A trend I've noticed

[Archer 007]

It seems that, ever since the Civil War, the Democrats have came to win the presidency after the Republicans slip on a banana peel. Republicans dominate until civl service system gets too corrupt, and Cleveland is elected. Reps regain control and hold it until Progressive Era. Then the split bewteen TR and Taft allows Wilson to win. Reps gain control after 1920 and hold it until the stock market crashes under their watch. Democrats then see the only time which they have real power. Win almost every election for 30 year period. Then the Republicans get contol again. Lost it due to corruption scandals. Gain it again, lose it due to a poor economy.

The question: are the Democrats existing more as an opponent to the ruling class, ala Whigs, or are they a legimiate politcal force?

 

[KaNick]

That seems possible if you look at the demographics of the two parties. Edit: That being Democrats are a an opponent of the ruling class.

[joke] So Republicans screw things up and Democrats fix things? [/joke]

 

[Moss]

[joke] So Republicans screw things up and Democrats fix things? [/joke]

Joke? Who's joking....

 

[Sanaz]

I think it's just natural to have it shift back and forth, like Congress. Government tends to work better when there is checks and balances, and things change slowly. I think that's also why there is usually one party in congress, and another as president/cabinet. Andy why it works well when different presidents appoint different judges to the supreme court. Personally, even if I agreed with the viewpoints, I wouldn't want "my choice" as President, Congress, and Supreme Court. That would just lead to too much change, and for a country this large, that just leaves too many unhappy people. That's why I get concenrned as the Bush administration usurps more than it's share of power. If they just made some choices I disagree with, well, that's life, and I could assume that half the people would be happy. Also, over the last one hundred years, what Republicans and Democrats stand for has changed a lot, so comparing the eras isn't straightforward. People just like change.

 

[Perfection]

Well, you could say the same about the democrats. Cleveland screwed with Tammeny hall. Palmer than split them. Then Wilsons Leauge of nations fell apart. Truman fired MacArthur. LBJ got us in vietnam Carter was well, just an an awful president. And Clinton with hisw sex scandals!

 

[SeleucusNicator]

The parties go through cycles like that where one is dominant and the other one just opposes everything the other one does. The Republicans are dominant right now, whereas the Democrats were dominant after the Great Depression until about 1980 or so.

 

[Evertonian]

The parties go through cycles like that where one is dominant and the other one just opposes everything the other one does. The Republicans are dominant right now, whereas the Democrats were dominant after the Great Depression until about 1980 or so.

I agree the US parties go in cycles, however I've heard a theory that the cycles last 36 years, and every 36 years there is a watershed election that sets the tone of US politics for the next 36 years:

1860, (Republican) Lincoln's election set the tone for the post civil war political cleavage.

1896, (Republican) William McKinley won and set the tone for the next 36 years, by beginning the trust-busting etc that came to define that era.

1932, (Democrat) Roosevelt won, brought in the New Deal, social security etc that came to define an era when the activism of the US government increased

1968 (Republican) Nixon won, and heralded a comeback into the mainstream of more conservative ideas.

In each case the party who won the above elections dominated elections in the next 36 years, and generally only lost when the opposition fielded a centrist candidate (eg Eisenhower in 52 and 56) or there were some extenuating circumstances surrounding the election (eg Carter and the 76 post-Watergate election).

[EDIT: for clarity]
Not sure whether I completely believe this, but it does seem to have some truth in it.

 

[Archer 007]

I never really thought about it from the perspective, Perfection.

 

[Theige]

I agree the US parties go in cycles, however I've heard a theory that the cycles last 36 years, and every 36 years there is a watershed election that sets the tone of US politics for the next 36 years:

1968 (Republican) Nixon won, and heralded a comeback into the mainstream of more conservative ideas.

In each case the party who won the above elections dominated elections in the next 36 years, and generally only lost when the opposition fielded a centrist candidate (eg Eisenhower in 52 and 56) or there were some extenuating circumstances surrounding the election (eg Carter and the 76 post-Watergate election).

[EDIT: for clarity]
Not sure whether I completely believe this, but it does seem to have some truth in it.

So according to your theory we're headed for a pretty big election

I for one hope Kerry wins, but I still think they are both fairly bad

Kerry doesn't seem so bad, but hes got to grow a pair of balls and stand up for something or outline some of his plans to make things better

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Carter was well, just an an awful president.

Why was he an awful president? I hear this all the time. Can you tell me what he did that was terrible?

 

[downtown]

carter may have had the cards stacked agasint him, but he really wasnt too hot. the economy tanked, he couldnt bring back the iran hostages, and America began to lose confidence in itself

carter has done more outside of his presidency then any other ex-pres tho

 

[luiz]

Why was he an awful president? I hear this all the time. Can you tell me what he did that was terrible?

The economic crisis, the failure to liberate the hostages in Iran, not to mention that he made the US look weak to the whole world.

 

[Yaype]

Carter is an extremely intelligent man (perhaps the most intelligent President the U.S. has ever had). Unfortunately, being the most intelligent does not always get things done, and I think that was his main problem--he just didn't really do anything (with the exception of the Camp David Accord, and we all know how well that has turned out).

 

[CivCube]

And Reagan got our boys back just by being elected! Amazing!

Don't you think that the terrorists had a little more to their agenda?