INDIVIDUALS VS GROUPS

For a long time I think I have seen a difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.  Republicans tend to like the "self made man" whereas Democrats think of "groups."  It used to be that Republicans nominated the "self made man" for President .  Think of Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and Reagan.  All of these came from humble beginnings.  Although the Republican Party is considered the party of the wealthy, Democrats used to favor wealthy people to nominate for President.  Think of Roosevelt and Kennedy.  True there were Truman and Johnson who came from humble beginnings but both were accidental presidents with Truman acceding to the Presidency with the death of Roosevelt and Johnson with the assassination of Kennedy.

More recently, things have changed with the Republican Party nominating wealthy men such a George H.W. Bush and George Bush as well as Mitt Romney with Donald Trump probably the most wealthy of all, whereas the Democrats have gone with men of more modest beginnings like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.  While Hillary Clinton may be wealthy now, she did come from modest beginnings.  (I'm not sure how to classify Michael Dukakis whose father was a physician but as of Greek heritage, they were certainly looked down on by the Boston Brahmins) The sampling size is small so maybe it is just a coincidence.

But look at the two candidates for president now.  You have the individual Donald Trump who says, "believe me, I am the only person that can save you "and Hillary Clinton who wrote a book called
It Takes A Community To Raise A Child and has the current motto of Stronger Together as she runs for president.  People say she is stealing the Stronger Together from Reagan although she has long preached this concept in her book.

Who will win?  Will it be the women, African Americans, Hispanics, and the LGBT or the angry American white males?  We'll know in November, probably.

"GOOD OLD DAYS"

I sort of miss the "good old days" of Presidents Ford who ended U.S. occupation of Vietnam, Carter with only the American embassy hostages.  Called by Democrats a "Warmonger," President Reagan stubbornly refused to go to war over three major Embassy attacks (twice in Beirut and one in Kuwait) plus the Marine barracks disaster, and at least when he went to war, he at least picked someone we could beat - Granada. President Bush (41), of course, did have Desert Storm (Iraq I) and his "invasion" of Panama to capture Noriega, but the things calmed down again with President Clinton with his drive by shooting in Iraq from American military airplanes.  Clinton, who had several terrorist attacks, also is distinguished by winning the only war won without "boots on the ground" - Kosovo - won by air power alone.  Those are about the years closest to peace I have seen in my 83 years since Japan invaded China in 1937.

This comparatively "sleepy" period from 1974 through the 1990s was preceded by WW-II of President Roosevelt, Korea of President Truman, and Vietnam of Presidents Kennedy,Johnson, and Nixon and succeeded by the Afghanistan and Iraq II wars of President Bush (43).  Now we can add the Iraq III/Syria war of our "peace" President Obama.