for a number of reasons:[ul][]Republicans are catching up in voter registration.[]Republicans won an unusual vitory in an off-year 2002 election.[]Bush is popular; Republican candidates appear relatively weak.[]Bush has stolen some Democratic issues, e.g., prescription drug coverage in Medicare and Campaign Finance Reform.[]Republicans are currently raising a lot more money.[]Democrats face a series of bruising Presidential primaries.[]There’s no 3rd Party candidate to siphon Republican votes away.[]Democrats political leadership is in disarray.[/ul]
While no one really controls the media, it is notably conservative these days with the Clear Channel pro-war rallies, Fox News, MSNBC, and such. And reporting on a rally is pretty much mandatory, since it is in fact news.
Those demonstrators were there because it is a one-party system. The Democrats were too afraid to oppose Bush, so people felt they had to get the message heard, because no one else was publicly saying it.
Nonsense – if you looked at the actual numbers from the last Presidential election, you’ll see that most of the states were swing states, with one candidate winning only by a relatively small margin.
The infamous red/blue map is a load of prunes (to use december’s phrase), an attempt by conservatives to “prove” Bush won the election. The problem is that it reduces each state to a binary status – either for Bush or for Gore – and loses the subtleties in the process. A state that voted 49% Gore/51% Bush would be marked as a “Bush win,” even though 49% of the voters there would disagree with that.
I can’t remember where I saw it, but someone once did a refined version of the map with an entire spectrum from red to blue – red was for solidly Bush states, blue was for solidly Gore states, and swing states were rather purpleish, depending on how strong they were for one or the other. Needless to say, redrawn that way, the map was a large mass of undulating purple, with only a few concentrated spots of red and blue.
My observation (correct me if I’m wrong) is that MSNBC started out pretty left of center, but has moved decidely right in recent months. Why is that? I’d guess that it’s in response to intense competition from FOX. Ditch Donohue and hire Scaroborugh. It appears that the left’s message is not as marketable.
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be implying that the GOP is to be blamed for jumping into a leadership position in this country. Why? I’d be more inclined to say the Dems are too spineless to stand in firm opposition. If they’re simply afraid of loosing their electoral base, then this also says something about the will of the American people, or at least the ability of the Dems to understand what that will is.
This thread has already hijacked itself. Nowhere did Krugman or Confessori claim that the US already is a one-party state – they’re just saying that the Republican Party is laying the groundwork to CREATE a one-party state in the U.S. by linking corporate, media and government interests.
It’s very clear that this actually IS occurring, that is, that the Repubs have strong corporate ties who make no bones about supporting the Repubs in elections, that they have some media totally at their beck and call like Clear Channel and Fox News, and that they’re working to further these ties.
Now maybe people will understand why the Repubs on the FCC were so totally uninterested in the public response when they relaxed FCC rules to make greater concentratin of ownership in TV markets possible. It worked for them in radio with Clear Channel, the clear hope is that it will work for them in TV in much te same way. If it does, the Repubs will practically OWN broadcast media. And very possibly, the U.S. goverment.
Lemme guess, you’re a kid, aren’t you? Ever hear of “The Solid South”? Time was that “south of Mason-Dixon” meant “100% chance of voting Democrat, no matter what”. Mind you, it was those self-same Democrats who set up and maintained Jim Crow.