colonel
Donor
QUESTIONS
I.T., Duke University: Hello Professor. It's nice to see you again since the Roosevelt and Churchill lectures. I'd like to have a review on the political positions both the Republican and the Democrats had around this time, as well as any other parties of note.
J.O., Harvard: Well since TR the Democrats have been supportive of big business, but they would say "American Business." They support high tariffs, and with their expansion of social welfare programs they have supported "expanding the tax base." In reality that has meant having much lower wage earners paying an income tax. The Republicans liked to say they are the party of "Small Business," and the American Farmer. They opposed FDR's social programs and the taxes to pay for them, but JPK did nothing to reverse the programs and only moderately reduced taxes. As a result of increased borrowing from the 1930s onward under both Republicans and Democrats the deficit had ballooned so much that many sought a balanced budget Amendment and the States finally called the Second Constitutional Convention in 1993, but that of course is beyond the parameters for this lecture. Up until the mid-1960s the Democrats were split for years between the Southern and Northern branches on Civil Rights (the Southern Branch said the Northerners were forgetting about State's Rights). The Republicans were openly for Civil Rights, but as we previously discussed JPK's inaction was a disappointment in this regard (more on this in the next segment). Both parties had isolationist wings, but as each of these wings are diametrically opposed to everything else their counterparts would stand for there was never a serious attempt at a third party on that basis. The Socialist had a mini revival during the Panic in the 1930s, but that was short lived, and they never elected anyone to statewide office or garnered any electoral votes. The only 3rd party candidate to receive Electoral voted was the States Rights Party under Alabama Governor George Wallace in 1964. More on that later.
T.H., Fordham; I'd like to inquire about the fate of the East Asian sphere after the Pacific War, especially the fates of Japan, China, and Indochina.
A J.O., Harvard: As to your question on the let me just play back my earlier remarks talking about:
using local surrogates on the Korean Peninsula, Indochina, and Manchuria combined with a military alliance that would come to include The Philippines, Formosa, Indonesia and Thailand. That alliance of course still exists today and includes Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, China, Tibet, Mongolia, and Japan. The United States was not formally part of the alliance but had an agreement whereby they provided extensive logistical support, equipment and training in exchange for basing rights.
Again, more on that later.
I.T., Duke University: Hello Professor. It's nice to see you again since the Roosevelt and Churchill lectures. I'd like to have a review on the political positions both the Republican and the Democrats had around this time, as well as any other parties of note.
J.O., Harvard: Well since TR the Democrats have been supportive of big business, but they would say "American Business." They support high tariffs, and with their expansion of social welfare programs they have supported "expanding the tax base." In reality that has meant having much lower wage earners paying an income tax. The Republicans liked to say they are the party of "Small Business," and the American Farmer. They opposed FDR's social programs and the taxes to pay for them, but JPK did nothing to reverse the programs and only moderately reduced taxes. As a result of increased borrowing from the 1930s onward under both Republicans and Democrats the deficit had ballooned so much that many sought a balanced budget Amendment and the States finally called the Second Constitutional Convention in 1993, but that of course is beyond the parameters for this lecture. Up until the mid-1960s the Democrats were split for years between the Southern and Northern branches on Civil Rights (the Southern Branch said the Northerners were forgetting about State's Rights). The Republicans were openly for Civil Rights, but as we previously discussed JPK's inaction was a disappointment in this regard (more on this in the next segment). Both parties had isolationist wings, but as each of these wings are diametrically opposed to everything else their counterparts would stand for there was never a serious attempt at a third party on that basis. The Socialist had a mini revival during the Panic in the 1930s, but that was short lived, and they never elected anyone to statewide office or garnered any electoral votes. The only 3rd party candidate to receive Electoral voted was the States Rights Party under Alabama Governor George Wallace in 1964. More on that later.
T.H., Fordham; I'd like to inquire about the fate of the East Asian sphere after the Pacific War, especially the fates of Japan, China, and Indochina.
A J.O., Harvard: As to your question on the let me just play back my earlier remarks talking about:
using local surrogates on the Korean Peninsula, Indochina, and Manchuria combined with a military alliance that would come to include The Philippines, Formosa, Indonesia and Thailand. That alliance of course still exists today and includes Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, China, Tibet, Mongolia, and Japan. The United States was not formally part of the alliance but had an agreement whereby they provided extensive logistical support, equipment and training in exchange for basing rights.
Again, more on that later.
Last edited: