When did the American one-party system start?

[Myra Bronstein]

So, clearly the Dems seemed disinterested or cowed after the murder of President Kennedy, and allowed the cover-up.

Was this a change that occured in the aftermath of the assassination?

Or were the Dems disinterested in being a true opposition party before 1963?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Myra, only so much opposition is ever going to be allowed, the hidden ones, who are the real power brokers need just enough for sham democracy, and freedom of choise, and to provided a distracting circus for the "voters" a compliant media squares the circle. And was ever thus.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

I vote for 1947.

[Myra Bronstein]

I vote for 1947.

Ahhhh. Interesting. Nathaniel do you give that date because of the hatching of the CIA, the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, or...

the birth of Dan Quayle?

Another reason?

[Ashton Gray]

23 December 1913.

Ashton

[Shanet Clark]

Myra

I think you might be interested in my hypothesis, many members

remember my seminar thread :

"was the assassination of President Kennedy "legal" " ?

It is posted on the JFK seminar thread here at the ED FORUM:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2387

(good Link? I hope...)

[Jack White]

There is no longer a nickel's worth between the Democans

and Republicrats. Same people behind both.

Most presidents since Truman have been somebody's puppet.

Jack

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

I vote for 1947.

Ahhhh. Interesting. Nathaniel do you give that date because of the hatching of the CIA, the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, or...

the birth of Dan Quayle?

Another reason?

[/quote

Following the Quayle Nativity Scene in importance I have gathered that these two "structural" things happened in that year, although a strong case could be made for 1946 and a weaker, but still solid case for 1948, if your the betting sort.

1. Triumph of multinationalist wing over domestic dominated wing of capitalism.

2. Corresponding agreement by the CIO to be tamed by the CIA-AFL and not to challenge

the state , and to channel working class support for the States new Imperialist ambitions, instead of

publicly chalenging it. ( ie keep the working class watching politics, not doing history like the 30s). Some

call this" corporatism,"meaning roughly both antagonists elect leaders that are so heirarchical and r bureaucratic that decions are shifted to smoky affairs in Bocca. Not exactly the Autolite strike!

The CIA was among several important means of implementing these goals in terms of conreate policies and the Truman Doctrine was its first ellaboration made clear for the public in what was henceforth a "consumers' democracy."

Some would put the basic political deal making well before 1947, but I choose that year, because I think that was the year the one party state, in the sense that you imply, was actively legitimized in terms of a spartanized population. By spartanized I'm not speaking just figuratively, but rather of structural relationships emerging in the decision to continue a military Keynesianism even though WW2 was over,

(See John's excellent thread on Tommy the Cork Corcorran (I think its on Military Industiral Intel-Complex thread). Also the relationship between american corporations and universities were oriented towards a globocop "shared" globalist objective, as typified by the Michigan State involvement in Vietnam Counterinsurgency and the CIA relatiionships with the Pro Psychology and Journalism circuits.

Edited November 10, 2006 by Nathaniel Heidenheimer

[Terry Mauro]

So, clearly the Dems seemed disinterested or cowed after the murder of President Kennedy, and allowed the cover-up.

Was this a change that occured in the aftermath of the assassination?

Or were the Dems disinterested in being a true opposition party before 1963?

*************************************************************

"Was this a change that occured in the aftermath of the assassination?

Or were the Dems disinterested in being a true opposition party before 1963?"

Let's not forget the "Dixiecrats" and what they stood for. They comprised most of the Southern vote before the Civil Rights Bill was ever enacted, and it sure pissed them off after it was written into law.

I believe the actual "change" was cemented into the majority of the sheeples' minds during the Ron Reagan/Don Regan regime, hence the "1 Party - 2 Branches" system that's been in existence for the last quarter of a century.

When you think about it, there really hasn't been anything consistently resembling a bi-partisan "balance" of government nor choice, offered to the citizenry for most of the Twentieth Century. As Ashton pointed out, in the year 1913, a Democratic regime under the auspices of Woodrow Wilson, allowed a cartel of private bankers to dictate what path "they" chose for this government to follow. The old "Money talks, bullxxxx walks." power aparatus. Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to turn that around following the 1927 economic debacle, and it all seemed "right" and "honorable" for the U.S. to be drawn into another War to save the world and deliver it from tyranny. But, they never tell you about Prescott Bush, or his dealings with Germany's banking system in 1933, even though he was fully aware of the scapegoat mentality being assigned to a group of "non-aryan" people, or the subsequent atrocities about to be committed upon them. No, they don't mention that in any history books the American students might be required to read. Hence, another branch or facet of "Operation Mockingbird" put into effect circa 1947, as Nathaniel so accurately pointed out.

The American people have been dumbed down and goaded into believing they are "free" to make their own choices in whom they prefer to run the show for them. Unfortunately, the success of their lower I.Q.'s, as compared with the rest of the "free" world's, and their inability to think critically and logically enough to have made the right choices with regard to their government's domestic and foreign policies during the last century, is testimony to how successful these cartels have been in shaping public opinion to suit their own private interests. Private interests that will not, and never will have, the interests of its citizens at heart. Oh, you may have some leaders, a smattering maybe here and there, like a Roosevelt, or a Kennedy, who truly understood and even had empathy for, the plight of the working-class citizen, but they were too far and few between, while the fascist element seems to have always been lurking behind the scenes on Wall Street.

If the recent election results indicate that the American people have finally smelled the coffee, and tried to take charge of their government, it's come a little too late. Kind of like closing the barn door after the horses got away, 93 years ago, 43 years ago, and 23 years ago. You can't allow your herds to be decimated time and time again, and still expect to have anything, resembling substantial horsepower, left to run the farm.