In response to:

Last Hurrah of Nixon's 'New Majority'?

OldMexicanblog Wrote: Aug 28, 2012 9:42 AM
Re: CoachKr, -- You can [have] diversity or a successful country. You cannot have both. -- I prefer to have successful people, not "countries." Almost all the time, "country" and "The State" are interchangeable, for the simple reason that the collective concept of "country" is a mirage, an abstraction meant to name lines on a map. What's important is the people, not the territory. Yes, I am NOT a collectivist/Socialist. I don't think in terms of "countries," "societies," or "clowders," except to facilitate speech. Progressives (and their faux-conservative brethren) will almost always resort to collectivist platitudes disguised as appeals to reason: "We must be number one!"

Looking back all the way to America's Civil War, there have been three dominant presidential coalitions.

The first was Abraham Lincoln's. With his war to restore the Union and his martyrdom, Lincoln inaugurated an era of Republican dominance that lasted more than seven decades and saw only two Democratic presidents: Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson.

The second coalition was FDR's, where he and his vice president Harry Truman won five consecutive presidential elections. Only Gen. Eisenhower could break that streak.

The third was Richard Nixon's New Majority, cobbled together after his narrow 1968 victory, where he annexed the...