Understanding our candidates through the mirror of history

[andym]

I think this cycle's major candidates echoed strongly with three streams of Democratic and progressive thought. Though each of our candidates is an American original, they reflect characteristics of some of the most famous American politicians of all time.

LBJ: Hillary Clinton has the experience to get things done like LBJ, who transformed America with his Great Society reforms. She even referred to LBJ in NH as someone who implemented real change at a crucial time in American history. Hillary is a fighter with great experience and precise plans who knows politics inside and out. Beyond LBJ, she is of course a pathfinder as possibly the first woman president.

FDR: Barack Obama wants to inspire the nation as FDR did. FDR was our president of hope. In 1932, he proposed a New Deal for America. Confident and hopeful, he didn't offer America an exact blueprint of what he wanted to do (he actually didn't know the specifics in advance). Though seen as weak and inexperienced by many political leaders of his time before he was elected, his personal story, inspiration, leadership and experimentation transformed America.

Huey Long: I believe Edwards is on the road to becoming a benevolent Huey Long. Long was perhaps the greatest American populist of all time and might have become president had he not been killed. Long was a real fighter who took on the corporations (he sued Standard Oil (Exxon)), and advocated reforms that would empower the common man. His proposals to Share the Wealth in the mid 1930s are still considered radical today. However, Edwards is not a demagogue like Long, but a humble man, who seeks economic justice and opportunity for all. I am excited to see what Edwards will do in the future.

Of course, there are many ways in which each of our candidates are quite different from these historical figures, but it is interesting to see how the strains of traditional Democratic philosophy and methodology are reborn in the present.

[andym]

1. How much of the conflict between supporters of the candidates has it roots in history?

How much of the animosity between some supporters of the candidates has it roots in the echo of which Democratic tradition their candidate represents, and how much of the conflict is due to specific issues differences, or personality differences of the candidates?

Interestingly, after close reading, I see some posts on this board that make me suspect some people's animosity is actually more against the supporters of the opposing candidate than the candidate themselves. I think I may poll this later.

[K Gardner]

2. Bookmarked to read when I get home ! Looks interesting :-)

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.