Who would you have supported in all US presidential elections up to 1988?

nuclearguy165 · Jul 19, 2020

Futurist said:
Yeah, I will admit that Blaine was sort of the "easy to beat" GOP candidate. This is why I find it so surprising that Blaine almost won in 1884. He only lost New York state by less than 0.10%, or slightly more than 1,000 votes--and this was with the whole "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion" gaffe by one of his supporters (Reverend Samuel Burchard) several days before the election. Without this gaffe, Blaine likely wins even though he was running against "Grover the Good". So, honestly, what this might mean is that Cleveland might have looked better than he actually was and that his love child scandal really could have significantly hurt him--especially in New York state. Cleveland won the New York Governorship in 1882 by a landslide but only barely won New York state in 1884. He also underperformed David B. Hill in New York in 1888, with Hill winning the New York Governorship in 1888 while Cleveland lost New York to Harrison that year by slightly more than 1%.

You should look at the Keys to the White House:

The Keys to the White House - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In 1876, the incumbent party (the GOP) had four keys in its favor, in comparison to six keys in its favor in 1884. So, Yes, based purely on the keys, 1876 was more likely to be a Democratic victory than 1884 was--though in both cases the Democrats were favored. Interestingly enough, in 1876, Tilden actually won the popular vote by 3% while Cleveland only won it by less than 1% in 1884; however, the electoral college barely worked in Cleveland's favor while barely working against Tilden.

What I think it also shows is that state politics and voting are different between those running for state office and those running for national office. Even in years where a particular party and candidate had the advantage with the governorship, the other party may have had the advantage in the presidential election, and this doesn’t even always have to do with the individual candidate themselves- hence Grover winning the governorship by a landslide while barely winning NY in the presidential election just 2 years later. Maybe the scandal with the child born out of wedlock was a lot more publicized in the latter? His response to such attacks were about as good as they possibly could have been and he was an exquisite administrator, but those personal foibles were still harmful to his political chances.

Futurist · Jul 19, 2020

nuclearguy165 said:
What I think it also shows is that state politics and voting are different between those running for state office and those running for national office. Even in years where a particular party and candidate had the advantage with the governorship, the other party may have had the advantage in the presidential election, and this doesn’t even always have to do with the individual candidate themselves- hence Grover winning the governorship by a landslide while barely winning NY in the presidential election just 2 years later. Maybe the scandal with the child born out of wedlock was a lot more publicized in the latter. His response to such attacks were about as good as they possibly could have been and he was an exquisite administrator, but those personal foibles were still harmful to his political chances.

Agreed with all of this.

BTW, if you will ever write an article about the 1884 election, you could have this title:

1884: The Plumed Knight vs. The Plump Knight

Futurist · Jul 19, 2020

Blaine was literally known as The Plumed Knight:

James G. Blaine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

While I gave Grover Cleveland the nickname The Plump Knight because he was rather Rubenesque and also a fighter against corruption and government waste (perhaps too much in the case of the latter).

nuclearguy165 · Jul 19, 2020

Futurist said:
Blaine was literally known as The Plumed Knight:

James G. Blaine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

While I gave Grover Cleveland the nickname The Plump Knight because he was rather Rubenesque and also a fighter against corruption and government waste (perhaps too much in the case of the latter).

That is really interesting and it seems like Grover was more of a 20's style Republican in terms of policy (though perhaps a little less nativist), more similar to Coolidge rather than to a Democrat like Wilson, Cox, or Roosevelt from that same era.

Futurist · Jul 19, 2020

nuclearguy165 said:
That is really interesting and it seems like Grover was more of a 20's style Republican in terms of policy (though perhaps a little less nativist), more similar to Coolidge rather than to a Democrat like Wilson, Cox, or Roosevelt from that same era.

Yeah, Grover was definitely less nativist than the 1920s Republicans I believe that he vetoed a bill in 1897 that called for a literacy test for new immigrants to the US. 1920s Republicans, of course, went much farther than a mere literacy test--which the US had already (finally) passed in 1917 over President Wilson's veto. Grover was anti-Chinese immigration (as were most US politicians and all or almost all Democrats back then), but he appears to have been cool with European/white immigration to the US.

It might be worth comparing Cleveland's response to the Pullman Strike with Coolidge's response to the Boston Police Strike as Massachusetts Governor back in 1919:

Pullman Strike - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Boston police strike - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Futurist · Jul 20, 2020

nuclearguy165 said:
My choices:

1788- Washington for obvious reasons and for being a very reasoned and pragmatic statesman.

1792- Washington for obvious reasons.

1796- Adams because I am generally more of a supporter of the Federalists on foreign, economic and especially military policy. Adams is a pragmatic statesman whom I admire at this point.

1800- Jefferson; Adams loses me with the Sedition Act, in particular.

1804- Jefferson, who has had a successful first term.

1808- Pinckney, because of the Republican adherence to the Embargo Act and economic measures.

Which economic measures are you talking about for 1808?

1812- ......., for much the same reasons and for, if anything, probably being able to handle the War of 1812 better.

You think that ....... would be able to have the US win the War of 1812?

1816- Monroe, because of my disapproval of the Hartford Convention on the Federalists part and how broken they were at this point.

1820- Monroe because of no alternative.

1824- JQA. While I generally am actually a fan of Henry Clay and his compromises at this time (morally indefensible but still sound politics in terms of the climate of the time), Adams has great experience and seemed eminently qualified and pragmatic enough to handle top national office and more.

1828- Jackson, I hate to say it, largely due to JQA’s by now demonstrative ineffectiveness at handling his office and working with other politicians as a part of that role. Plus, while not necessarily corrupt, Adams making Clay Secretary of State under the circumstances in which he did was terribly clumsy political optics of the highest order. No fan of Jackson’s policies with regards to Indians and banks but he is definitely a strong leader who can breathe necessary new life into his office. Also love the Hunters of Kentucky song.

1832- Clay, due to my general liking for his pragmatic politics and disapproval of Jackson‘s Indian and bank policies.

1836- van Buren wins me over with his predecessors strong approach to the Nullification Crisis and for his own stated intention to revive the National Bank.

1840- Harrison, for how disastrous van Buren’s presidency has been.

Interesting.

1844- Clay, for his pragmatism and in being possibly the most qualified of all failed presidential contenders.

Yeah, I mean, Clay was certainly principled. In regards to the Mexican-American War, it might have been contrary to national self-determination at the time (though we don't know for sure due to the lack of plebiscites and/or opinion polls back then) but one could make a case that the relevant annexations subsequently acquired legitimacy due to Mexicans in these territories appearing to have gradually come around in regards to supporting US rule over these territories. An annexation that was initially done contrary to the people's will can nevertheless subsequently become legitimate if the people will approve of this annexation later on.

1848- Taylor, for the Whigs are still a viable enough of a force at this point and for a better approach towards the issue of slavery expansion. Taylor’s downside is that his persona, like Jackson’s, doesn’t really make for the most ideal statesman in a lot of ways.

1852- Pierce, without hindsight, and largely due to just how incredibly broken and ineffectual the Whigs are at this point and I doubt a now elderly Scott would be able to fix these political problems, in spite of how brilliant a general he has been. With hindsight, definitely Scott though just because of how unmitigatedly disastrous Pierce’s doughface policies would prove to be.

1856- Fremont, without hesitation. In spite of Buchanan’s much greater qualifications and Fremont’s lack of political or military competence , the nation needed a new direction by now in the form of just about any Republican administration to compensate for disastrous Democratic abandonment of Clayian-style compromises and their own complete and unmitigated accommodation of slaveholder interests, particularly in expansion.

1860- Lincoln, for similarly obvious reasons.

1864- Lincoln, to stay the course and not leave the country in the same state it had been in just prior to the Civil War. McClellan would have made it so the Confederacy re-entered the Union on their own terms, which essentially would have erased Lincoln’s progress.

1868- Grant, without question. In spite of his lack of political skills in Washington, he was still needed to fix the damage done by Johnson with regards to Reconstruction. He had great natural leadership skills besides. No knowing his difficulties without any hindsight.

1872- Grant, for the same reasons and because the corruption in his administration hadn’t really been known yet. Yellowstone was also founded at this time.

1876- Hayes, in a very tough choice, and for not yet knowing of the sacrifices Republicans would make in regards to Reconstruction prior to the election. With hindsight though and on a different day, Tilden probably would have gotten my vote for his better record on corruption and for my aversion to one party controlling any one Federal branch for too long.

1880- Garfield, for his qualifications and good ideas in terms of civil service reform. He also probably preserves a couple of important Civil Rights measures that Hancock would not have.

1884- Cleveland, without hesitation at this point. He has a wayyy better record on corruption, which was possibly the most pertinent issue at this point. That, and in ensuring that the US didn’t become a one-party state, for all intents and purposes.

1888- Harrison, for his promise and for the positive ways in which he differed from Blaine. Also like his approach towards Civil Rights and Civil War pensions.

1892- Cleveland, due to his pragmatism and consequent unlikelihood of rescinding most of Harrison’s progressive measures and for Harrison’s otherwise demonstrative ineffectiveness.

1896- McKinley, because his politics were more practical and because of Bryan’s wrong-headed and pandering support of bi-metallism.

1900- McKinley, for the same reasons and for the successes of the Spanish-American War.

1904- TR, for sure, because of his strong leadership abilities, adherence to conservation, and a number of other progressive policies.

1908- Taft, because he has both a good administrative mind and for his strength in trust-busting.

1912- TR, for much the same reasons as 1904. TR while slightly weaker on Civil Rights and trust-busting, was much stronger than Taft on conservation and natural leadership. Besides, why support someone like Taft at this point when he was lukewarm about being president? Wilson was possibly the strongest as an administrator but he was also the weakest on Civil Rights and mercurial on foreign policy. As such, TR was the best all-rounder.

Where was Taft stronger than TR on civil rights?

1916- Hughes, who was stronger on Civil Rights and more pragmatic on foreign policy and ultimately not likely to be weaker on progressive policies , or at least wouldn’t have rescinded what Wilson had already accomplished. Would have likely been more successful in foreign policy.

1920- Cox, who could have repaired some of Wilson’s foreign policy errors and who was eminently more qualified and pragmatic than Harding. FDR as running mate helps too.

1924- Coolidge. I am not perfect with his economic policies but I can totally see why they seemed right for the time. He also just seems most qualified for national executive office of the 3. La Follette was an excellent legislator but it’s hard to see how he would have done as president.

1928- Smith. While I respect Hoover for the relief work he had accomplished in Europe, his stance on Prohibition at this point is just not something that I can square. Smith also has better executive credentials and leadership abilities than Davis and La Follette from ‘24.

1932- FDR, without a shadow of a doubt. Hoover has proven to be our worst since Buchanan, and while New Deal type policies are dubious in the long term, they were absolutely necessary for these times. Same thing with FDR’s leadership abilities.

1936- FDR, for the same reasons.

1940- FDR, for roughly the same reasons but this is much closer than the last due to a certain lack of comfort in one running for a third term, and the arguably corrupt court-packing FDR attempted. With the foreign issues going on though, staying the course is probably the safest bet.

1944- FDR, for the same reasons and without the hindsight of his swift physical decline.

1948- Truman, for his generally excellent proven leadership abilities and handling of critical foreign policy matters over in post-war Europe.

1952- Ike. Similar to 1884, it was important that the other major party held the Executive Branch once again. Eisenhower had already proven strong leadership and diplomatic abilities, and pragmatic sense to boot.

In 1952, it was also crucial for the GOP not to resume being an isolationist party.

1956- Eisenhower, for the same reasons.

1960- JFK, because I really don’t think he was any weaker in substance than Nixon and he had better charismatic leadership abilities too. While both he and Nixon had poor morals, I don’t think Kennedy’s vices spilled over into his job functions as much as Nixon’s did. He also just provides all-around fresher leadership at this point than Nixon would have, whatever the case that be with JFK’s inflated reputation in some regards.

1964- LBJ, for what were pretty obvious reasons at that time. Some of LBJ’s War on Poverty measures, while arguably dubious in the long term, were understandably seen as necessary and beneficial in the context not his time.

Why were they dubious in the long term?

1968- Humphrey, for, if anything, his greater honesty than Nixon and his stated intentions to repair the mistakes LBJ made with the Vietnam War.

1972- Nixon. For all of my problems with him, I still prefer his politics over the relative radicalism of McGovern at this point. This is reinforced with Nixon’s pragmatic approach to governance and his now-established diplomatic record.

1976- Carter, because I think new life needed to be awakened in the WH post-Watergate. He had proven experience as a governor as well. That said, I don’t necessarily think Ford made the wrong decision in pardoning Nixon, since that was the best way to put the drama behind us and going towards a fresh start- in addition to electing Carter. I also like Carter’s policies in regards to conservation measures.

1980- Reagan. While I’m not a particularly huge or unqualified proponent of trickledown economics, I can still see the benefits of it at certain times and it’s perfectly understandable that it was seen favorably at this point. I generally am more of a fan of Carter when it comes to foreign policy (in spite of the Iran Crisis, which he tried to mitigate with a rescue attempt and which wasn’t wholly his fault anyway) but, aside from conservation, he was such a disaster in most aspects of domestic policy and as a delegator and administrator, that it throws me into Reagan’s camp, more or less. Reagan’s political leadership skills were simply altogether superior, especially as far as far as we could see at this point and for the next three-fourths of his time as president. My support for Reagan is simply a less lukewarm version of my support for Jackson in 1828, in that it was largely predicated on the weaknesses of the one he was running against.

1984- Reagan, for having an altogether successful first term, even if I may not necessarily agree with all of the cuts he made.

1988- Bush, for a pragmatic outlook, handling of threatening foreign matters, executive experience, and for certain feckless qualities in his opponent.

Interesting.

Anyway, you can PM me your post-1988 list if you really want to.

nuclearguy165 · Jul 20, 2020

Futurist said:
Which economic measures are you talking about for 1808?

You think that ....... would be able to have the US win the War of 1812?

Interesting.

Yeah, I mean, Clay was certainly principled. In regards to the Mexican-American War, it might have been contrary to national self-determination at the time (though we don't know for sure due to the lack of plebiscites and/or opinion polls back then) but one could make a case that the relevant annexations subsequently acquired legitimacy due to Mexicans in these territories appearing to have gradually come around in regards to supporting US rule over these territories. An annexation that was initially done contrary to the people's will can nevertheless subsequently become legitimate if the people will approve of this annexation later on.

Where was Taft stronger than TR on civil rights?

In 1952, it was also crucial for the GOP not to resume being an isolationist party.

Why were they dubious in the long term?

Interesting.

Anyway, you can PM me your post-1988 list if you really want to.

The 1808 economic measures I'm talking about are related to the Embargo and Non-Importation Acts, which hurt the economy and escalated our tensions with Britain, which is an enmity so contrary to our benefit by that point. That's why I would have supported Pinckney this year.

I think DeWitt ....... would have done better than Madison, for sure, and he might have been able to reach an agreement with the British before things escalated to where they got to in 1814. I certainly can't imagine him bungling the war effort as badly as Madison and Armstrong anyway.

With the Mexican conflict and Manifest Destiny, I think Clay would have at least handled the slavery expansion implications better here and wouldn't have given as much to Planter interests. Admittedly, my vote really isn't anti-Polk as much as it's pro-Clay. Considering his circumstances, I really don't have anything against Polk.

Taft was not strong on Civil Rights by any means, but he still didn't anything particularly negative in this regards like TR did with the whole Brownsville Incident and his refusal to include black delegates in the Progressive Party.

Dubious for budgetary reasons, in terms of how large a chunk of the Federal budget is eaten up my Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. For those to remain solvent, I think they need serious reforming in terms of finances. Of course, I'm a fiscal conservative, so take my word here with a grain of salt if you're not.

I'll think about PM-ing you my post-1988 choices.

Futurist · Jul 20, 2020

nuclearguy165 said:
The 1808 economic measures I'm talking about are related to the Embargo and Non-Importation Acts, which hurt the economy and escalated our tensions with Britain, which is an enmity so contrary to our benefit by that point. That's why I would have supported Pinckney this year.

I think DeWitt ....... would have done better than Madison, for sure, and he might have been able to reach an agreement with the British before things escalated to where they got to in 1814. I certainly can't imagine him bungling the war effort as badly as Madison and Armstrong anyway.

With the Mexican conflict and Manifest Destiny, I think Clay would have at least handled the slavery expansion implications better here and wouldn't have given as much to Planter interests. Admittedly, my vote really isn't anti-Polk as much as it's pro-Clay. Considering his circumstances, I really don't have anything against Polk.

Taft was not strong on Civil Rights by any means, but he still didn't anything particularly negative in this regards like TR did with the whole Brownsville Incident and his refusal to include black delegates in the Progressive Party.

Dubious for budgetary reasons, in terms of how large a chunk of the Federal budget is eaten up my Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. For those to remain solvent, I think they need serious reforming in terms of finances. Of course, I'm a fiscal conservative, so take my word here with a grain of salt if you're not.

I'll think about PM-ing you my post-1988 choices.

What would a DeWitt .......-British agreement have looked like?

As for Clay, I just fear that he would have acquired less territory for the US than Polk did.

Interesting about TR. Why did he have such an attitude?

As for fiscal conservatives, I certainly respect and admire fiscal conservatives when they're also not advocating in favor of huge budget-busting tax cuts for the rich. If they do that and then insist on cutting the social safety net, well, I then become much less sympathetic to them.

And yeah, PM your post-1988 list to me if you want.

Heck, include this year if you really want to. Also, if you'll do this, I'm PM you my own list.

nuclearguy165 · Jul 20, 2020

Futurist said:
What would a DeWitt .......-British agreement have looked like?

As for Clay, I just fear that he would have acquired less territory for the US than Polk did.

Interesting about TR. Why did he have such an attitude?

As for fiscal conservatives, I certainly respect and admire fiscal conservatives when they're also not advocating in favor of huge budget-busting tax cuts for the rich. If they do that and then insist on cutting the social safety net, well, I then become much less sympathetic to them.

And yeah, PM your post-1988 list to me if you want. Heck, include this year if you really want to. Also, if you'll do this, I'm PM you my own list.

That I don't know, but I doubt it could have gone worse than with Madison during that conflict.

Yeah, it's a cost-benefit issue; does a better approach to the slavery expansion matter make up for slightly less territory. I personally feel the former needed to be settled better before such a huge on-rush of new territory. Otherwise, it just increases the tension leading to the CW, unless that was simply inevitable no matter what.

Hard to say why TR had that attitude. As great as he was, he also had his quirks.

Maybe I'll get into this last point about fiscal conservatism a tad bit more in a PM, along with the post-1988 choices, just so this doesn't stray into current politics on an actual thread. Probably won't do this until later this week though. What I will promise is that my choices in post-1988 are a mix of Democrats and Republicans. I don't stick to one party and it depends on the year/cycle and individual candidate.

Futurist · Jul 20, 2020

nuclearguy165 said:
That I don't know, but I doubt it could have gone worse than with Madison during that conflict.

Yeah, I'm just wondering if there are any territorial gains in this for the US.

Yeah, it's a cost-benefit issue; does a better approach to the slavery expansion matter make up for slightly less territory. I personally feel the former needed to be settled better before such a huge on-rush of new territory. Otherwise, it just increases the tension leading to the CW, unless that was simply inevitable no matter what.

Honestly, I'm suspecting that the ACW was inevitable after the forming of the Republican Party and its winning of the US Presidency. So, might as well get it over with, no? As for "slightly less territory", the loss of Los Angeles and its metropolitan area would be a pretty huge blow to the US. Granted, there was almost nothing there back in the 1840s, but the fact of the matter is that without Los Angeles and its ginormous metropolitan area the US would simply not be the same today. That, and I also live in a distant suburb of Los Angeles.

Hard to say why TR had that attitude. As great as he was, he also had his quirks.

Yeah. I mean, maybe he got upset by the vehement Southern hostility to him inviting Booker T. Washington to the White House back in 1901?

Maybe I'll get into this last point about fiscal conservatism a tad bit more in a PM, along with the post-1988 choices, just so this doesn't stray into current politics on an actual thread. Probably won't do this until later this week though. What I will promise is that my choices in post-1988 are a mix of Democrats and Republicans. I don't stick to one party and it depends on the year/cycle.

I can wait.

nuclearguy165 · Jul 20, 2020

Futurist said:
Yeah, I'm just wondering if there are any territorial gains in this for the US.

Honestly, I'm suspecting that the ACW was inevitable after the forming of the Republican Party and its winning of the US Presidency. So, might as well get it over with, no? As for "slightly less territory", the loss of Los Angeles and its metropolitan area would be a pretty huge blow to the US. Granted, there was almost nothing there back in the 1840s, but the fact of the matter is that without Los Angeles and its ginormous metropolitan area the US would simply not be the same today. That, and I also live in a distant suburb of Los Angeles.

Yeah. I mean, maybe he got upset by the vehement Southern hostility to him inviting Booker T. Washington to the White House back in 1901?

I can wait.

Yeah, but we didn't gain any territory from the British anyway, unless you count setting the precedent for the annexation of Florida from the Spanish as part of this. We just gained Creek territory.

Keep in mind, my choices tend to avoid hindsight. I try to see things as they would have been seen on the ground in any particular year. How else could I have possibly considered supporting Pierce in 1852?

That might have had something to do with TR's approach, possibly.

Futurist · Jul 20, 2020

nuclearguy165 said:
Yeah, but we didn't gain any territory from the British anyway, unless you count setting the precedent for the annexation of Florida from the Spanish as part of this. We just gained Creek territory.

I meant in an alternate history where DeWitt ....... is US President instead of James Madison.

Keep in mind, my choices tend to avoid hindsight. I try to see things as they would have been seen on the ground in any particular year. How else could I have possibly considered supporting Pierce in 1852?

Fair enough.

That might have had something to do with TR's approach, possibly.

Yeah. That, and maybe in regards to the Progressive Party he wanted to increase its % of support in the South--though this was probably a lost cause in any case.

nuclearguy165 · Jul 20, 2020

Futurist said:
I meant in an alternate history where DeWitt ....... is US President instead of James Madison.

Fair enough.

Yeah. That, and maybe in regards to the Progressive Party he wanted to increase its % of support in the South--though this was probably a lost cause in any case.

Hey, things could only have been upward from where they were with Madison during that war.

Futurist · Jul 20, 2020

nuclearguy165 said:
Hey, things could only have been upward from where they were with Madison during that war.

One would really hope so, right?

LicinusYongzheng704 · Sep 6, 2020

frogsofwar said:
I think we have to draw a difference between Pre-WWI conquest, Post WWI Conquest, and Post WWII Conquest. Before the end of WWI, the "conquest ethic" was still the international norm. Although Wilson's 14 points and the League of Nations was a semi-rejection of this, two nations fully embraced it, and no one was really that pissed about that fact (at least, not enough to call the British on their own expansionism).

However, after World War II, the international community so universally rejected the "laws of conquest" or "Conquest ethic" etc... that Britain couldn't even get away with Suez, an action I feel was justified even with the rejection of conquest (the cold war still needed to be won). But i can understand why Ike called the UK and France on it.

Prussia conquering Austria in 1866 (well, pretty near close to conquering) can't be taken within the same moral context as Imperial Japan enslaving Korea and sending Koreans to Unit 731. Nor can France "entering" the Ruhr area be compared to Germany invading Poland. Lets not pretend all conquests are equal. I'd rather be under the "yoke of British oppression" in 1944 in Burma than under Imperial Japan.

I think saying the international community rejected conquest is a bit of a stretch. The United States seemed to have rejected it but I don't know if other countries did. Also, nuclear weapons made wars of conquest a lot more dangerous to attempt.

There is a tremendous degree of hypocrisy in the attitudes of western democracies during the cold war such as advocating freedom and democracy when it suited them and supporting brutal dictatorships in the name of anti-communism and overthrowing democratically elected governments they disapproved of.

duncanness · Sep 6, 2020

LicinusYongzheng704 said:
There is a tremendous degree of hypocrisy in the attitudes of western democracies during the cold war such as advocating freedom and democracy when it suited them and supporting brutal dictatorships in the name of anti-communism and overthrowing democratically elected governments they disapproved of.

Inconsistency? Yes. Hypocrisy? Harder to prove. A downside of a democracy is that it doesn't speak with one voice. It consists of many individuals who see the rest of the world in varying ways and who set different sets of priorities. For the most part, each individual genuinely provides what s/he thinks is the best way.

LicinusYongzheng704 · Sep 6, 2020

duncanness said:
Inconsistency? Yes. Hypocrisy? Harder to prove. A downside of a democracy is that it doesn't speak with one voice. It consists of many individuals who see the rest of the world in varying ways and who set different sets of priorities. For the most part, each individual genuinely provides what s/he thinks is the best way.

My point is I don't think it is fair to say that statements of policy are representative of attitudes when actions frequently contradict said official policies.

On a related note, I'm not sure I agree with these arguments about the positive influences of western technology on the world. Many of these modern technologies come with terrible environmental costs. Also, I don't think people necessarily need things like ipads and the internet to be happy. In the 1700s nobody had cell phones, television, video games, twitter, etc even in the west yet many people seem to have lived exciting, productive lives regardless.

I might be miserable without books but I think I would be pretty happy without an ipad, twitter, etc

duncanness · Sep 6, 2020

LicinusYongzheng704 said:
My point is I don't think it is fair to say that statements of policy are representative of attitudes when actions frequently contradict said official policies.

The only western democracy that I've studied in any depth is my own--USA. These contradictions are not usual.

I said nothing about technology but I agree: I could do without an ipad (and I do) but not without books.

nuclearguy165 · Jun 21, 2021

@DIVUS IVLIVS

Have you seen this and/or have any interest in expressing your choices regarding the OP topic?

Childress · Jun 22, 2021

Odd, I thought Historum forbade modern politics. But the OP did make the cut-off in 1988.

Search

Search

Who would you have supported in all US presidential elections up to 1988?

nuclearguy165

The Keys to the White House - Wikipedia

Futurist

Futurist

James G. Blaine - Wikipedia

nuclearguy165

James G. Blaine - Wikipedia

Futurist

Pullman Strike - Wikipedia

Boston police strike - Wikipedia

Futurist

nuclearguy165

Futurist

nuclearguy165

Futurist

nuclearguy165

Futurist

nuclearguy165

Futurist

LicinusYongzheng704

duncanness

LicinusYongzheng704

duncanness

nuclearguy165

Childress

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions