Discussion: Party Coups

Which party coup had the greatest impact?

  • Thatcher vs. wets

    Votes: 6 54.5%
  • LBJ vs. RFK

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • Chretien vs. Martin

    Votes: 3 27.3%

  • Total voters
    11
For me, it's both Thatcher and LBJ. The Tories are still having those European debates, except now they're behind closed doors. It's affected them up to the present. For LBJ and RFK, the "civil war" in the party continued until 1992. RFK didn't actively overthrow LBJ, Vietnam and the racial situation took care of it. Unusual in that it was a personal vendetta.
 
For me, it's both Thatcher and LBJ. The Tories are still having those European debates, except now they're behind closed doors. It's affected them up to the present. For LBJ and RFK, the "civil war" in the party continued until 1992. RFK didn't actively overthrow LBJ, Vietnam and the racial situation took care of it. Unusual in that it was a personal vendetta.

Also in '68 the Republicans under Nixon made heavy use of Goldwater's "Southern Strategy". But you are right the Democrats had divisions that were ongoing until Clinton won in '92 and '96. Carter's victory in '76 was a fluke in some ways, considering how he barely lost to Ford, mainly due to lingering anger over Watergate and other Nixon era scandals. And remember in '80 between the oil crisis and more importantly the Iranian Hostage Crisis Ted Kennedy ran against Carter. And in the general election that November the there was a third party candidate as well, although he only won 6.6% of the popular vote he pulled enough votes away in certain states to swing them to Regan.

Also Regan was effectively able to court many socially conservative Democrats who felt disenfranchised from the Democratic Party since the days of '68 and the rise of the liberals.

The only reason other than the economy that Clinton and the Democrats were able to win in '92 is because the Democrats, to make an analogy, became the New Democrats (analogous to Labour doing the same in the '97 elections under Blair), which allowed Bush, Cheney, and Rove et.al to play the role of "bubba" and actively court lower class white voters who used to cote reliably Democrat.

Although this has changed with the recent election due to the larger numbers of young people voting and the general ongoing liberalization of America.
 
Yes, but we're discussing the overthrow of a leader by their own party. Nixon was a genius for Southern Strategy, and he created the GOP alignment from 1968-present. He was, until Rove, the only Republican who thought in strategic terms. Clinton thought mostly tactically. I don't know how RFK would create a party strategy. Indira with Congress in 1969 is what I'd like to see RFK do to Daley et al in the 1970's. The only one with the capability, the will, and the capacity to make it work in the long run. Unlike Mrs Gandhi...
 
Yes, but we're discussing the overthrow of a leader by their own party. Nixon was a genius for Southern Strategy, and he created the GOP alignment from 1968-present. He was, until Rove, the only Republican who thought in strategic terms. Clinton thought mostly tactically. I don't know how RFK would create a party strategy. Indira with Congress in 1969 is what I'd like to see RFK do to Daley et al in the 1970's. The only one with the capability, the will, and the capacity to make it work in the long run. Unlike Mrs Gandhi...
What about '08 then the Clintons and the Old Guard as it were, were overthrown by Obama and the New Guard.
 
For LBJ and RFK, the "civil war" in the party continued until 1992. RFK didn't actively overthrow LBJ, Vietnam and the racial situation took care of it. Unusual in that it was a personal vendetta.

Eh? You admit RFK never mounted a head-on political or ideological battle against LBJ yet you include this 'non-coup' here? LBJ versus the Dixiecrats is a real coup.

The personal hatred you mention never came to truly represent the New Politics versus old Dem coalition fight, and RFK didn't live long enough to become the champion of the New Politics liberals in the way McGovern did (and he may never have assumed that role, anyway). I don't know where you get the idea that that dispute is the be-all and end-all of the Democratic factional battles.

Chretien versus Martin was all about personalities AFAIK.

Thatcher versus the wets is something.

How does the GOP's internal fights not find their way onto your poll? Or anything De Gaulle did, for that matter? Fundies versus Realos?
 
Sorry, I contradicted myself a little bit. What I meant was he did not actively lead the Vietnam fight until late '67. When Church introduced a petition and six other doves signed it, RFK drafted his own statement. Hillary/Obama, I mentioned above. She was Hubert. De Gaulle wasn't overthrown by his own party, he in effect committed political suicide. What Chirac did to VGE in 1981 was quite... underhanded.
 
Yes, for LBJ a self-coup, since the Dixiecrats found a home in the GOP. Quite similar to Shivers in TX carrying it for Ike in 1956, that strategy was pioneered by him. He broke the Southern grip on the Dems, at the expense of surrendering the W.H. for the next 25 years. Though as a Nixonian, I'm not complaining...
One man leading a group in a party that unseats the incumbent leader is our discussion. All opposition parties go through turmoil in long incumbency electoral cycles, as in the UK. In the US they rotate every 8 years since FDR. In the UK it's every three terms except in 92', which was a curse disguised as a blessing...
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I contradicted myself a little bit. What I meant was he did not actively lead the Vietnam fight until late '67. When Church introduced a petition and six other doves signed it, RFK drafted his own statement. Hillary/Obama, I mentioned above. She was Hubert. De Gaulle wasn't overthrown by his own party, he in effect committed political suicide. What Chirac did to VGE in 1981 was quite... underhanded...

Yes, for LBJ a self-coup, since the Dixiecrats found a home in the GOP. Quite similar to Shivers in TX carrying it for Ike in 1956, that strategy was pioneered by him. He broke the Southern grip on the Dems, at the expense of surrendering the W.H. for the next 25 years. Though as a Nixonian, I'm not complaining...

Are you using wiki in response to every point I raised?

Just a hint, then--the German Greens' 'realo' versus 'fundie' debate may see those words spelt differently, as they're from the original German, naturally.
 
Magniac,

my sources are Crozier for De Gaulle and Schlesinger and Shesol for RFK. My primary expertise is US/Canada, UK and Philippines. I have many sources (too long to list) for the US, as well as my personal knowledge. If my facts are wrong, correct me, but otherwise no need to knock my sources. We can disagree on interpretation, but I don't think you're disputing the facts I've laid out. RFK challenged LBJ personally and politically in 1968, and forced Johnson's withdrawal, as LBJ himself admitted in Vantage Point and post-presidential interviews. Kennedy didn't live long enough to become party leader or President in 1968 or later. Martin's takeover of the machinery and threat of no leadership confidence forced Chretien to retire. Thatcher's story is well known. But Martin and RFK were challenging their opponents not just politically, but personally as well. You don't have to be hateful of your leader as a person to overthrow them, but you do have to disagree with fundamental policy issues. Disraeli did not hate Peel as a man, just free trade as economic principle.
 
Last edited:
Geez, Toryanna, have you ever heard of the Edit function? It allows you to modify your posts, instead of sextuple :)eek:) posting. It is one of the buttons on the bottom right of your post, and clearly says "EDIT" on it. It makes threads a lot easier to read. Please utilise this feature in the future. Thank you.
 
The LBJ/RFK fight was not the direct cause of the Democrats' loss in 1968. It did cause LBJ's withdrawal. "And then the thing that I feared most from the first day of my presidency had come true. Robert Kennedy had openly announced his intention to reclaim the throne in the memory of his brother. And the American people, swayed by the magic of the name, were dancing in the streets." I believe that, even though he could win renomination, he would lose to Nixon anyways. Though he believed that RFK or HHH were the vulnerable ones. We might see '72 avant l'heure in margins... As for Thatcher, who's "right" depends on your personal opinion. What is clear is that she lost the confidence of Cabinet by becoming too isolated, dogmatic, and intolerant of policy criticism. No killer instinct to compensate. Chretien/Martin was purely personal, though Martin was more of a fiscal conservative than Chretien. He wanted the throne before he got too old. RFK advocated New Politics, but he was in the Democratic ideological mainstream. Whether he was to the left or center of the Dems is a matter of opinion among authors and amateurs such as myself. About the GOP, they have long had their conservatives, moderates and RINO's such as Rockefeller. Nixon managed to unite them around his own centrist self in the 1960's. Were they a monolithic bloc? Not by a mile. They governed for 24 of 36 years between 1968 and 2004, and that is why I don't mention it. Did all of us Republicans love Reagan's domestic policies? No. But we most definitely did not like the alternatives on offer. The Dems and Tories, for a long time couldn't agree on fundamental questions such as Europe, the extent of the welfare state, etc. All the ones that I mentioned led to a loss of governance by the party involved. To take a Democratic example, Blue Dogs and Pelosi are both Democrats, but one's very liberal and the others are on the right of the Democratic Party. Every party has its wings.


One I forgot to mention as an example is what Indira Gandhi did to the Congress Party. Namely being hamstrung by the Syndicate, staging a fight over the state and party presidencies, turning the voters and backbenchers on them, and taking complete ideological and personal control by the 1971 election. Another example is Hawke and Keating in the 1990's? That looks quite interesting as well.

P.S. A Person, my apologies, and to everyone who reads it. Please forgive:eek:.
 
Top