-
-
The proximate answer, I think, influence of Mugwump/progressive tradition with its emphasis on civility, civic mindedness, process and its eschewal of partisanship & excercise of power on behalf of faction.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
1) John Judis wrote an excellent book on this tradition—which was bipartisan with GOP business typescript on the city level into the 20th century. 2) Liberalism, from the 19th century forward, marked by procedural equity; 3) Shift connected to post sixties backlash.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Judis's (yes, very good) book is mostly about interest-group balancing, not about electoral ethics per se. Wonder if
@daschloz has any thoughts that haven't already been raised in this thread.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yeah, this an old (back to the Puritans, at some level), holist, anti-party tradition that goes through the moral reform of the Whigs, then Mugwumps, Progressives.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Depending on where you stand, you can see pieces of this in both Cold War liberalism, which pushes decisions away from popular politics, and in the romanticism of the New Left that sees power politics as just LBJ and Mayor Daley.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Cold War liberalism, certainly (see The Vital Center, of course).But the Port Huron Statement called for polarized parties -- echoed by future candidates like McGov, Jesse Jackson, and Bernie Sanders
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Right -- and there was a starting in the late 1950s some Cold War liberals with that bent as well (Neustadt & co.)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.