Humor. Me.

POTUS QUOTUS - "Did He Send the Letter?"

Pointless Presidential Pfacts #18 - "The Winning Party"

It's not a competition, but if it were, the Republican Party has won more presidential elections out of the 57 that have taken place since the Constitution took effect in 1789. Sort of.

With George Washington having been unanimously elected twice in 1789 and 1792, he's always been associated with no political party. It can be argued that he leaned toward the Federalists rather than Jefferson's anti-federalists. But he was above all that, except by the end of his term it was getting politically heated. He warned famously in his farewell address to avoid political factions. Eventually a two-party political system would form and evolve over the course of U.S. political history. With Vice President John Adams' victory in 1796, Federalists remained in power. The only Federalist to be elected president.

In 1800, the country would experience the first change in power from one political faction to another. With Vice President Thomas Jefferson's victory in the election, which had to be decided in the House of Representatives because of a tie vote with Aaron Burr his supposed-to-be-running-mate, Jefferson brought to power his anti-federalist group which became known as the Democratic-Republicans. They would defeat every Federalist candidate in the elections from 1804-1824. That's 7 election wins. The 1820, the Era of Good Feelings was good because there was no opposition party. The Federalists were not a threat to James Monroe's reelection. He won all the electoral votes except one, so that Washington would remain the only president unanimously elected. Since there was no opposition, in 1824 four candidates ran for president as a Democratic-Republican. In that election, Andrew Jackson would receive a plurality of both popular and electoral votes, but with no clear majority the House of Representatives would decide. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, son of the 2nd POTUS, would be the winner in the House.

Jackson would campaign against the administration for the next four years and in a rematch in 1828 defeat President Adams, who ran as a National Republican. The next elections from 1832 until 1852, the new Democratic Party would go up against the Whigs. The Whig Party would win only 2 elections, 1840 and 1848.

Starting in 1856, the Democrats would face a new political party, the Republican Party. The Democrats would win 22 elections between 1828 and 2012, while the GOP would win 23 elections starting in 1860 through 2004. Yes, 23 is a bigger number than 22, but 3 of the elections that the GOP won actually had the Democratic nominee winning the popular vote in 1876, 1888, and 2000. So it can be said that the Democrats won the popular vote 25 times to the Republican's 20 wins in the popular vote. But like the Constitution says, it's the Electoral College winner that wins the presidency. 23-22.

Pointless Presidential Pfacts #15 - "Florida, Florida, Florida"

With the Romney campaign conceding Florida, the State's role in presidential elections goes beyond being a swing state. Unlike in 2000, the State's outcome would determine the next president. 2000 was the last presidential with where the popular vote winner was not the electoral vote winner. In 1876, the first time the popular vote winner was not also the electoral vote winner, Florida played a role. Florida was one of three States, where their electoral votes were in dispute. Each party claimed the right to their slate of electors, those that would vote in the Electoral College. Rutherford B. Hayes had a majority and one more electoral vote than Samuel Tilden, his opponent. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ended the recounts in Florida, which then allowed George W. Bush to claim the needed electoral votes to win the presidency against Al Gore. In 1876, a commission of 15 was set up to determine the disputed votes and the Compromise of 1877 gave Hayes the presidency and removed federal troops from the South, ending Reconstruction.

Pointless Presidential Pfacts #13 - "Calling the Winner!!!"

After the People cast their votes determining which candidate wins the electoral votes of the States, the electors cast their vote for both president and vice president in the Electoral College. In a Joint-Session of Congress, the VPOTUS, as president of the Senate, presides and counts the votes. Sometimes the new president that is proclaimed ran against the VPOTUS during the general election, Richard Nixon announced JFK in 1960, Hubert Humphrey announced Nixon in 1968, and Al Gore, the popular vote winner, announced George W. Bush in 2000. We'll see if Joe Biden will get to do what Dick Cheney did in 2004 or what Dan Quayle did in 1992 (or similar to Cheney in 2008 announcing the opposition party the victory.)

Pointless Presidential Pfacts #11 - "Popular Vote Losing Presidents"

Four times in our nation's history the person that lost the popular vote became president. The first one was in 1824, but not all the States counted the popular votes. In that election, 4 candidates spread out the popular votes cast and the electoral votes won. However, Andrew Jackson had a plurality of both the popular and electoral votes, but since there was no majority the House of Representatives decided the winner and they chose John Quincy Adams.

The next time the person with more popular votes would lose the Electoral College was in 1876. By then all the States in the Union were casting popular votes. Democrat Samuel Tilden lost to Rutherford B. Hayes by one electoral vote. In this election, the electoral votes of Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina were in question, both parties claimed victory in those States with electors ready to vote for each candidate. To determine which candidate received the votes, a commission was set up and just days before the March 4th inauguration the Compromise of 1877 took place giving Hayes the votes to win if he promised to remove federal troops from the South, thus ending Reconstruction.

12 years after that election, the outcome had the popular vote winner losing the presidency. President Grover Cleveland was defeated by Benjamin Harrison. Unlike 1876, there was no confusion just a clear victor in the popular vote and and Electoral College, just two different people. No problems like in '76 or in the next election with a similar outcome.

The country wouldn't experience an election like 1876 or 1888 again until the year 2000. But this election was more like 1876 and 1824 than 1888. This time one State, Florida brought about the chaos. The vote count in Florida was so close that Vice President Al Gore rescinded his concession because a recount was possible since it was so close. The Florida Supreme Court allowed the recounts, but the Bush campaign appealed to the United States Supreme Court which then stopped the recount, thus awarding the State's electoral votes to Bush.

Some pointless similarities...All the popular vote winners in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000 lost the Electoral College and were Democrats (Andrew Jackson would eventually go on to form the party by the next election). Jackson and Grover Cleveland ran four years after losing the Electoral College and defeated the incumbent presidents, Samuel Tilden and Al Gore never attempted a rematch. With the exception of 1876, all the Electoral College winners were ancestors of a president. 1824, John Quincy Adams' father was the 2nd president. 1888, Benjamin Harrison's grandfather was the 9th president. 2000, George W. Bush's father was the 41st president. Out of all the popular vote losers from those four elections, George W. Bush is the only one to win reelection, winning both the popular and the electoral votes in 2004.

2012 Prediction

My first time voting was in 1996, and after I cast my vote I felt I was voting for the winner of the election. In the end, I was right...it was William Jefferson Clinton. I didn't predict his election, but somehow knew he'd be reelected. I was a registered Republican for a couple of months before switching to the Democratic Party just before the election. I turned 18 in July of '96 and, of course, the election was in November.

In 2000, I voted for the incumbent vice president, and somehow believed and thought he would win. I voted the day of the election and of course had no idea that the outcome would not be revealed until December 13, 2000. I don't know why I thought he'd win, even though the popular vote would support my notion that Al Gore was more popular among the electorate than the actual winner, Governor George Bush of Texas. I should've known better since only 4 incumbent vice presidents have won a presidential election. At that point in 2000, Vice President George Bush was the first incumbent vice president to win since Martin Van Buren in 1936. Notice I used the Bush's titles to differentiate them rather than their middle initials. Of course, had Gore used more of President Bill Clinton and simply won his own home state he'd have won the election.

Historically, with the exception of Samuel Tilden, the person that won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote, returned 4 years later and defeated the president elected simply by the Electoral College. Andrew Jackson had the most votes in 1824, but John Quincy Adams was eventually elected president by the House of Representatives because neither candidate had a majority in the Electoral college. President Grover Cleveland won the popular vote in 1888, but Benjamin Harrison won the Electoral College. Four years later, former president Cleveland defeated President Harrison in a rematch. In 2004, Gore joined Tilden by not running again against the man that lost the popular vote but won the presidency. Most likely, Gore didn't run in '04 because Bush was a wartime president and no Democrat was going to beat him. If you asked me on September 10, 2001, if Gore were to run in '04, I'd say he would win. But if you asked me on September 12, 2001, in a post-9/11 America, I'd tell you that Bush would win reelection. I predicted it on that tragic day and proof that Bush was unbeatable is that Gore didn't run and the other most popular Democrat, Hillary Clinton, didn't run. Sure she was a first term U.S. Senator from New York, but in 2002 she was considered a front-runner for the presidential nomination on the Democratic side. But she knew, like Gore did, that she'd lose to a popular wartime president. Called it!

If you follow President Bush's ratings from 9/11, you'll see he has the highest approval rating since his father after the Gulf War. But if you follow those numbers they go down, and a chart would show that if the election of 2004 were in December the president would probably lose. And his poll numbers just kept going down from there. So by 2008, there was no way a Republican could win the presidency. The presidential election of 2008 was pretty much determined during the 2008 Democratic primary/caucus elections between then-senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Once Obama won the nomination it was clear that he'd be winner in November.

As I write this and explain my justifications for the '04 an '08 election predictions, the evidence for reelection was so clear. Since Obama's election in 2008, I've predicted his reelection. As Election Day approaches, it looks like 2012 will be another 2004, 1976, or a 1968 to name a few close elections. But I've always thought that he was unbeatable, maybe it's like my vote for Clinton in '96 and Gore in '00, but the evidence for his reelection is there. The Republicans in 2012 nominated Mitt Romney out of a field that included fringe candidates and the lone logical candidate in Jon Huntsman, and he got no love whereas all those others scared Romney at least once by out polling him. In 2012, the Republicans had to choose a candidate out of the B-team (I don't think B-team is right, maybe Z-team), the no-love-candidate Jon Huntsman, and Etch A Sketch Mitt Romney. The A-Team of the Republican Party didn't show up, Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, and Jeb Bush, to name a few. Jeb Bush at least had his last name as a reason not run.

My prediction of Obama's '12 victory was confirmed by the A-Team GOPers skipping the race because they knew they couldn't defeat a popular president like Obama, just like Gore and Hillary skipping '04. Now if I am wrong, I'll admit it and those A-Team GOPers will be upset that they didn't step up. If I am wrong, I'll still predict that a President Romney will win reelection in 2016, because the economy will be better in the 2013-2017 presidential term and that president will get the credit. Meaning a President Romney will win reelection or President Obama will be able anoint his successor whether that's Vice President Joe Biden, probably-by-then former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, or some other popular Democrat in four years, just like President Theodore Roosevelt did with William Howard Taft in 1908 or Ronald Reagan with Vice President Bush in 1988. Had Gore relied more on the popular Clinton, he too would have received the love of a popular outgoing incumbent. But Gore felt the Lewinsky scandal should not touch him, even though Clinton was popular post-impeachment and more so as an outgoing POTUS.

I don't see my 2012 prediction being wrong, although in the days leading up to election night I'm reminded of the days before 2000. I'm probably questioning myself because of all the articles I read that say how close the election is, or how friends or comments-online-people declaring a Romney landslide victory. I just wonder where are they getting their info since they bash any poll that says Obama will win. Obama's reelection will not just be the first for someone of African ancestry, but also the first time that 3 presidents have been reelected back-to-back since James Monroe succeeded James Madison in 1816 and Madison succeeded Thomas Jefferson in 1808. I'm sure the 57th U.S. Presidential Election will result in the reelection of the 44th President of the United States and 47th Vice President. Why is it the 57th election and 44th POTUS and 47 VPOTUS? That sounds like that can be a pointless presidential pfact, which is probably better than this pointless presidential 'pinion.

Pointless Presidential Pfacts #9 - "4 Out of 5 Elections Recommend These Candidates"

Franklin D. Roosevelt and Richard Nixon both ran on a national ticket 5 times and won 4 out of the 5 elections. FDR ran (pre-Polio days) as the vice presidential candidate in 1920 with James Cox (yeah he was a presidential candidate), but Americans wanted a return to normalcy and voted the GOP ticket of Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge into office. In 1932, 12 years after that election, FDR would begin his 4 term winning streak in 1932, then winning again in 1936, 1940 and 1944. Dominance in 4 presidential elections by one individual led to the creation of the 22nd Amendment, limiting a president to 2 terms.

RN ran on a national ticket 8 years after FDR's last run for office. Nixon ran as Dwight Eisenhower's running mate in 1952 and 1956 and they defeated Adlai Stevenson, both times. In 1960, Nixon became the first incumbent vice president to run for president since John Breckenridge ran as a Southern Democrat 100 years before. Nixon was also the first two term incumbent VP to run since John Adams in 1796. Nixon lost a close election to John F. Kennedy in 1960, but 8 years later the former vice president ran again and in another close election defeated the incumbent vice president Hubert Humphrey. In 1968, it was Vice President vs. Former Vice President. The former vice president won and then won reelection in a landslide in 1972. Nixon was also the only former vice president to win a presidential election. So two people won 4 out of 5 national contests, one for president, the other for both president and vice president. FDR was one and Nixon's the other one. (see what I did there? No? NERDALERT!)

Pointless Presidential Pfacts #7 - "Jefferson/Burr '00 or is it Burr/Jefferson '00"

1800 was the 4th presidential election, which is the only election where the sitting Vice President ran against the incumbent President. They were of two different parties and hoped to avoid the outcome of '96 as well as the term of 1797-1801. So President John Adams chose a "running mate" and so did Vice President Thomas Jefferson. The Jefferson/Burr "ticket" won. Each got the exact same number of votes. Since it was a pre-12th Amendment America, the Electoral College had two votes but no clear way of designating which candidate was to be president and which was vp. With Jefferson and Burr tied in the Electoral College vote, the House of Representatives broke the tie...after 36 ballots. The House realized they didn't like Aaron Burr (say it with peanut butter in your mouth...got milk?) and TJ won becoming the 3rd POTUS and Burr became the 3rd VPOTUS. By 1804, the 12th Amendment would be passed establishing votes for running mates and making the vice presidency an office that didn't go to a political opponent but rather a balancing of the ticket, geographically, ideologically, and politically...and sometimes a political death sentence.

Pointless Presidential Pfacts #4 - "Adams/Jefferson '96???"

In our nation's 3rd presidential election in 1796, Vice President John Adams, supported by the Federalists, was the first place winner in the Electoral College and the runner-up was former Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, supported by the anti-federalists which would eventually become the Democratic-Republicans. So from 1797-1801, the POTUS was from one party and the VPOTUS was from another party, something that would not happen again until 1864 when Republican Abraham Lincoln ran with Democrat Andrew Johnson on the National Union ticket...but that one was planned.

Pointless Presidential Pfacts #3 - "The One, the Only, George Washington"

George Washington. 1st POTUS. 1789-1797. Virginian. No Party Affiliation.

George Washington was unanimously elected by the ELECTORAL COLLEGE twice in 1789 and 1792. Never again has this been repeated, but it has come near unanimous first with James Monroe in 1820 (the closest), Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936 (not far behind), and Ronald Reagan in 1984 (ditto and the most recent).

President James Monroe was reelected to a second term in 1820, unopposed in the "Era of Good Feelings." Monroe would receive 98.3% of the Electoral College votes, 3 members would not end up voting and one unfaithful elector cast a vote for Secretary of State John Quincy Adams because he felt he'd be a better president than Monroe.

In President Franklin Roosevelt's first try at reelection he received 60% of the popular vote and 98.5% of the Electoral College vote, losing just Vermont and Maine to Alf Landon in 1936.

In 1984, President Ronald Reagan won 59% of the popular vote and 97.6% of the Electoral College, that's everything except his opponent former Vice President Walter F. Mondale's home State of Minnesota and the District of Columbia.

McCain/Another White Guy '08

It's McCain/Palin all the way in 2008!

The 2008 election was going to make history from the start. That's from the start of the Democratic contest for the nomination, not the Republican's contest. The Democrats had an African-American male, a Latino, and a woman who was just not any woman, but the former first lady of the United States. When the contest came down to just the African-American male and the woman, it was very clear that history was being made and there was possible more history making to come.

While the Democrats put up five white males alongside the other three, the Grand Old Party totaled ten white males all vying for the top of the ticket.

For the first time in twenty-four the Democratic Party was going to bring some diversity to their national ticket. Once the people had spoken and put Barack Obama, an African-American, at the top of the ticket, some wondered if an unprecedented ticket was to be formed. Instead going the more democratic approach of choosing the person to receive the second most highest number of votes cast, Obama selected a safe choice in a running mate. The ticketed did not need to be balanced ideologically or geographically, but it was balanced with Joe Biden someone that balance outs any of Obama's flaws.

The other national party didn't seem to have the possibility of making some history in this election. Those that ran for the nomination were all white males. McCain could've chosen Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee, the next two highest vote getters. But he didn't. McCain secured his party's nomination via the primaries and caucuses earlier than Obama. That was February and it wouldn't be until the first week of September when McCain would officially be the Republican nominee. And yet he still waited until the week before to make his selection.

By this point Obama was history in the making and with Biden the Democrats chose to make history one step at a time. McCain's choices of running mates were Romney of Massachusetts, Governor Charlie Crist of Florida, Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Secretary and former governor Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania, and Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. His choices were nothing extraordinary for the Republican, save maybe Lieberman. Senator Lieberman would be a historical choice for a number of reasons: the first Jewish vice presidential candidate for the Republican ticket (he was also the first Jewish vice presidential candidate for the Democrats in 2000, which would've made his simply the first Jewish vice presidential candidate in U.S. history), and he would've been a Democrat turned Independent Democrat to run as vice president on the Republican ticket. Not since the election of 1864 had there been such a bipartisan ticket.

But that was not to be. McCain couldn't settle on the white males he was debating over. The Democratic party was about to have for the second time in twenty-four years a ticket with just one white male on it. It looked like McCain's Republican ticket would be no different than GOP tickets of the past.

One name did keep appearing on McCain's short list. The name on that list would eventually be the name added to the ticket and break the Republican party's one hundred fifty-two year streak of an all white male ticket.

Sarah Palin was the choice. She's a governor of a state, just like the other men McCain was considering, once again, except Lieberman. But her resume is somewhat shorter than the others on the short list. There are other qualified and more recognizable Republican woman: Senators Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas and Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, a former candidate for the Republican nomination back in 2000 and wife of the GOP's 1996 nominee; former governor Christine Todd Whitman; business woman Carly Fiorina; and second lady Lynne Cheney. If a first lady can gain experience watch a president, I'm sure the same can be said of the second lady watch her vice president husband execute the duties of his office.

Sarah Palin was the choice. She was the choice because it went with McCain's maverick or outsider approach to politics. Sure the second lady would be an out there choice, but that would be like selecting another GOP woman rumored to be considered by McCain: secretary of state Condoleezza Rice. Rice would've been an historic nomination, but enough of an outsider or change to compete with McCain's opponent idea of change.

Sarah Palin was the choice. Her selection fits with McCain and the options he faced. With Sarah Palin, McCain added much heat and interest into a campaign that without Palin would've been no different the first GOP ticket of John C. Fremont and William L. Dayton.

The Second Lady

Johnna Folsom is the first female governor of the great state of California. She is an independent politician, not associated with either the Democratic or Republican parties. The two parties selected their nominees for president of the United States. Johnna Folsom feels that she is the best qualified candidate to be the president of the United States.

As governor of the great state of California, she truly made it the greatest state in the Union by increasing employment and balancing the budget. She made everyone across the political spectrum happy. She proved she could govern. She proved she could manage the second largest bureaucracy in the United States. She proved she was ready for the biggest job in the county, and the world.

Johnna declared her candidacy after the major parties named their candidates. She was running as an independent, which meant it would be more difficult for her since she would not have the backing of the two big national political organizations. However her independence and her record as governor of California gave her wide appeal in a nation disillusioned by the two political parties of the United States.

Johnna began campaigning as the candidate to govern the United States and the world. She believed that her record as governor of California was proof that she could lead the masses and unite such a diverse population. Her history had shown that she could perform the duties of the chief executive of the nation, since her time as mayor of San Francisco and her time in the United States Senate representing California.

Governor Folsom is ambitious as her two male opponents of the two major political parties, but her success in the past has propelled her to front runner status for the highest job in the land. She is everyone’s favorite to be the next president of the United States.

With the governor’s success as front-runner against her two male opponents, Mayor Kathryn Grayson of Los Angeles enters the race. Mayor Grayson is very charismatic and an elegant speaker. She can lift up the lowest of spirits and fill them with the American dream. Her charm and beauty begin to elevate her to front-runner status.

Johnna realizes that she needs to become more human, like her new female competitor in this now four person race. Her ambition alone won’t get her to the Oval Office. She begins changing her stump speech from her history as a politician to that of a woman who struggled in a male dominated world. This new take on her campaign does not help her against the popular mayor of Los Angeles.

Mayor Grayson’s political history begins to catch up with her. It is soon revealed that while she was a member of the city council, she hired illegal immigrants to work at her home. This tarnishes her image and any chance she had of becoming a viable contender for the presidency. This event also returns Governor Folsom to the leading candidate in the polls against her two male rivals.

Governor Folsom looks to be the next president at this point in the race. Her ambition aside, she continues to present her human side for the remainder of the campaign, something she hasn’t done her political life.

On election night, the first returns show her in a three way tie with her two opponents. As the night goes on it becomes clear that the Democratic candidate is the projected winner. Governor Folsom is able to garner enough electoral and popular votes to place her in second place. Her candidacy divided the Republican vote, giving the election to the Democratic candidate.

During her concession speech, Governor Folsom acknowledges her loss but doesn’t give up on the hope that someone that doesn’t look like the other presidents can eventually grow up to be president.

Liberalism’s Fall, Conservatism’s Rise: Why liberalism ceased to be the nation’s dominant ideology?

1964 began the decade known as the 1960s. Events both social and political, the Beatles arrival at JFK airport and the Democratic victories in the Congressional elections both in 1964, began a decade of change. In the election of 1964, the American people overwhelmingly voted for President Lyndon Johnson and a liberal agenda. 1964 and onward would bring monumental change to the status quo and traditional values with Civil Rights legislation; the Great Society programs; Feminism; and gay rights. The 1960s’ Cultural Revolution, which came from liberalism, would be too much of a change for Americans by the end of the 1960s. Liberalism ceased being the nation’s dominant ideology with the Reagan Revolution in the 1980s, a response to the Cultural Revolution. Conservatives fearful of social changes in both values and legislation created a reactionary section of the Republican Party determined to end liberalism as the governing ideological force and return the nation to traditional conservative values.

The status quo and those in favor of traditional values would remain silent for some time. The alternative to the landslide victor of the 1964 Presidential Election was distant second place winner Barry Goldwater. Goldwater, the Republican candidate, received Electoral votes in his home state of Arizona and 5 former Confederate States, the former members of the Solid South. The Solid South, which voted Democrat since the Civil War, could not accept the changes that came with the Cultural Revolution. The Conservative candidate Barry Goldwater would not be a match for Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats with their liberal agenda. Johnson’s success was necessary so Civil Rights legislation and social programs under the Great Society banner could be passed. The reaction to Johnson’s successes and the changes brought by those successes in social values was rooted here and the reaction came to life in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan.

The assassination of John F. Kennedy in November of 1963 elevated Lyndon Johnson to the Presidency. The American people elected Johnson to his own full term in 1964. In his own term, Johnson wanted to complete the work of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs. Johnson had his own legislative packed agenda titled the Great Society. The legislation which made up the Great Society was the most passed since the days of the Great Depression. Johnson’s liberal approach to governing, assist the citizens that needed assistance, the disenfranchised African-Americans and the single-mother were two examples that needed assistance. This liberal way of governing would be a reason the right would rise against the liberalism governing the nation.

The liberal way of governing followed a model put forth by author George Lakoff. In his book Moral Politics, Lakoff uses the concept of a family to model how a government functions in certain respects. The relationship of the parent or parents to their children is similar to that of the government to the citizens. The upbringing of a child by a parent is approached in two ways, both justified as moral in their own right according to Lakoff. One model has a parent who can be firm and another model showing a parent who is lenient with their child. The parent in one model allows questions, while the other model does not. A child cries, one parent will respond and one would let the child cry it out. The two models can be applied to the way our political parties in power govern.

Lakoff’s models suggest how certain ideologies would approach governing. The government can make decisions, no matter how popular or unpopular, in the favor or against the favor of its citizens. The government allows for dissent or the government denies dissent. The government helps its citizens or it allows the citizens to help themselves.

One of Lakoff’s models is known as the Nurturant Parent. This model can contain a single-parent or two-parents. Nurturant Parent Model can best be defined as “one of being cared for and cared about, having one’s desires for loving interactions met, living as happily as possible, and deriving meaning from mutual interaction and care” (Lakoff 2002, 108). This model represents the parent who is lenient, allows questions, and responds to the child in tears. The models also apply to how governments interact with the citizens. The lenient approach would help bring liberalism to its end.

The ideology that fits the Nurturant Parent Model would be liberalism. Liberalism, usually associated with government sponsored programs, helps those in need of assistance. Government in the United States traditionally did not heavily involve itself in the lives of the citizens. This changed dramatically in the 1930s with Franklin Roosevelt’s legislative agenda containing many government sponsored programs to help the depressed nation. Liberalism of the 1960s would be the continuation of the New Deal, brought to the American people by Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. The liberal agenda of the Great Society would be a part of the liberalism that would be rejected in the 1980s.

The legislative agenda of the Great Society was the Nurturant Parent Model at work. The “caring for and caring about” (Lakoff 2002, 108) part of this model’s definition sums up the legislation found in the Great Society. Some examples of the Great Society are Medicaid and Medicare.

The Nurturant Parent Model wants their child to become self-dependent. This was not happening in the eyes of those that did not want a liberal government that created social programs of assistance. Those citizens on government programs were dependent on the government. They needed to be dependent on themselves. The other aspect of liberalism, the non-legislative aspect, the movements of women and gay rights was just as disturbing as the liberal social programs.

Feminists and Gay Right Activists were the other aspects to the liberalism of the 1960s. The movements by Feminists and Gay Rights Activists were another affront to the traditional values. These cultural changes occurring during the Cultural Revolution were too much for those that sought to maintain traditional values. The unification of Southern Whites and the Religious Right would give an electoral voice wanting and waiting to be heard.

Southern White Christians were citizens of the Southern region of the United States, the former Confederate States of America. Other regions would eventually join to make up the electoral base needed to win elections. The South had traditionally voted Democratic since the Civil War. The vow to never vote for the party of Abraham Lincoln was broken in the 1960s. Lincoln had destroyed the Southern White males way of living by ending their peculiar institution. In Reconstruction, Lincoln wanted “malice toward none and charity for all” and did not deserve the generational vow of not voting Republican. The Southern Whites were once again facing a major change in society.

The changes in society in the 1960s brought the loyalty of the Southern Whites to the Democratic Party into question. The Democrats were helping the African-Americans through Civil Rights legislation and programs of the Great Society. The Nurturant Parent Model was not working in the eyes of the Southern Whites. Those that were on government programs were too dependent instead of becoming more self-dependent. Another approach needed to be taken.

The Nurturant Parent Model, as a failure, could not be the only reason the Southern Whites abandoned the Democrats in the 1960s. Since the days of FDR, the Democrats have come to the aide of the African-Americans through social legislation under the banner of the New Deal. Fast forward thirty-plus years, Democrat Lyndon Johnson, President of the United States, had signed Civil Rights legislation. The Democratic Party was continuing to fight for the rights of African-Americans. All of that was plenty of reason to want to see an end to liberalism in the eyes of the Southern Whites.

The rights of African-Americans led Southern Whites to abandon one party for another. In the 1860s, Lincoln ended slavery in the territories in rebellion and the Republican Party tried to reconstruct the defeated South into the new order of society following the Civil War, both were reasons never to support the Republican Party since they fought for the rights of African-Americans. Once again, Southern Whites switched parties because the party fought for rights of the minority, the one’s without a voice, the African-Americans. In the 1960s, it was the Democratic Party’s support of Civil Rights legislation which ended their solid grip on the South.

The abandonment of the Democratic Party by the Southern Whites began the revolt against liberalism which would bring it to its end. The revolt began in the election of 1964 with five Southern Electoral votes going for Goldwater, the Republican Candidate. The Nurturant Parent Model did not work. Liberalism did not work for the country in their eyes. Citizens were becoming dependent on their government. Non-traditional values were becoming the norm. Southern Whites wanted a new approach to governing and soon so would many more Americans, including the Religious Right. However, Southern White Christians would need someone to lead them on this revolt against liberalism.

The mid-1970s ended the 1960s, which began in 1964. The country had finished their involvement in a foreign war falsely presented to the people of the United States. The president committed impeachable offenses. The social programs of the Great Society continued on. There were also Civil Rights legislation, Feminists, and Gay Rights Activists, just a few things to show a Cultural Revolution that came from the 1960s.

The Cultural Revolution was too much for some people. “Through the years of liberal social policies in the 1960s, a substantial share of the electorate showed itself deeply unhappy with the ongoing cultural revolution, though it could rarely make its voice heard in mainstream political debate” (Jenkins 2006, 75). The voice they would get would come from former Hollywood actor and Governor of the State of California, Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan’s defeat of President Jimmy Carter in 1980 not only began the 1980s but began the conservative response to 1960s liberalism, also known as the Reagan Revolution. President Johnson approached domestic policy, using Lakoff’s model, as the Nurturant Parent. President Reagan would be the counterpart model to the Nurturant Parent, the Strict Father.

The Strict Father model is an approach to both parenting and governing. In the Strict Father Model the household is run by the father and the mother upholds his authority. The children are similar to subordinates in the military, which must obey their superior’s authority. In this model there are no questions asked when asked to do something. The father in this model can reprimand their children as firm as he sees fit. Lakoff said this model takes the view “that life is difficult and that the world is fundamentally dangerous” (Lakoff 2002, 65). A strong father figure is there to guide and protect the family. Reagan filled this role for the Conservatives looking for the voice to opposing liberalism.

Reagan’s approach to governing followed the model of Strict Father. Despite a difference in age, Reagan exuded a strict father appearance compared to his predecessor Jimmy Carter, whose tenure in office was more feminine in administration of the government. By the end of Carter’s term the country needed “to adopt more aggressive and confrontational attitudes toward its enemies” (Jenkins 2006, 151). The adoption of these attitudes would come with the election of Reagan.

Reagan would dismantle the Great Society. The Great Society’s legislative agenda gave opportunities to citizens in need of some kind of help. The reliance of the government to support its citizens went against the grain of a conservative. According to Seymour Martin Lipset, author of American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword, the creed of the United States are the basic values of liberty, egalitarianism, and individualism. According to Lipset, the American Ideology is all we have, since we Americans have no bloodline that binds us as a nation. It has always been the American way to work hard and keep your earnings. Americans of the late 20th Century were no different than those of earlier generations. This creed of Lipset’s can be seen as Reagan’s response to the social programs of the Great Society.

The values in the creed of the United States went against government programs’ attempt to help. Liberty defined as you own yourself and nobody owns you. The government does not own you, you can go out and work hard trying to make something for oneself. Egalitarianism means that no one is born into special privilege. If born into poverty, one can get out of it through hard work and should not continue every generation relying on the government for support. Finally, there is individualism, which is about there being one you, a unique individual. Government does not involve itself in the lives of the individual.

The social programs did not help the citizens of the United States, but instead created problems for the citizens. Reagan blamed the government for the social problems the United States faced in the 1960s. He wanted Americans to feel good about themselves again. His campaign ads said “it’s morning in America.” Reagan exuded an optimistic view of America and what it can achieve, especially with less government. The less government would come in the area of social programs. Big government would remain but in a different area of the federal government.

Where President Johnson was big on government spending for social programs, President Reagan matched him in military spending, the big government that Southern White Christians liked, a strong defense. Reagan’s defense military build-up against the Soviet Union was appealing to Americans who sought comfort in the Strict Father Model, the model which helped win the Cold War.

The Strict Father was the solution at the time to clean up the mess left by the Nurturant Parent. If 1964 was the beginning of liberalism’s end with the landslide reelection of Lyndon Johnson, then 1984, with the landslide reelection of Ronald Reagan, confirmed that liberalism was not the dominant ideology, rather conservatism was now the nation’s dominant ideology and that it was here to stay. The social changes brought by liberalism of the 1960s created the reactionary Southern White Christians which would see to liberalisms end with Reagan’s victory in 1980. Just as liberalism began a long march from Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs through to Johnson’s Great Society programs, and the cultural changes that came with the 1960s; conservatism has reached the beginning of its end with the reelection of George W. Bush to a second term in 2004. The Reagan Revolution ended liberalism as the nation’s dominant ideology, only time will tell if Compassionate Conservatism is the end of conservatism as the nation’s dominant ideology.

___________________________________________________________
Jenkins, Philip. 2006. Decade of Nightmares – The End of the Sixties and the Making of Eighties America. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Lakoff, George. 2002. Moral Politics – How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.

Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1996. American Exceptionalism – A Double-Edged Sword. New
York: W.W. Norton & Company.