In 1915 during a speech in Indianapolis Woodrow Wilson said, "the trouble with the Republican Party

[still_one]

is that it has not had a new idea for thirty years…"

Wow, doesn't seem that much has changed.

Just look at the potential republican candidates

[rurallib]

1. except that now it has been 130 years since their last new idea

[still_one]

3. Excellent corollary

[mopinko]

2. well the southern strategy

was the last idea they had, and the chickens are coming home to roost on that one.
i hope.

[still_one]

4. I hope also

[rhett o rick]

5. But while we like to point and laugh at the collapse of the Republicon Party be

aware that we are looking at the collapse of our democracy and the vibrant two party system. The Plutocratic-Oligarchs that run this country figured out long ago they couldn't count on the idiot Republicons, so they bought themselves some Democrats. So now we are looking at a one and 1/4 Party "democracy". A conservative owned Democratic party and the republicon clown car. The Left isn't dead but have been marginalized.

We need a system with Sen Warren as a Democrat running against H.Clinton as a Republican.

[Reter]

6. A broken clock is right twice a day

Not a fan of Wilson at all.

[still_one]

7. Not perfect, but he help usher in Progressive reforms that FDR took fully advantage of.

[Fuddnik]

8. Oh they have plenty of new ideas.

It's just that each one gets progressively worse.

[Zippyjuan]

9. Great president, if there are great ones

I don't know if there are "great" presidents, but if there are, then Wilson would have to rank up there. I remember we spent a lot of time on him in school. He was a visionary and forerunner to the New Deal. Wilson saw the folly of trying to be isolationist in a world that indeed did get smaller. Making "the world safe for democracy" was not just a platitude, but it resonates today in our global world and that of terrorism. Look how many countries have had reforms in the name of democracy since his time.

He furthered the Clayton Anti-trust act for the protection of consumers. He furthered the passage of the Federal Reserve Act. How bad would our economy be today without the regulation of banks and keeping interest rates low? I know some people hate the IRS and I'm not going to act like a cheerleader for them, but you choose your battles. I don't want to live in a free-for-all world where rich tax cheats get away with things, and middle class and poor are stuck holding the bag. There was a reason he was on the $100,000 bill, which I don't think is made any more. It was sad the was his health declined in later years, but he shepherded us through World War I and turbulent times. The US became strong after the war.

[still_one]

11. From I understand he was the first liberal in the Democratic party. Very pro labor and women's

suffrage.

Probably took too long to enter WWI, but he tried everything to be a mediator in that conflict, and really worked for world peace. In a way, he was way before his time.

[FLPanhandle]

13. Personally, I think he should never have entered WWI

It was the start of the US getting involved in European issues.

[still_one]

14. Besides civillian ships being sunk, Germany was trying to persuade Mexico that they would help get

Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico back to them.

There were complicated issues, but once Germany started to attack civilian shipping, and introduced gas warfare, sitting by would have been very difficult. In my mind it would have definitely come to the U.S. eventually

[FLPanhandle]

16. Looking back from 100 years from the event, the Germans weren't out of line

We were not neutral even through we said we were. We were supplying one side with the armaments to kill German soldiers and, thus, targeting enemy supplies is a valid war action.

Also, both sides latched onto gas warfare once introduced so their was no moral high ground there.

If Wilson was truly neutral, he could have kept us from supplying either side and kept our ships out of the war zone in the first place.

Hindsight being 20/20, if we had stayed out of WWI, the sides would have eventually had to sign a peace agreement that would not have included such heavy reparations to Germany. Their economy wouldn't have collapsed into hyper inflation, and extremist groups like the Nazis would not have found such a receptive and desperate population.

Like Iraq, getting involved in foreign wars even for noble purposes, can just make things worse.

[still_one]

17. we just disagree, and our involvement in Iraq I do not think is comparable

[Zippyjuan]

28. it could be

I think diplomacy was short changed in the Gulf, but Saddam was really another Hitler. He ran over Kuwait like Hitler ran over Poland.

[still_one]

31. Diplomacy was short changed. As far as Kuwait is concerned, April Glaspie gave assurances to

Hussein that we did not care about conflicts between Iraq and Kuwait:

"Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab – our strategic goal in our war with Iran – we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States’ opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – We have no opinion on your Arab – Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960?s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)

On August 2, 1990, Saddam massed troops to invade and occupy Kuwait. _____"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/gulf-war-documents-meeting-between-saddam-hussein-and-ambassador-to-iraq-april-glaspie/31145

As for the testimony before Congress that Iraqis were "throwing babies from incubators, it never happened.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p25s02-cogn.html

Saddam was NOT a nice person, but neither were we. We helped prolong the 8 eight war between Iran and Iraq which killed millions. We invaded Iraq twice which killed millions based on lies.

Kuwait was no innocent bystander either

[Zippyjuan]

33. agreed

I know that they made up the story about babies and incubators. No, Kuwait was not innocent either. But we are where we are. I don't favor these entanglements, but now we have terrorism. I don't think Hilary is for entanglements either, but at least she is tough and will keep our shores safe.

[Zippyjuan]

27. sometimes

I think the nationalism was rampant. I agree about noble purposes, and the quandary you can put yourself in. I hate war and young people dying, but a version of Hitler would have surfaced regardless. People were that patriotic about their heritage back then. Zealous patriotism can kill. Saddam is another example. He ran over Kuwait like Hitler ran over Poland.

[Zippyjuan]

26. unavoidable

It was not ideal (and Wilson was an idealist), but it was unavoidable. Nationalism was rampant and things were getting out of control. Wilson also said that we had to make the world safe for democracy.

[Zippyjuan]

23. I agree

I think Biden will be the nominee, but would vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. I agree that she somewhat followed in his footsteps in concern about world safety.

[Drunken Irishman]

30. Wilson had mixed results on women's suffrage...

He was very lukewarm in his support at best - and opposed it in the 1912 election (Teddy Roosevelt was for it). Wilson even said this in 1876: "Universal suffrage is the foundation of every evil in this country."

After winning the 1912 presidential election, Wilson said this about women voting:

"..they are too logical. A woman’s mind leaps from cause to effect, without any consideration whatever for what lies between. She thinks too directly to be enfranchised en bloc. She would run into all sorts of trouble.”

He was also a racist who segregated the White House, after it had been desegregated at the end of the Civil War.

[still_one]

32. no question about it, but it was the start of the democratic party moving toward the New Deal.

No question about it, the democrats at the time were as racist as they come, and it wasn't until FDR when that changed for the Democrats. At that time the Republicans were light years ahead of the Democrats.

Even as recent as Lyndon Johnson, it took more effort for him to get the democrats to vote for the civil rights act of 1964, than the republicans.

"80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70% of Democrats did. Indeed, Minority Leader Republican Everett Dirksen led the fight to end the filibuster. Meanwhile, Democrats such as Richard Russell of Georgia and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina tried as hard as they could to sustain a filibuster."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights

[cherokeeprogressive]

12. Wilson thought only "institutional men" should be allowed to run for political office.

By "institutional" he meant Ivy League educated.

Fuck that kind of elitist attitude, not to mention the misogyny of it.

[still_one]

15. We are talking about a different era. As for his position on women's rights, and labor rights he

Last edited Sat May 16, 2015, 08:22 PM - Edit history (1)

was before his time

However, it looks like he was a racist which makes him a bad egg

[former9thward]

18. I guess you forgot about that little racism thing.

He was the most notorious racist of any U.S. president.

[still_one]

20. So was the most of the Democratic Party at that time. Things change

Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln were amazing Republicans, way before their time

[still_one]

34. You are absolutely right. Looking at it further he was quite bad. What got my interest wads book

I am reading on the Lusitania. Thanks for the perspective and history

[Stallion]

10. The Roosevelts Replaying on PBS-you can access on PBS.com

Lincoln
Teddy Roosevelt

the only great Republicans

[former9thward]

19. I guess Wilson did not think expansion and protection of our national parks

was a "new idea".

President Theodore Roosevelt was one of the park system’s greatest patrons. During his administration (1901-09) five new parks were created, as well as 18 national monuments, four national game refuges, 51 bird sanctuaries, and over 100 million acres (40 million hectares) of national forest.

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/national-parks/early-history/

[FLPanhandle]

21. Not sure Theodore Roosevelt counted as part of the Republican Party

They hated him.

[former9thward]

22. How did he get elected (in 1904)?

Democrats did not vote for him.

[FLPanhandle]

24. Lots of Democrats did vote for him

He was incredibly popular much to the chagrin of the leaders of the Republican Party. They originally stashed him into a powerless VP role to get rid of him.

[former9thward]

29. It happens.

Kennedy and most others did not like Johnson but they made him VP. And the rest is history. But I would not say Johnson was not a Democrat just because some party bureaucrats did not like him.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. Mathematically, that *must* have changed.

Unless the Republican party has been using time travel to implant new ideas into its past, either it has now not had a new idea for 130 years, or there must have been periods between now and then when it had just had a new idea.

If a new idea occurred to the Republicans in 1985 then it's possible we're back there again, but we can't just have stayed there.