An Era of Republican Presidential Dominance?

(Note: I strongly encourage you to click to map links on this post when reading; they're essential to understanding what I'm saying.)

It’s been somewhat fashionable amongst the Washington beltway to classify the past few decades as an era dominated by the Republican Party, at least on the presidential level. According to this view, Republican presidential dominance started under President Ronald Reagan, who initiated the Reagan Revolution. Since then America has been under continuous Republican hegemony, interrupted only by the centralist term of President Clinton. In light of the 2008 Democratic victory, holders of this idea sometimes assert that President Obama has initiated a new era of Democratic presidential dominance.

The idea of Republican presidential dominance, however, fares poorly when compared to the evidence. It is true that Mr. Reagan dominated politics during his administration, enacting a series of conservative policies and winning two landslide elections. His term paved the way for another comfortable Republican victory, in 1988.

However, this was to be the last time Democrats ever lost badly in a presidential election. Mr. Reagan’s term came near the end, not the beginning, of the cycle of Republican presidential hegemony. Indeed, the real man responsible for Republican strength was President Richard Nixon, whose law and order policies constituted the foundation for Reagan Republicanism:

Link to graph of presidential popular margin from 1968 to 1988

Ever since 1988, however, Republicans have not done so well. In terms of the popular vote, they have lost four out of the past five presidential elections. Their only victory in the popular vote was by a mere 2.46% – akin to President Jimmy Carter’s 2.06% victory during the cycle of Republican strength:

Link to graph of presidential popular margin from 1992 to 2008

Under this series of graphs, Mr. Obama’s election appears less a realignment than a continuation of Democratic dominance on the presidential level.

Of course, this analysis ignores Republican gains on the congressional and statewide level. In 1994, most famously, Speaker Newt Gingrich led Republicans to a sweeping mid-term victory – taking control of Congress for the first time in more than two generations. To label these recent decades as an era of Democratic hegemony would be inaccurate.

Then again, Democrats were controlling Congress during those very years of Republican presidential dominance. In no way can one describe the past few decades of the United States as dominated by either the Democratic or the Republican Party.

--Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

 

The Darfur Conundrum: How will Obama respond?

In the days of the 2008 Presidential election, a seldom mentioned topic of the Sudanese genocide in Darfur peeked its head in on occasion.  Barack Obama, who had been known in his Congressional days to work across party lines to better humanitarian efforts in countries such as these, mentioned the Darfur genocide as a campaign effort.  As politifact's Obama-meter labels, Barack Obama made a campaign promise in this realm of foreign policy.

Pressure Sudan to end violence in Darfur

"As president, Obama will take immediate steps to end the genocide in Darfur by increasing pressure on the Sudanese and pressure the government to halt the killing and stop impeding the deployment of a robust international force." ... as well as a special envoy to send aid and peace talk relief efforts to the afflicted region of Sudan. 

Dark days have fallen over Darfur for a number of years, and its troubling to realize just how many people have no idea what Darfur even is.  I voted for Obama, among other reasons, with hopes that he would address this situation that was virtually neglected by the Bush Administration.

Currently this campaign promise is labelled as "In the works," meaning that Obama has begun the process of accomplishing the goal. It has not seen any action in a number of months.

Sudan is an incredibly politically corrupt nation, whose government will most of the time refuse to acknowledge the genocide.  Even they do acknowledge it, they completely misconstrue the numbers to play it off as not being as bad as it is.  The situation is dire.

In recent months, there was claimed to be a low point in violence.  Peace treaties, although mostly failing in the past, had seemed to have made some headway and a resolution to the genocide was thought to be in somewhat dim sight.  However, conflict in the region is yet again on the rise.  Parts of the country are seeking independence, more citizens are fleeing to an already over-encumbered Chad, and the Janjaweed are still terrorizing the land.

This isn't exactly the big-ticket agenda item, and The United States certainly has a vast amount of "large" problems to deal with itself.  However, some action taken by the Obama Administration would be nice, seeing as how thousands upon thousands are dying.

Awareness must be spread, because this conflict continues without many even knowing that it exists.

 

 

 

The Darfur Conundrum: How will Obama respond?

In the days of the 2008 Presidential election, a seldom mentioned topic of the Sudanese genocide in Darfur peeked its head in on occasion.  Barack Obama, who had been known in his Congressional days to work across party lines to better humanitarian efforts in countries such as these, mentioned the Darfur genocide as a campaign effort.  As politifact's Obama-meter labels, Barack Obama made a campaign promise in this realm of foreign policy.

Pressure Sudan to end violence in Darfur

"As president, Obama will take immediate steps to end the genocide in Darfur by increasing pressure on the Sudanese and pressure the government to halt the killing and stop impeding the deployment of a robust international force." ... as well as a special envoy to send aid and peace talk relief efforts to the afflicted region of Sudan. 

Dark days have fallen over Darfur for a number of years, and its troubling to realize just how many people have no idea what Darfur even is.  I voted for Obama, among other reasons, with hopes that he would address this situation that was virtually neglected by the Bush Administration.

Currently this campaign promise is labelled as "In the works," meaning that Obama has begun the process of accomplishing the goal. It has not seen any action in a number of months.

Sudan is an incredibly politically corrupt nation, whose government will most of the time refuse to acknowledge the genocide.  Even they do acknowledge it, they completely misconstrue the numbers to play it off as not being as bad as it is.  The situation is dire.

In recent months, there was claimed to be a low point in violence.  Peace treaties, although mostly failing in the past, had seemed to have made some headway and a resolution to the genocide was thought to be in somewhat dim sight.  However, conflict in the region is yet again on the rise.  Parts of the country are seeking independence, more citizens are fleeing to an already over-encumbered Chad, and the Janjaweed are still terrorizing the land.

This isn't exactly the big-ticket agenda item, and The United States certainly has a vast amount of "large" problems to deal with itself.  However, some action taken by the Obama Administration would be nice, seeing as how thousands upon thousands are dying.

Awareness must be spread, because this conflict continues without many even knowing that it exists.

 

 

 

The Darfur Conundrum: How will Obama respond?

In the days of the 2008 Presidential election, a seldom mentioned topic of the Sudanese genocide in Darfur peeked its head in on occasion.  Barack Obama, who had been known in his Congressional days to work across party lines to better humanitarian efforts in countries such as these, mentioned the Darfur genocide as a campaign effort.  As politifact's Obama-meter labels, Barack Obama made a campaign promise in this realm of foreign policy.

Pressure Sudan to end violence in Darfur

"As president, Obama will take immediate steps to end the genocide in Darfur by increasing pressure on the Sudanese and pressure the government to halt the killing and stop impeding the deployment of a robust international force." ... as well as a special envoy to send aid and peace talk relief efforts to the afflicted region of Sudan. 

Dark days have fallen over Darfur for a number of years, and its troubling to realize just how many people have no idea what Darfur even is.  I voted for Obama, among other reasons, with hopes that he would address this situation that was virtually neglected by the Bush Administration.

Currently this campaign promise is labelled as "In the works," meaning that Obama has begun the process of accomplishing the goal. It has not seen any action in a number of months.

Sudan is an incredibly politically corrupt nation, whose government will most of the time refuse to acknowledge the genocide.  Even they do acknowledge it, they completely misconstrue the numbers to play it off as not being as bad as it is.  The situation is dire.

In recent months, there was claimed to be a low point in violence.  Peace treaties, although mostly failing in the past, had seemed to have made some headway and a resolution to the genocide was thought to be in somewhat dim sight.  However, conflict in the region is yet again on the rise.  Parts of the country are seeking independence, more citizens are fleeing to an already over-encumbered Chad, and the Janjaweed are still terrorizing the land.

This isn't exactly the big-ticket agenda item, and The United States certainly has a vast amount of "large" problems to deal with itself.  However, some action taken by the Obama Administration would be nice, seeing as how thousands upon thousands are dying.

Awareness must be spread, because this conflict continues without many even knowing that it exists.

 

 

 

The Darfur Conundrum: How will Obama respond?

In the days of the 2008 Presidential election, a seldom mentioned topic of the Sudanese genocide in Darfur peeked its head in on occasion.  Barack Obama, who had been known in his Congressional days to work across party lines to better humanitarian efforts in countries such as these, mentioned the Darfur genocide as a campaign effort.  As politifact's Obama-meter labels, Barack Obama made a campaign promise in this realm of foreign policy.

Pressure Sudan to end violence in Darfur

"As president, Obama will take immediate steps to end the genocide in Darfur by increasing pressure on the Sudanese and pressure the government to halt the killing and stop impeding the deployment of a robust international force." ... as well as a special envoy to send aid and peace talk relief efforts to the afflicted region of Sudan. 

Dark days have fallen over Darfur for a number of years, and its troubling to realize just how many people have no idea what Darfur even is.  I voted for Obama, among other reasons, with hopes that he would address this situation that was virtually neglected by the Bush Administration.

Currently this campaign promise is labelled as "In the works," meaning that Obama has begun the process of accomplishing the goal. It has not seen any action in a number of months.

Sudan is an incredibly politically corrupt nation, whose government will most of the time refuse to acknowledge the genocide.  Even they do acknowledge it, they completely misconstrue the numbers to play it off as not being as bad as it is.  The situation is dire.

In recent months, there was claimed to be a low point in violence.  Peace treaties, although mostly failing in the past, had seemed to have made some headway and a resolution to the genocide was thought to be in somewhat dim sight.  However, conflict in the region is yet again on the rise.  Parts of the country are seeking independence, more citizens are fleeing to an already over-encumbered Chad, and the Janjaweed are still terrorizing the land.

This isn't exactly the big-ticket agenda item, and The United States certainly has a vast amount of "large" problems to deal with itself.  However, some action taken by the Obama Administration would be nice, seeing as how thousands upon thousands are dying.

Awareness must be spread, because this conflict continues without many even knowing that it exists.

 

 

 

Diaries

Advertise Blogads