How Did It Come To This?

In recent years the question has been asked and there have been many answers….how did our two party system become so toxic?

I have said that I believe it became hard toxic with the election of Reagan and his policies of culture war top define politics and let the country go to crap in return.

But the truth of the matter is the party politics started way back with the 8th president, Martin Van Buren….(that is right time for a little history that few have the knowledge of in this day and time)

When Martin Van Buren arrived in Washington to be sworn in as a senator in 1821, he told a friend he planned to “build up a party” for himself. It was an odd time to be party-mongering, and Van Buren an unlikely party-monger. Republican James Monroe had run unopposed in the 1820 presidential election, and “every politician in Washington, with varying degrees of enthusiasm … was calling himself a Republican,” writes James M. Bradley in Martin Van Buren: America’s First Politician, a lively and illuminating new biography of our eighth president—the first to be born a U.S. citizen. Absent a strong opposition party, Van Buren lamented that politicians were appealing less to ideals and more to personalities, and wished, as he put it in an 1827 letter, to unite citizens through “party principle,” rather than “personal preference.”

Born in 1782 to a tavern-keeping family in Kinderhook, New York, Van Buren had little schooling but made himself a lawyer, rising to the heights of power despite his lack of military experience or strong family ties to ensure patronage. At 5-foot-6, he was considered notably short, and friends and foes called him the “little magician” for his outsize political talents. He proceeded swiftly from senator to secretary of state, vice president and president. And though he failed to win a second term, Bradley says, “He built and designed the party system that defined how politics was practiced and power wielded in the United States.” We are living in the world Van Buren created.

In the first decades of the Republic, leaders had generally called themselves Federalists or Republicans, but “few imagined that parties would be a permanent feature of the nation’s political life,” Bradley writes. “They expected parties to disband once the Republic was more secure and its great issues settled.” Van Buren plowed ahead, with the thoroughly modern view that parties were not a regrettable necessity but a revolutionary means of achieving and using power. With Andrew Jackson, he co-founded the Democratic Party in 1828, cannily banking on Jackson’s personal appeal to win that year’s election; Van Buren became Jackson’s vice president, and the Democrats dominated politics until 1860. “He didn’t think that politics should be a hobby for gentlemen to practice in their spare time,” Bradley says. “A party had to have an organization, a structure, a personality, and it should be run by professionals.”

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/martin-van-buren-created-americas-partisan-political-system-were-still-recovering-180985643/

So you see this whole party politics is not some new concept but rather it has been building slowly and steady until we have the crappy system of today.

Just thought you might like to know

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Then There Is The Panama Chest Thumping

***Today is a return to the doctors and their meetings with me…..I do not know how long this will be so today may be a short posting day.***

Our new power broker has made several foreign policy statements and I have tried to look behind them to see just what the thing is all about……

I have done the Greenland thing and the annexing of Canada (a possibility)…and now the Panama bluster….

“When it comes to the [Panama] Canal,” the future president intoned, “we built it, we paid for it, it’s ours, and … we are going to keep it!”

No, not incoming President Donald Trump. That was Ronald Reagan, the former California governor who in 1976 challenged incumbent Gerald Ford for the Republican presidential nomination.

After losing a string of early primaries, Reagan stumbled upon a fringe issue that came to animate his conservative base and reignited his flailing campaign. It wasn’t quite enough to put him over the edge against Ford, but it helped him defeat Jimmy Carter four years later.

With Trump now demanding that Panama cede the canal back to the United States, and threatening to use military force if the Panamanian government refuses his demand, the topic is back in the news. And it’s no less strange than it was almost 40 years ago.

As was the case then, most Americans today really don’t care. A recent YouGov poll found that 36 percent of voters support Trump’s territorial and expansionist aspirations; 36 percent oppose them; and 29 percent don’t have a point of view either way.

But much as Reagan did before him, Trump has seized on the canal as a symbol. In the 1970s, America was reeling from the Vietnam War, stagflation, oil shortages and, eventually, a hostage crisis in Iran. These overlapping crises left many people worried that the country was weak, no longer the master of its own destiny.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/01/11/trumps-bluster-panama-canal-00197624

The threat was the possible use of military force is a significant threat and I want to get this down before the swearing in and the news about this foreign policy threat is sidelined with all the pomp and ceremony of a coronation.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”