For the last half-century, Americans have exhibited a genius for putting opposite parties into control of Congress and Presidency.
Even the exceptions prove the rule. Let’s review.
- A Republican Congress was swept in in 1952 on Eisenhower’s coattails. Here, the American people overcompensated in throwing off the previous 20 years of Democratic rule; they remedied the situation in 1954, through the remainder of Ike’s rule.
- It is not much of a secret now that John F Kennedy’s people stole the 1960 election through voter fraud in Chicago and Texas. So his period doesn’t count, unless it should be the failure to flip in 1962.
- LBJ won in 1964 because of the 19th Amendment and the media blitz associating Goldwater with war. Even my mother, as rock-rib a conservative as ever lived, admitted 20 years later that she pulled the lever for LBJ, fearing war otherwise.
- Through Nixon and Ford the rule held perfectly.
- Jimmy Carter violated the trend, but this was solely due to the bad taste left from Watergate.
- Reagan got the Senate 3/4 of the time, but not the House even once.
- Herbert Walker B. obeyed the rule perfectly.
- Clinton had two years of coat-tail, before the American people again wised up and set conflicting forces into motion.
Now, with the W., the genius of the American people has faltered for much of the last six years. This is undoubtedly because of the clever manipulation of the mythos of the 9/11. “A new Pearl Harbor,” the gullible fly-over zone has been led to believe. (Of course, we now know, speaking of Pearl Harbor, that… well, let’s save that for another day.)
Correcting Samuel Francis’ terminology, modern elections in the USA generally pit the Evil Party vs. the Evil-and-Stupid Party. Which is which varies a bit from one election to the next.
We must regain our sensible solution of maximizing the stale-mate of the National Government.
This is an argument for voting Democrat this November.
- I’m not saying this is the only consideration that should be brought to bear; it is just one consideration.
- Of course, this argument presupposes for the sake of argument that the elections are not rigged anyhow. Take that as the assumption, for the sake of argument.