![[mccookgazette.com]](http://www.mccookgazette.com/images/nameplate31.png)
|
|
Fair ~ High: 87°F ~ Low: 57°F Wednesday, May 16, 2012 |
|
Death of a PartyPosted Wednesday, April 29, 2009, at 3:08 PM
Every 100 years or so the political climate shifts in the United States and major political party disappears off the national stage. The fact that the last time we had a major shift of political parties was the creation of the Republican Party in 1854 this tells us that we are long overdue for one political party to disappear and another or possibly two others to pop up.
I believe that is the way the Republican Party is headed today. There are for all intense and purposes two very different Republican Parties in today's America. There is the Goldwater Republican Party, which is more moderate. They typically are fiscally conservative and socially moderate. Then there is the Bush/Reagan Republican Party, which despite claiming they are fiscally conservative are actually tax and spenders and they are typically very socially conservative. A poll came out yesterday which put those people identifying themselves with the Republican Party at 21% which is the lowest it has been since the Nixon Era. But the difference between then and now is the Republicans of that era had a fresh new leader named Ronald Reagan who helped pull the party back together. We haven't seen that NEW leader yet. This is still a Republican Party headed by Rush Limbaugh, John McCain, and Newt Gingrich. And this is a devisive bunch. They don't care too much for the moderate Republicans and that's why in this last election we saw a large number of Republicans changing party to the Democrats. But like I said this is nothing new. We no longer have the two original parties that made up the American landscape at its birth, The Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party. When the Democratic-Republican Party split in 1824, the Democratic Party was born. Out of those who were opposed to the Democrats founded the Whig Party (often considered to be the forerunners of the the Republican Party)in 1833. One of their young leaders was Abraham Lincoln. The modern Republican Party was founded in 1854 and quickly overtook the Whigs as the opposition party to the Democratic Party and it has been that way ever since. Some third party's have come around since then and made a mess of the national scene. The Bull-Moose Party of 1912 headed up by Teddy Roosevelt cost the Republicans the White House. The formation of the Dixi-crats in the 60s took control from Congrees. Both these parties eventually were sucked up by the Republican Party. But today has a much different outlook. For years Republican could count on the northeast as a bastion of conservative values. Now there are two Republican senators from the northeast and both are moderates and both are treated as outsiders to the core of the Republican Party. Texas has historically been a Republican state by Hispanics are trending towards the Democratic Party, and Obama came closer than any Democrat in the past 30 years to winning Texas. Same story in Arizona where the race was so close it has led many policial commentators to speculate had McCain not been the candidate, Obama would have won the state. Even in California, the state that conservatives call the bastion of liberalism is actually at the state level very conservative. But Republicans are even losing their stronghold there. That leaves the southeast as the lone stalworth of the Republican Party, but that is not near enough for the Republicans to compete nationally. Right now, we see the Republican Party eating its face despite its nose and the longer they bicker and appear to the majority of Americans as obstructionist their party numbers are going to continue to shrink. Today, at this point, it would not surprise me to see three strong contenders for the presidency in 2012, a democrat, a reagan/bush republican, and a goldwater republican. History has shown us that three parties don't work in this country and to me that is a real shame. I believe that our elections should be truly democratic in nature. Whoever wants to run and has the money can and we the American people select among them no matter how many candidates there are. But this is a two party system country and it may take a generation but the two party system will fix itself. I could be wrong on all this, that's just my prediction. _ Just a small note. Two weeks ago the Texas governor was openly talking secession because he didn't want to take federal monies yet just on Monday he was asking the federal government for more flu medicine. Just thought that was interesting. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Hot topics A Case Against Merit Pay(12 ~ 6:08 PM, Mar 2)
Hot Springs, America's First National Park
President Obama's Speech
A Most Disgusting Lie
Republicans and the Far-Right Have Hit Rock Bottom
|
Email link
Read comments (29)
Blog archive
![[Feed icon]](http://www.mccookgazette.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
Mike, Shalom.
Time will tell. Being an History teacher, and in all likelihood expert in History, you should have the best idea about our future. I fear your Liberal sway will glaze your viewpoint, but maybe not. Time will tell.
IMO, our, soon, day of reckoning will determine the truth of what is happening.
In Messiah, Jesus. Arley
I have often seen you point out Michael Hendrick's credentials, Arley.
If we're are merely going by credentials, what are yours?
Just goes to show you how many more freeloaders there are in this country compared to 30 years ago.
It used to be government by the people. Now it's government for the people. When government is everything and everywhere...who controls government? It won't be the people.
It's funny that you say the republican party is headed by Rush yet he holds no office, isn't a politician at all. Who is the non governmental head of your party? Janeane Gerofalo?
I'm surprised you didn't write an article about what a polictical copout and sham we have just learned about with Arlen Spector. Talk about running to the other side to get money and support from the president for your next run for office. If that's not about trashing your ethics for money and power I'd like to see a better example.
It's interesting that this makes a filabuster proof majority. It almost makes you wonder if there was crooked deal to get some worm to switch sides in order for him to re-elected in return for his support. Sure seems sleazy to me.
Just another example of why these people shouldn't be in Washington long enough to make it a career. We need real people working in there.
You're right Holden, I hate being represented by those phonies.
The problem with Republicans, and the reason I refused to vote for McCain (No, I did not vote for Obama either) is because the Republicans are trying to turn into Democrat light.
The big lie of course is that Republicans have moved too far right. Truth is, when the Republicans act like conservatives they win.
AND, don't get too puffed up Michael. I can sense that overconfidence growing in you because so many are worshipping at the feet of Obama right now.
Things change. Sooner or later the truth about what Obama really is will come out. Truth always comes out. Sooner or later the truth about how Democrats have tried to ruin this country will also come too light.
Since we are making predictions, I predict that once the worship stops, and it will stop eventually, it is the religious left that will be going by the wayside.
The trick for conservatives in to try and keep our country from being destroyed by the left until the voters regain sanity.
Unemployment will be 10% before too much longer, and even the lying media won't be able to cover for Obama.
Enjoy your high while you can.
LOL and Michael, you are so funny. The large numbers of voters changing to Democrats last election had to do with those Republicans that wanted to keep Hillary in the race.
Your analysis of the Republicans is totally wrong, and I really want you to keep saying it. You and your fellow leftists have not yet succeeded in ruining this country. Granted, you are close, but there are still some of us that will not go quietly into leftist hell.
No Soviet style utopia yet Michael. Dream on pal.
Okay good points sam, well no not even close. I don't want a soviet style utopia, because obviously that system failed, otherwise we would still have the Soviet Union. It was a bad system and experiment and deserved to fail.
You keep talking about how Democrats keep trying to turn the United States into a Soviet style government yet you always fail to mention that Republicans try to force down the throats of the American people the idea of triple down economics. Reagan did it and so did Bush and the system failed miserable both times.
Another point, a lot of people want to blame Obama for socializing the banks and the car companies. It's amazing how you forget (conveniently) that it was Bush who did the nationalizing.
And what truth are you talking about. All I've heard from conservatives since Obama took office is the truth will come out. Yeah I'm sure it will, whatever you think it is. And if it doesn't I'm sure your leaders will fabricate something and then try to make it a national story.
As for the Arlen Spector switch. Justin, You do realize the man started his political party as a Democrat, right? I somehow don't think you or any other Republican rose such a stink when he switched parties then.
Look, this has nothing to do with gloating. I am a historian and political scientist, this is just an analysis based on American political party history. I could be very wrong. But RIGHT NOW (and that's all I'm talking about) the Republican Party is in real danger of dissolving unless some new, young moderate leaders take the reigns.
I think this blog entry points out the importance of proofreading work before submitting.
You are correct in many of your assesments about the rise and fall of parties in the United States. However you gloss over the fact that there have always, at least since Washington left office, been two parties and I'd imagine there always be two parties, allowing for short periods of change in which a third party might rise to replace one of the traditional two. The names change but the ideas stay essentially the same, there is always a divide between conservative and progressive parties, not Conservative and Liberal. By your logic of the 100 year rule, shouldn't the Democratic have died before the Republican party? Actually weren't there people making the argument that the Democratic party was dying during the last period of Republican resurgence.
Now I don't know where you went to school Mike, and for Arley's benefit I'd put my academic credentials against anyone who cares to, it strikes me that all these issues and arguments are cyclical because trends are ultimately based on human nature which in my opinion never changes.
Personally I'd love to see a third party rise that was actually a centrist party and leave all the right wing and left wing nuts on the fringes where they belong. But based on the money and popularization of extremist ideals I don't forsee that happening.
Oh yeah, one other faulty point you make Mike. If every 100 years or so there is a political shift which destroys a party why are all of your examples from the first 75 years of the nation? This leaves one party in existence for roughly 185 years of the 220 year history of the nations and the other for 155 years. Now as a fellow student of history I always admit to faulty math skills but your figures seem beyond the pale.
Okay you twisted my point to make it sound like the only party I think should dissolve is the Republican Party and that wasn't my point. My point was that right now the party is in disarray and unless some young blood gets instilled into the party it could fracture which would lead to a third party that could engulf the Republican Party.
As for the Democratic Party, the party for better or worse is the longest running political party in the United States and for the most part the large majority believe in the same thing and even when portions have broken off like the Dixicrats there was another group to replace them.
Yes my math is a little off, but that does not detract from the fact there is change coming.
I can agree that the Republican party is in danger of breaking. I think there are very smart things they could do to stop it, but it remains to be seen if any action will be taken.
There problem is with Republican moderates. The last two national elections dealt hard blows to the GOP. The people spoke pretty clearly by taking them out of power in the White House and both houses of congress. But instead of re-evaluating it's platform to make it more palatable to moderate conservatives, it seems like the party has dug its heels even harder to hard-line conservative values. The party seems convinced that it's right, and that people just need to open their eyes and see the light.
The problem is that the shift to the right is causing the party to lose moderates. The PA republican party has grown so hostile to moderate views, that Arlen Spector was forced to jump ship. I personally know several conservative republicans who were active in the party (not high-level, just things like helping out campaigns and the like). But even they've given up on the party. They left because the the party seemed increasingly hostile to their social views and their more moderate economic stance. They haven't joined the Dems like Spector, but they won't be helping out any more campaigns until the party changes.
If the far right continues to run the show, I would not be surprised if it fractured into two parties, the current GOP, and a more moderate party that (while still conservative) holds more moderate positions on fiscal policy and social policies.
Unfortunately, if that does indeed happen, I don't see either conservative party being able to survive up against a united democratic party, unless the more moderate one manages to steal democratic votes (which it might).
If the Republican Party were to break and a more moderate party forms I could see that party stealing members out of the Democratic Party. When I talk about the death of the Republican Party this isn't something that true core to the bone Democrats should be rooting for because the Democrats are set to loose the most with a break.
I don't agree with your assessment that Michael Steele and Boddy Jindal are changes from the Bush GOP, because when you listen closely to what they are saying it is the same old rhetoric, it just happens to be coming from young non-whites instead of the old white men.
Especially with Michael Steele, who one day said that the kind of comments that Rush Limbaugh have no place in the Republican Party and then the next day essentially appologized to Boss Limbaugh. That's not changin anything. Until the younger Republicans can wrestle control from the old guard Republicans, nothing will change about the party and will continue to become more irrelevant with each passing day.
Mike, moderation of the party is why it's in trouble, not the answer. Any more moderation and it will identical to the democratic party. What part of Bush's admin wasn't good for expanded government that you want?
I think the only reason you oppose Bush is on stuff like gay rights, abortion, stem cells, and the war in Iraq. With everything else, he was riding a blue donkey wasn't he? That's what screwed the party over.
I think we need a new begining, but a true conservative party. You may not want to admit it, and GI thinks people should shun me, but everybody I talk to thinks just like me.
We want government with accountability. We want taxation with justification, not what we're doing now. We want everybody to work. We want people to try and achieve. That's not what Obama is all about. He's all about let's take care of everything so you don't have to.
I've heard so much crap about how evil capitalism is from liberals it makes me want to puke! I've heard how people with menial jobs are slaved to this system of fat cat rich guys and there's no hope. It's a lie! There is hope, there's no other country in the world wherer anyone, no matter what race, sex, or whatever can achieve if you put your mind to it.
I have friend that went off about the tea parties and Fox news did all of it to make billions for their shareholders who will not share that earning with ony of us at....blah blah blah. What does that evern mean?
Did Fox news sell tickets or francise fees? How the hell did they make billions for their sharholders? Please explain. He soulded like an irrate newscaster from CNN. Almost laughable.
He told me about all these reading and research one can do find out about all these evil things about capitalism and what not. I'm thinking...wow it must be a pretty unbiased book!
Anyway, I asked my capitalism hating friend what socio-economical system we should adopt that would fair to everyone who wants the same reward for hard work or success and I still haven't recieved an answer.
I don't know what you think of capitalism Mike, but I do know that it is paying your wages right now. Now, what I'm worried about is crack pots like my friend are the ones who are rooting Obama one to take out more private industry, tax the rich into the poor house, and feed more poor people who won't have to try harder because the president is going to make everything better....Henriette Hughes.
So, I ask the history teacher as you may know of some alternatives to capitalism. What would work better?
Why is it there shouldn't be rich an poor? Some needs to pump septic systenms, drive trucks, deliver mail, mow lawns, work at Wal-Mart, etc. It's not possible to sustain a communist system for very long as these people want because sooner or later some will want to rise to the top and get tired of pulling the slackers along with them and then you'll have social unrest.
One effective way the Russians broke the will of the people as they were installing communism was shuting down the Orthodox church. It's easy to break the human sprirt when there's no hope and faith brings hope.
National Geograghic just had an article about the Orthodox church in Russia is now coming back. Churches, cathedrals, and monestaries are being rebuilt. Millions of people are being baptized, joining the church, etc.
Amazing what happens when government takes total control of everything.
"...moderation of the party is why it's in trouble, not the answer."
Any successful political party needs a moderate base in which to build the foundation of their platform, so they can attract the greatest number of voters.
"I don't know what you think of capitalism Mike, but I do know that it is paying your wages right now"
I don't think Mike's checks are signed by capitalism. Methinks they may be signed by the state? With tax dollars? Weird...
"...and feed more poor people who won't have to try harder because the president is going to make everything better..."
Do you really believe we have people living in poverty simply because of a lack of effort?
Nice cheap shot at the expense of Henrietta Hughes. If you ever find yourself jobless/homeless, disabled, trying take care of a kid, and unable to vote, I hope that you have the decency to not ask for help. I'm sure you'll be able to survive on conservative pride alone.
Actually your friend was partly correct about Fox News. They rode the coattails of the tea bag party by advertising it every night for weeks on end. And then people tuned in because Fox News went live from those sites and that is where the millions (highly doubt billions) were earned for their stockholders. Fox News sponsored the tea bag party as did some very high ranking Republicans. This was not a grassroots organization. It was a well paid for political stump party. But that's fine. Who cares in the long run.
As I have said before I am a historian I'm not an economist so I don't have the expertise to say which would work better. But if you ask me my opinion. The system that works best is the system that uses a bit of everything and doesn't constrain itself to one system. The Soviet Union tried using just one system and collapsed. The United States has been using essentially two systems, socialism and capitalism since the late 30s and for the most part it has worked. China has been using the socialism mixed with capitalism for the last 10 years and until the worldwide recession hit they were poised to replace to United States as the top economy in the world.
Here's the bottom line. I don't believe in Social Darminism, which is what you are talking about with having rich and poor people. But the simple fact is yes we need everyone to do just about everything, but there is always going to be that small minority who wants to sponge and do nothing. But, and you can look up the stats, that is a very small minority of the people.
Even during WWII our unemployment rate never got below 2% because there will always be that segment of the population that even with jobs readily available. Do you favor punishing the 98% of the people who are doing what they are supposed to be doing?
An economy that tries to succeed solely on only one system IS going to fail.
The problem is with moderates of every stripe. Democrats haven't been elected primarily because they propose better solutions but rather because most people are rightfully disgusted with the Republicans. In my view both parties have come to be dominated by the fringe elements leaving voters with having to choose between the lesser of two evils. Politicians get elected not merit but by who has a better sound bite and more scary straw man.
I don't know whether a two party system is better or worse than a parliamentary system but it's what we have. I was having a conversation with a foreign friend about the two party system which was confusing. I made many of the same points about one party falling and another rising to take its place. However, with the entrenchment of the parties and the money that is involved today I really don't see a third party rising to replace the Republican Party anytime soon. Whenever one party is down there is always talk about it's death. I would love there to be a party which I felt actually represented my interests but unfortunately that would be the SWNebr Transplant Party and would have very limited public support.
Political parties are like car companies, clawing on past their time, begging for and getting money from foolish investors, then eventually declaring chapter 11 and restructuring in order to continue to foist faulty products on us time and again.
Very nice with that last paragraph Transplant
I honestly think it is time for the two party system to go the way of the do-do. We just need a completely open system, but like you said, they two party is so entrenched that won't ever happen.
Thank you Steffanie for being the thorn in the paw of discourse here.
Food for thought, Shalom. For what it is worth, I was complimenting Mike, as being the most probable expert on what can happen in the near future, since most 'future' events are dictated by 'historical' events, from a secular point of view. But then, I am sure you knew that. Mike does.
My credentials, Hmmmmm. I probably don't have any credentialistic background you would recognize, as valid enough, to qualify me as a 'specific' expert on anything. I have a few years behind me, some High Technical training, what some people call 'some college,' and have seen the bright and dark sides of a number of professions, coupled with a number of years of service to country. Other than that: some, who know me, usually say I am fairly well qualified to speak. Some, who do not know me, often think 'not.' Take your pick.
In Messiah. Arley
"I still think it's funny and hypocritical that you call those of us who actually support the country turning around right now as emotionals when you were the exact same way with Bush. Hell in your eyes he could do no wrong. So what makes you any different."
From Mike's response to one of Sam's rants.
This is my point right or left there is no difference.
Mike,
You've piqued my interest since I was just speaking about this in a previous blog. Although, I was probably just a bit off topic in that blog.
It's amusing to watch the speculation about the "demise" of the Republican party and I simply must indulge in some speculation of my own. I don't believe the Republican party will dissolve or merge into something different anymore than I thought the Democratic party would several years ago when everyone was saying the Democratic party was on the verge of collapse. It gives something for pundits to talk about because let's face it, everybody likes to speculate and it's easy to do.
What the Republican party needs is a solid, consistent message with a face that can sell it. That's what the Democrats did with Obama and that's what Conservatives did with Reagan. They both fueled a rejuvenation of their parties that was already taking place.
The Republican party was being accused of collapsing in the '70's as well and everyone said, "you've got to attract lots of moderates or else the party can't survive". Well, Carter got elected to one term, the American people decided they'd had enough of that and we elected Reagan to two terms. Now, every staunch conservative looks to Reagan as the ideal candidate, which he is, regardless of his politics, Reagan could have won with any letter next to his name. Politicians in recent history are elected because they are great salesmen and actors. Reagan was a great salesman with a background in acting. Obama is a great actor with a background in sales (community organization and even just being a lawyer requires a proficiency in sales that is tantamount to any legal knowledge).
I don't think we'll see a big change in the Republican party but I do think we'll see a change in how they operate campaigns and hopefully, an inspirational leader with the skills of Reagan or better. Notice I say his skills because I grow tired of conservatives looking for the next Reagan twin always trying to say,"Reagan would've supported this or he wouldn't have supported that and that's what I'd do too". No, what we need is someone to say, "this is me, this is what I believe, here is how we're going to do it, if you're ready to go to the fight then I'm ready to lead you there and fight". We need someone authentically their own person and not a Reagan clone. I've heard Obama occasionly make attempts to sound like Reagan and he just reminds me of the catfight among the Republicans in the primaries who lacked originality.
As for Limbaugh, give me a break. You only empower him and expand his reach by talking about him. Just as a side note, it is the Democrats who have a radio talk show personality elected to the Senate. Well... almost. However, Rush is still only a radio talk show host. Rush Limbaugh's only link to the Republican party is that he is a member like millions upon millions of Americans. He is not elected to any office, he holds no official leadership position within the Republican party and the only ones who have anointed him the "speaker of the Republican party" are Democrats or liberals. This sounds eerily similiar to the Republicans and conservatives who have anointed Obama as "the Messiah". I say we just let the talk show hosts talk on air and let the one, true Messiah walk on water.
SWNebr,
I'll defer to Mike but I seem to recall something about the Democratic party being the sole party of power around the time of James Monroe's election and even to the point where the candidates for President were all from the Democratic party. If I'm wrong, please correct me it's been awhile since learning about that.
Now, with all my speculation I will concede that I could be wrong since it is only speculation. After all, Democrats used to be strong supporters of a limited government, strict interpretation of the Constitution and they supported slavery or at least the right to choose slavery. So, parties can certainly change their beliefs and policies 180°. Only God, the future historians and analysts of the annals will know for certain.
McCook1,
You are right. In 1820 James Madison ran essentially unopposed (the Democratic-Republicans were the only major party in existence at the time). The Federalist party had just collapsed after a disastrous presidential in 1816 in which the Federalist candidate for president, Rufus King, actually had five running mates. In the 1816 election Madison won with 65% of the popular vote and 183 of the 216 electoral votes. In the 1820 election, even though essentially unopposed he didn't win all the electoral votes losing 3 to other candidates.
Also to note, this was the third and final time that a presidential race had only one major candidate. The other two being George Washington's elections.
Even though they did not field a presidential candidate in 1820, the Federalist Party did field a vice-presidential candidate and didn't fully collapse until around 1825.
Of note, the long believed causes of the demise of the Federalist Party was their handling of the War of 1812, the infighting in the party, and newspaper columnists that spewed hatred toward anyone affiliated with the Democratic-Republican Party.
McCook1, as for your comments regarding my criticisms of Rush Limbaugh, you are absolutely correct and his name will not appear in another blog or blog comment that I post from here on out.
I speak of hypocrisy of the Republicans when I am guilty of it myself. I do my best to stay away from that and maybe by not referring to Rush Limbaugh or silly nicknames for Republican lawmakers and political heads I can rid myself of that hypocrisy.
billyjb,
are you among the growing number of American citizens that think tax money grows on trees. Yes, that was a fine answer yiou gave about Mike's paycheck as a teacher, but how do suppose those tax dollars were raised to pay it?
I don't mean to pick on your paycheck, I'd use mine as an example, but I don't get paid from tax dollars, I get paid by what's in someone's wallet.
No I don't believe people are living in poverty because of a lack of effort. See I don't think that any of our problems are as simple as pasing some legislation or handing out some more bailouts. Our problems as a society run a lot deeper than people want to comfortably explore or express.
The solutions will require more sacrifice than most anyone is willing to give. That's why I'm very critical of all these so called solutions our almighty government has in store.
I believe that we're all created equal, but we're not all guaranteed the same things in life. Some people that are poor can really make the best of it. I'm sorry, but people sooner or later are going to have to decide what makes them happy. Trouble is, most people still think it's the money that will make them happy. We are not granted the right to have everything our neighbor has in life.
That's what is souring so many people in our capitialist system. We have become a nation of consumers and we're only happy if we consume as much as the next guy.
Take a quick look at the anniversary of Columbine. What was the problem there? Violent video games? lax gun laws? Or was it lack of quality father-son time. That's a touchy area and it's not going to get touched. But leave it to our fearless politicians to get to the bottom of it and enact some assinine laws for guns and video games. I doesn't solve the problem!
And cheap shot? The only thing cheap was your attempt at trying to make public personel seem as though they're getting paid by "magic taxes" that didn't originate somewhere that capitalism was successful. It was obviously successful because some transaction was made and someone made money as taxes were generated. Quit trying to fool the fools into believing that taxes are magic and that this 10 trillion dollar liberal blowout sale on fiscal responsiblity won't have to be paid back with lots and lots of interest that we can't even afford now.
I call them like I see them, and Ms. Hughes was offered help before and apparently turned it down as it wasn't a 100% free ticket. There was either some work involved or something needed in return.
Mike,
I see your point about the two systems, but what has happened is through the socialist aspect of welfare and social security, we have several generations of entitlement building and gaining steam. It's going to take the capitalism side to fund the socialist side and once we deflate capitalism to score points the extreme left, this side has no funding and you get the Soviet Union.
I'm not blind to the fact that we've had social programs since the 30's. I also don't believe that everyone that's poor is there for the free ticket. I do believe that we shouldn't make it easy to be there. there has to be a risk and reward. There has to be an incentive to get out of poverty. As I said before, we are not all in this world to be be Warren Buffet.
Any one of these systems we're talking about is going to require someone to have a menial job and someone to have an awesome job. But do we want the genius who launches rockets over our heads to have the same pay as the guy who mops the floors so it's all fair?
I don't believe the freeloaders are a small majority either. I think there is a large vaiation in the degree of freeloading though. From the smallest notion that government should provide some sort of free health care to the people that are litterally having babies to get welfare checks. Don't tell me it ain't happening. If it's happening here, it' in Arkansas too.
It's just scary to think of the cost to tax payers when we're already sitting at one level of social intervention and now we're talking about owning banks, car companies, health care industry, etc, etc. When will it end? When they control everything? Who controls government when they control everything?
It's not a question that should be shrugged off as we are getting closer to this all the time. The kids coming out of school these days seems to know more about global warming and evil oil companies than they know about how their own government works. The bigger it gets, the more confusing it will get to the average Joe and the least likely he will be able to participate which is what they want.
Yes but let's not pretend that this is just a liberal problem or solely being caused by liberals. I remember after 9/11 when we were gearing up for the war in Afghanistan, our Republican leaders (specifically Bush) instead of coming out and saying that we were going to have to buckle down and get to work to support our war machine (which is what happened in WWII) we were told to go out and buy Hummers and keep going to the mall. All well fine and good but our soldiers were under prepared and we were told to go out and spend money on ourselves.
Another startling development I have witnessed under the last decade or so (and I am in no way blaming one side or the other) is the entitlement that teens thing they deserve, not earned, but deserved. I can't tell you how many times a number of my students fell they deserved a better grade simply because they were in class. Wouldn't turn in homework, sometimes wouldn't take tests, but thought they deserved an A.
Unfortunately there are also those students who understand that as part as No Child Left Behind, they are not supposed to fail so they will abuse the system knowing that it is easier to just barely squeak by with a D than actually put some effort into their work.
I think the catalyst of our country is at the education level and it needs to be reformed immediately.
I agree with Mike that a lot of reform is needed but I also believe that a lot of the entitlement and laissez faire work ethic of many kids is the way the children are raised and parents need to take the lead role in reversing this trend. I think by educating parents on the importance and benefit of challenging their kids and the dangers of being overly protective about their kids experiencing disappointment or defeat.
Btw, a teacher is going to be paid in a 100% capitalist economy, in a 100% socialist economy and in any combination of the two. Since Mike would get paid regardless of our type of economy, I think any point that's trying to be made about his paycheck is moot.
Yes but the pay for what we actually do is downright atrocious. Teachers don't get into teaching to make money we get into teaching to teach.
That's my spiel about that. Not an attack on you McCook1 just my latest rant about just how poorly teachers are paid.
And I absolutely agree with you McCook1, education starts with the parents. If parents put in the mindset of their children that there is no reason to try and everything should be handed to them, then there is little the education system can do.
Right now the school that I teach at is going into Year 4 of a probation because a percentage of our children are classified as low readers. Here's my question, at what age should these children should have been taught to read? Certainly not in high school. At the high school level we can only do so much yet here we are being penalized because another school or parents didn't give their children the tools to read and write. God bless NCLB.
Mike,
Understood. You're preaching to the choir here on teacher pay.
For the most part, I think we're in agreement on parents. I just think we need some way of getting through to the parents about what the consequences are for accepting mediocrity from their children. Something has to change or else nothing will.
I don't know what the preferred age to read is. I would assume it's around kindergarten but the sooner the better is my philosophy. The time they don't need to use learning about the basics of reading, is time they can use to expand their knowledge in other areas or advance their reading skills further and it gives them a sort of head start. I was reading and writing at 4 but I grew up in a completely different time and atmoshphere than kids do today and I'm still in my 20's.