1947 was a terrible year for Democrats

[nadinbrzezinski]

The House and the Senate were in Republican hands, and the country was gripped by union strikes.

It was a bad year for labor too... as Taft Hartley was passed, vetoes, and the veto was overridden.

Well this year may have some elements of that. The House in in Republican hands, and the Senate effectively is in Republican hands. So we may see a President run against the do-nothing Congress. Of course that is where any and all parallels end. Truman (IMHO, had a spine. And philosophically he was not in the hands of the Economic Royalists. In some ways the DLC is... part of that philosophy. So I do not think we will have a positive era, but if the Republicans over extend, they may scare people AGAIn. And voters are as fickle as they have been since the years before the civil war. So even if the Democrats managed to regain control of houses and keep the WH... I am not counting on reversals not happening in 2014.

Of course that assumes Republicans do not miscalculate with the game of chicken and we end up in Imperial collapse this year. that happens. and yes Obama will be blamed even if these are forces starting with oh maybe even Clinton, if not Bush Sr. But that really can be directly traced to the first US Troop going over the line in 2003.

Regardless, may you live in interesting times... is not a good wish... alas we are.

[virgogal]

1. Alas,this is the 2nd "interesting times" go-round for me. I was

entering high school in '47 and we were just glad that the war was over.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Indeed you were

a little younger than my mom by the way.

And this imperial collapse might be as bad as WW II(or the depression) for Americans.

[virgogal]

3. Frightening times.

[Little Star]

4. I think I would rather live in boring times. k&r

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Me too... the young always glorify times like this

I'd rather not have to worry.

[craigmatic]

6. I'm not so sure it was a bad year. The New Deal coalition was still intact but they were just

dissatisfied with the job Truman was doing. They came back in '48.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Yes, it was. The war against unions did not start with

Ronnie Raygun... but with Right to Work states... that is the beginning of the couter revolution.

[craigmatic]

10. True but to be fair you can't blame that on Truman. That war had been goin on since the late 1800's.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. I did not blame Truman

he did all he could legally to stop it. But that was a bad year nevertheless.

[craigmatic]

7. I'm not so sure it was a bad year. The New Deal coalition was still in tact

they were just dissatisfied with the job Truman was doing but they came back home in '48.

[TBF]

9. Truman - just did some reading on him - the first to suggest universal health care. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Well truth be told it goes back to

Teddy... but Truman proposed it in a way we would recognize.

[TBF]

14. Interesting - I have been reading a little about the presidents

of the 1900's - trying to learn exactly when medicare/medicaid came along (1965), social security was much earlier (30's) - and fascinating that it was a republican, Eisenhower, who greatly expanded the number of people eligible for social security (maybe 1953?). One wonders if these politicians ever pick up a history book. There were real reasons these programs were enacted, and we are doomed to repeat history (and watch a lot of folks die) if we repeal them all.

[unkachuck]

13. K&R....n/t

[Selatius]

15. I believe we would've had medical coverage for all if FDR had lived through his Fourth Term.

He died before the war ended, so he didn't have the time to also push through health care reform.

[pampango]

16. Also the year that Truman pushed through FDR's brainchild, GATT (which became the WTO in 1993).

"On 30 October 1947, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was signed by 23 nations at the Palais des Nations in Geneva. The Agreement contained tariff concessions agreed to during the first multilateral trade negotiations and a set of rules designed to prevent these concessions from being frustrated by restrictive trade measures.

The 23 founding members were: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Ceylon, Chile, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, France, India, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia, Syria, South Africa, United Kingdom and the United States."

http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min96_e/chrono.htm