Macaca
11-11 08:15 AM
Extreme Politics (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/books/review/Brinkley-t.html) By ALAN BRINKLEY | New York Times, November 11, 2007
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
wallpaper nicki minaj old and new. nicki
YUEN
03-13 12:28 AM
Anyone know? Pls advice, Thank you.
newtoh1
06-15 07:34 PM
Will it be ok to change employers multiple times on EAD with in shrt span of time difference?
2011 “I just think that Nicki Minaj
tinku01
07-22 01:01 PM
How to get interview date schedule at new delhi and mumbai consulate. They havn't issued anything yet although Chennai issued their calendar last week
more...
RNGC
04-07 04:44 PM
Ok, winter is winding up and summer is here..:):)
There is going to be lots of Indian cultural festivals/Independence day celebrations etc, etc... many opportunities to meet many EB immigrants in these festivals....I have lived in Texas and easily 10k people go to Anand Bazaar (India�s Independence day celebrations)
If all the State chapters co-ordinate a membership campaign, it will be a great success...We should aim at 100k count by this fall..
CAN WE DO IT, let me hear a big YESSSSS ?
We have to come out with a nice one page IV brochure, probably printed in a press in recycled paper (cheaper/good for environment) and circulate in all these functions /festivals. The brochure should explain who we are/what we do/what we have achieved so far(lot), and how EB immigrants will get immense benefit from our forums etc etc...
Are you all ready ?
There is going to be lots of Indian cultural festivals/Independence day celebrations etc, etc... many opportunities to meet many EB immigrants in these festivals....I have lived in Texas and easily 10k people go to Anand Bazaar (India�s Independence day celebrations)
If all the State chapters co-ordinate a membership campaign, it will be a great success...We should aim at 100k count by this fall..
CAN WE DO IT, let me hear a big YESSSSS ?
We have to come out with a nice one page IV brochure, probably printed in a press in recycled paper (cheaper/good for environment) and circulate in all these functions /festivals. The brochure should explain who we are/what we do/what we have achieved so far(lot), and how EB immigrants will get immense benefit from our forums etc etc...
Are you all ready ?
Karthikthiru
07-18 10:51 AM
New Service Center Processing Time Report is just published
Karthik
Karthik
more...
kirupa
07-30 02:40 PM
Added :)
2010 I miss the old nicki minaj.
walking_dude
08-15 05:49 PM
Created a poll here.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12435
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12435
more...
ns521
02-22 05:48 PM
Any advantage of opening an account on USCIS website to receive automatic case status updates? or I don't need to do that if I keep checking the status online by myself?
hair What a sexy old man…
dannyypk
04-05 03:36 PM
Recently I filed a H1-B Part time Visa. I received the notice from the Lawyer that my application got a RFE on it.
Will they usually show the status online? When I check USCIS, it does not say my case had a RFE on it.
Please advice! Thanks!
Will they usually show the status online? When I check USCIS, it does not say my case had a RFE on it.
Please advice! Thanks!
more...
mambarg
07-28 02:52 PM
I hear from multiple sources that a concurrently filed 485/140 with 140 in premium is the fastest way to process.
Does this make sense ?
It could be as 485 does not have a A number till 140 is approved.
Once 140 is approved, then have to open the corresponding 485 and enter that information and proceed with its processing ????
So I believe this one is faster than even the approved 140 case submission of 485 ?
Any comments ?
Does anyone have insight or more info on this.
I just want to know if 485 filed with 140 approved is faster or slower than filing 140PP/485 concurrently ???
Does this make sense ?
It could be as 485 does not have a A number till 140 is approved.
Once 140 is approved, then have to open the corresponding 485 and enter that information and proceed with its processing ????
So I believe this one is faster than even the approved 140 case submission of 485 ?
Any comments ?
Does anyone have insight or more info on this.
I just want to know if 485 filed with 140 approved is faster or slower than filing 140PP/485 concurrently ???
hot hairstyles nicki minaj old and
sanjay02
10-29 11:57 PM
You can keep extending the H1-B till your Green card is approved.
more...
house nicki minaj new hair leopard.
sac-r-ten
12-23 12:12 PM
ironically silent follower became vocal after the wait-is-over.
congrats buddy. i think you should wait for few more days, the way USCIS works you might have your Cards and then a welcome notice following it. LOL.
enjoy the holidays....
congrats buddy. i think you should wait for few more days, the way USCIS works you might have your Cards and then a welcome notice following it. LOL.
enjoy the holidays....
tattoo nicki minaj old and new.
svr_76
11-26 04:31 PM
"Hmm....I wonder where the others (countries) are getting the Talent and Investments from?"
Along with the caption, we can change the plumber to face the other side (looking outside of US ..towards the Investment and Talent cloud..."
Along with the caption, we can change the plumber to face the other side (looking outside of US ..towards the Investment and Talent cloud..."
more...
pictures nicki minaj old look. like
chriskalani
10-30 12:47 AM
www.ChrisKalani.com (http://www.chriskalani.com/)
For a stronger America... or something.
For a stronger America... or something.
dresses Birdman grabs the Nicki Minaj
Anders �stberg
February 6th, 2005, 02:19 AM
Like it... maybe crop a little tighter to emphazise the beans more, and take out some of the dark spots that are a bit distracting to me... just my taste...
Freddie, please tell me if you don't want me to edit your pictures and I'll stop right away!
Freddie, please tell me if you don't want me to edit your pictures and I'll stop right away!
more...
makeup hairstyles hot nicki minaj bedrock look. nicki minaj old and new.
kirupa
04-17 06:50 AM
You can export the cube with only the outlines and then export the cube without the outlines and just the fill. Incorporate both animations into Flash, and you should be able to manipulate them both as you choose.
girlfriend Once new I140 is approved with
bodhi_tree
02-28 04:17 PM
Can anyone who's filed for H1 recently tell me how long does it typically take to receive the receipt notice after the petition reaches the vermont center ?
Thankyou
Thankyou
hairstyles One of Nicki Minaj#39;s many New
svn
03-31 07:30 PM
I-140 is not specific to country - the date for each processing center applies to all countries
royus77
07-17 08:32 PM
Hi,
Currently I am on H1B visa.I will file my 485 as secondary applicant.What are my options in case If I have to leave my job and my 485 is still not approved.
Do I need to file H4 (Since 485 is still not approved) ?
Thanks in advance.
You can status will be Adjustment of Status ( AOS ) but cant work . IYou need a APO if you want to travel . If you want to work you need an EAD .
Check with attorney .This is the essence of mail which i got from my attorney when asked regarding my son status
Currently I am on H1B visa.I will file my 485 as secondary applicant.What are my options in case If I have to leave my job and my 485 is still not approved.
Do I need to file H4 (Since 485 is still not approved) ?
Thanks in advance.
You can status will be Adjustment of Status ( AOS ) but cant work . IYou need a APO if you want to travel . If you want to work you need an EAD .
Check with attorney .This is the essence of mail which i got from my attorney when asked regarding my son status
raghu112
07-19 10:32 PM
I am in!
No comments:
Post a Comment