February 22, 2010

What is the difference between a Republican and a Democrat?



That's Senator Everett Dirksen in 1967. His name turned up on the blog yesterday, and it put me in the mood to hear his once-familiar voice. I wanted to be reminded of how people talked back then, when — perhaps! — Senators were Senators. Or, anyway, when I was growing up, his image and voice were the very embodiment of the word "Senator."

47 comments:

Ron said...

I had a Mad magazine from back then that implied Sen. Dirksen wore Dippety-Do! And what ever happened to Dippety-Do?

Fred4Pres said...

Voice or no voice, Senator Dirksen makes a lot of sense in 1967.

Pogo said...

Currently, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that under Republicans man exploits man, while under Democrats it's the other way around.

A.W. said...

Big history geek, here, and this made me think of a speech Thad Stevens, one of the founders of the republican party gave on the difference between a dem and a republican, back in the 1850's. He said that a republican wanted to see every person on earth freedom, and only practicality and legality restrained them.

I used to think that this had become the doctrine of all Americans in the intervening years.

then i saw the opposition to the liberation of iraq and now afghanistan and realize i had been wrong.

jayne_cobb said...

"Currently, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that under Republicans man exploits man, while under Democrats it's the other way around."


Man exploits Nam?

Dad Bones said...

Dirk was an alright guy.

former law student said...

The wikipedia article neglects to point out that Dirksen's high school team was called the Pekin Chinks.

Ah those days of innocence.

MadisonMan said...

back when Senators were 4-pack-a-day smokers.

former law student said...

then i saw the opposition to the liberation of iraq and now afghanistan and realize i had been wrong.

If we're going to spend a trillion dollars to rebuild a country I'd rather it be the US than Iraq.

p.t. fogger said...

back when Senators were 4-pack-a-day smokers.

And a pint of Rye. I never heard his voice before -- sounds like Tom Wait's respectable Dad, or something.

Peter V. Bella said...

He was right then. I agree with Pogo-
"Currently, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that under Republicans man exploits man, while under Democrats it's the other way around."

The only difference between the two parties the method and process they go about wasting our money and restricting our freedom.

Joe said...

Don't knock the 4 packs of cigarettes and the pint of rye. Dirksen had a Top 40 record in 1967, "Gallant Men".

A.W. said...

FLS

> If we're going to spend a trillion dollars to rebuild a country I'd rather it be the US than Iraq.

We don't need to be rebuilt. We just need Obama to stop screwing up the economy. A good dose of Adam Smith is needed.

Being too slow to apparently pass the bar exam, i don't expect you to get that.

Btw, i would assume you were opposed to that all that war in yugoslavia, too, right? Funny, i don't remember any significant protest movement to that fight.

Peter V. Bella said...

Funny, i don't remember any significant protest movement to that fight.

Unpatriotic progressives stopped protesting Democrat wars when it cost them LBJ. Only Republican wars are bad. Notice how the war protesters magically disappeared when Obama was elected? Where is Code Pink and all the rest?


wv:inglize= what all aliens should do.

Pogo said...

The main difference between Democrats and Republicans has been full-tilt socialism in the former and socialism by the installment plan in the latter.

Some people like to jump in the pool and get it over with, others prefer inching into the water slowly.

In contrast, I think both of them are trying to drown us.

Joe Veenstra said...

He sounds just like Professor Gordon Baldwin (RIP) or vice versa. He also sounds like he might enjoy a morning cocktail.

Robert Cook said...

Dick Cheney: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

EDH said...

A long answer to a single question, certainly, but with a good evolution of concepts and principles.

The blow-dry interviewer, however, looks like he's about to crack-up in Dirksen's face and say "enough already" followed by a distinct cringe at the end.

former law student said...

Note also that Grammy Award winner Dirksen's voice is a perfect example of the North Midland accent. It puzzled me as a boy, that people south of Kankakee all sounded like they were country and western singers.

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/maps/MapsM/Map1M.html

Pogo said...

Obama proved deficits matter.

former law student said...

Cook: Reagan was a borrow-and-spend Republican. Social Security's future would be a lot brighter if he hadn't started draining the trust fund as soon as it was formed.

EDH said...

Ron said...
I had a Mad magazine from back then that implied Sen. Dirksen wore Dippety-Do! And what ever happened to Dippety-Do?


Silly, real men used Brylcreem, "a little dab will do ya!"

What amazes me about this ad is it's explicit assertion that "women love" the ventriloquist dummy look as being "so full of life."

"Excitingly clean...disturbingly healthy...so full of life."

former law student said...

Obama proved deficits matter.

An unlikely voice to say "W. started it": Tad DeHaven of the Cato Institute:

In this regard, the Obama administration’s first term is looking more like George W. Bush’s third term. Bush left the president with a $1.4 trillion deficit in FY2009; the deficit under Obama’s first year is set to rise to $1.6 trillion and would still be $1.3 trillion in FY2011.

Alex said...

Sanity test:

FLS - is there any such thing as a good Republican?

William said...

He had such a soporific voice. Muzak to the ears. Nowadays I would support what he says, but back then, in that flowering of rock n roll, he went over like Percy Faith at a Doors concert.

jimspice said...

There are tons of people who consider themselves "socially liberal and fiscally conservative." Too bad they have no one to represent them (though Clinton came close). And the modern Republicans represent the antithesis of that sentiment.

Larry J said...

former law student said...
Cook: Reagan was a borrow-and-spend Republican. Social Security's future would be a lot brighter if he hadn't started draining the trust fund as soon as it was formed.


That draining of the mythical Social Security Trust Fund began in the 1960s, long before Reagan came to DC. During the Reagan years, tax revenue collections increased substancially. Unfortunately, spending increased even more substancially, IIRC about $1.30 for every additional $1 of revenue.

The "trust fund" is simply a collection of treasury fund IOUs that are starting to come due. Borrowing from the "trust fund" is how the national debt increased every single year even when we were supposedly running a surplus during the Clinton years. It was like saying that your checking account balanced because you were able to borrow from your credit card.

This year, SS payments are exceeding collections.

Jim said...

In the mid-sixties there was a novelty record of the song, "Wild Thing." On one side was Bobby Kennedy; on the other was Sen. Dirksen.

I remember it as being very funny and I seem to recall a producer saying to Bobby, "a little less ruthless, Senator."

edutcher said...

Best known for saying, "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money". That was when the Republican Party hadn't yet been taken over by the Rockefeller wing or, as they're known today, Assistant Democrats.

Jim said...

In the mid-sixties there was a novelty record of the song, "Wild Thing." On one side was Bobby Kennedy; on the other was Sen. Dirksen.

I remember it as being very funny and I seem to recall a producer saying to Bobby, "a little less ruthless, Senator."


That sounds like David Frye (the only political impressionist to do the Sullivan show). The actual line was, "A little more Boston soul, Senator". There was also the line, "A heavier on the ocarina, Teddy". Obviously BC.

edutcher said...

Should be, "A little heavier on the ocarina, Teddy".

bagoh20 said...

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is exactly what we insist they be. Lately we have been neglecting OUR duty, while childishly blaming those we voted in.

Both left and right have accepted people less honorable than their next-door neighbors to represent them. Of course there are always multi-point excuses for that decision. But in the end we voted for people who are below us in the ways that count. People willing to do things that most of us would never contemplate.

Robert Cook said...

For those who missed my point or who think I somehow support anything Cheney has ever said...no.

This was simply my way of illustrating the hypocrisy of Republicans--"it's okay when we do it, but they're destroying America when they do it"-- as well as Cheney's propensity to pull shit out of his ass to justify any fucking thing he pleases. Blowing up the deficit (after Clinton cleaned it up)? No problem! St. Ronnie sanctified deficits. Blowing up people who never harmed or threatened us? No problem! Tell people boogey-boogey lies about WMDs are gonna kill us dead! Committing war crimes by committing torture? No problem! These folks aren't human but demons who will kill us all dead, and besides, it wasn't torture, it was, um, what was it the Nazis called their torture regime? Oh, yes, "enhanced interrogation!" And besides, Jack Bauer does it, so it must be as American as a police billyclub to the head or taser to the body!

In short, the Repubs are lying, self-serving sacks of shit. The Dems are pretty much just the same, just slightly less stupidly obvious about it. The Repubs, one must assume, are proud of their blatant perfidy. I guess one can't blame them for being proud of what they're good at.

bagoh20 said...

Imagine if liberals and conservatives actually only pushed things that were honorable exercises of their highest principles. Of course we would still disagree plenty about those policies, but the result would be some good decisions for the country. The problem is the motivations provided by the system to the representatives to both run and serve. Too much power and too much money dissuades them from making simple decisions to move the country in an ethical fashion in either direction. The system is far too complicated to fix that in any other way than through our personal voting choices, including campaign donations.

Ultimately, the best evaluation of a candidate is his history. The rest is sales pitch, no different than an infomercial.

Joe M. said...

Wow. He's better at selling me on the Republican party than any of those hacks we've got nowadays. Concise, coherent, and attractive. Too bad that today's politicians have completely abandoned any idea of responsibility.

Also, I love the King-James-style construction, "that have been builded up in this country."

Hoosier Daddy said...

For those who missed my point ...

You mean you have a point other than you're enduring hatred of the US?

Alex said...

Both left and right have accepted people less honorable than their next-door neighbors to represent them. Of course there are always multi-point excuses for that decision. But in the end we voted for people who are below us in the ways that count. People willing to do things that most of us would never contemplate.

This is nonsense of course. Most likely one of your neighbors supports cradle-to-grave government programs more then they support "honorable politicians".

Toy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Toy said...

He was known as "Senator Marigold," and tried to get the marigold named the national flower.

Robert Cook said...

"You mean you have a point other than you're (sic) enduring hatred of the US?"

Hoosier, Hoosier, Hoosier...when are you going learn to read for meaning? I don't hate America; I hate the corrupt and murderous swine who have made it into a sty.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Hoosier, Hoosier, Hoosier...when are you going learn to read for meaning? I don't hate America; I hate the corrupt and murderous swine who have made it into a sty.

Hmm.. ok. How about you tell me what part of America's Golden Age we need to get back to.

I'll wait.

Robert Cook said...

Hoosier, there was never a golden age, you silly goose! But there have been periods of stricter regulation of businesses and the financial industry, as well as an ascendance of labor unions and of laws protecting workers' rights and health and safety on the job, and the introduction of truly life-changing government programs to provide financial, housing, and health assitance for the elderly and indigent, and so on. We are presently dismantling much of this, as well as allowing the government (and private industry)to violate the law with not just impunity, but with the applause of much of our press and one of our major parties. In short, in our nation's fluctuating history of better and worse times, this is not one of our better times.

Also, there is never a time to be a cheerleader for our government, as, better times or worse, citizens should always demand better than the prevailing conditions! Is this not self-government defined...to seek always a perfection one knows will never be achieved?

To paraphrase a recent axiomatic statement of Glenn Greenwald's: the primary duty of a citizen is to protest bad behavior by his government.

Hoosier Daddy said...

But there have been periods of stricter regulation of businesses and the financial industry, as well as an ascendance of labor unions and of laws protecting workers' rights and health and safety on the job,

Yes indeed. I was also appalled at the deregulation that Sarbannes Oxley and HIPPA caused.

and the introduction of truly life-changing government programs to provide financial, housing, and health assitance for the elderly and indigent, and so on.

I'm sorry but did you miss out on the ever expanding Federal spending that is Health and Human Services? You are aware that between Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid alone accounts for well over $1 trillion that the taxpayers are on the hook for not to mention what HUD and welfare doles out. If you think is is being dismantled, please send me the coordinates of the alternate universe you're in.

I'm also appalled at the sweetheart deals that the unions got when Obama nationalized GM and Chrysler.

To you, bad behavior by the government seems to be them not taking more money from the productive segment of society to redistribute to the rest. Sorry but that's not the kind of place I want to live and if that's where we're going, I'll probably be going as well.

AlphaLiberal said...

Democrats think higher wages are a solution. Republicans think higher wages are a problem.

dick said...

fls,

It was LBJ who saw to it that the SSA funds were merged into the general fund, not Reagan.

dick said...

Sen Dirksen was a very classy guy. He and his counterpart in the House are the reason the Civil Rights Bill passed in the 60's. It was Dirksen and congressman Charlie Halleck who twisted enough arms to get it passed. I still remember the Ev and Charlie show that went on in response to the presidential news conferences. The two of them were really good and very entertaining. They were also able to work in a bipartisan manner for the good of the country and because of them the Dems also would work in a bipartisan manner.

Issob Morocco said...

Thanks Ann, for the window to the past.

A thought came across me watching Dirksen, one that hits home with our current crop of leaders.

Clever carries the day, but wisdom endures.

juandos said...

What's PAINFULLY OBVIOUS with this Dirksen clip is that Illinois voters are every bit as stupid today as they were back then...