It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Odd Couple

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 12:30 PM
This is the cover of the Summer edition of "Tulanian." As you can see, it features what is perhaps the oddest couple since "The Odd Couple."

I guess it could be argued that maybe George H. W. has become the father that Bill Clinton never had and that they were drawn together by common humanitarian interests, but there is really more to it than that from our sociological perspective.

In todays political climate, the Republicans and the Democrats seem more polarized than ever, even though on this board there is a large contingent of those who believe that there is no difference, at all, and there is some truth to that perspective, as well. For instance, both men signed broad gun ban laws.

What does seem indisputable though is the fact that our nation is about as polarized politically as it has ever been, making exceptions for the War of Northern Aggression (Civil War) and the Vietnam War, acknowledging that the Vietnam War was not a particularly partisan issue in that it ruined two Presidents, one Democrat and one Republican, and that the national division was more along generational lines.

However, in the last, say twenty-five years, the left and the right have seemingly garnered roughly a fifty percent share of the voting public and the political vitriol is as high as it could possibly get without blood flowing in the streets and the two men who represent that split as meaningfully as could possibly be are bound together almost as father and son and who were brought together in a humanitarian cause by GW Bush, the son of GHW Bush.

What does this say about our American culture, if anything?

[edit on 2006/7/29 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 12:44 PM
Forgive me for being a little more dense than usual, Grady. I am not sure what it is you are asking? Are you asking for the cause of the polarization? If so, the poloarization has always been there, just in this day and age of almost instant communication, the ranting of the polarizers, extremists on both wings of the political scene get more and more exposure. Certainly more than they warrent or deserve. I don't neccessarily blame the media for this, they need to sell airspace, or advertising space, and boring moderates who deal with reality don't sell well. Politics is a blood sport, and blood sells. Extremists of any ilk are good press. Is that what you are asking?

posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 12:52 PM
Forgive me.

What does the relationship between the former Presidents say about our culture, when one considers that their presidencies represent an apotheosis of the political divide in America, keeping in mind the depth of the friendship and bond that has formed between these two icons of politics in America?

[edit on 2006/7/29 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 01:02 PM
I would say it points out that the political divides that supposedly haunt and twist our fair nation are rather more superficial than the media would have us believe? Or perhaps the causes that both support, such as the recent Indonesian earthquake relief efforts, and Katrina efforts, are bigger and more important to them than any supposed political animosity. That last says much for the character of both men, IMHO. I could also be used as evidence of their obvious ties to the dreaded NWO

posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 01:18 PM
I would agree with that assessment. Basically, there are bonds between Americans that transcend the political and even when we are heavily divided politically, we can usually find common ground in matters that are far more important than political bickering.

Whatever else may be said about this topic, which seems to interest others far less than it does me, is that the very image of these two men united in a common cause should give us pause to consider the humanity that ultimately defines us all, or something to that effect.

Few here would believe that when Ronald Reagan was elected President, I thought surely the fall of America was eminent and that when GHW Bush was elected that that fate was surely sealed or that when I voted for Bill Clinton, I truly believed that he would usher in a new age of unity among all Americans.

Now, for me to see the two serving mankind is both unnerving and reassuring, but I guess you might have had to have lived through those times and have come to the realizations that I came to and experienced the changes that occurred in me in that era.

posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 01:33 PM
Very unnerving, yet oddly reassuring, given my ambivolent feelings for Mr. Clinton. His efforts on behalf of millions of displaced people in the world, not just here in America, have raised his standing in my eyes. He should never, ever set foot in the political arena again, he's much better outside it. Yet another reason not to vote for Mrs. Clinton.

I've always liked Mr. Bush. Not quite sure why...but I do. His efforts merely add to my affection.

As for your second paragraph...I have only one word: Amen, brother! (two, but who cares?).

posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 08:56 AM
They are an odd couple indeed. At first glance, anyway. And I think it's more likely that Clinton is the refined, intelligent son that Bush Sr. never had...

But the truth is that these (apparently) 2 sides of the coin are indeed part of the same coin. The division in this country is an illusion set forth to keep us thinking we're divided and fighting with each other, but regardless which 'side' we choose, we're choosing the same thing.

But a divided populace is easier to manage and BOTH sides of this particular coin know that and are using it to their best advantage.

posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 12:43 PM
I would say that there are divisions politically in this country, but they are not reflected in the two main parties. The real issues that beset us are, in my opinion, three:

1) Shall our economy be managed for the greatest good of the greatest number, or for the maximum profit of the privileged few?

2) Shall we adopt a cooperative foreign policy that aims towards world peace, or shall we instead go the traditional route of maintaining an empire by force of arms?

3) Shall we endeavor to create an ecologically sustainable society, or maximize our use and enjoyment of natural resources in the short term?

On all of these three questions, the two parties are nearly identical and answer each one with the second alternative, while sometimes pretending to pursue the first. The differences in policy between Democrats and Republicans that do exist are there because the parties have manufactured them, virtually frothing at the mouth over abortion rights, gay marriage, and gun control, creating the illusion of a choice while preserving the reality of consensus in favor of the powerful. The reason why the national vote splits so closely down the middle is not because the nation is divided, but because the real issues are not being addressed, and the parties leave us not much basis for a choice.

That is also why voter turnout is so low.

As for Bush and Clinton, well, neither one is in politics now in the sense of running for office. Both men are wealthy, both are retired, both have a sense of humanity and the opportunity to express it. What we are seeing is not politics, but post-politics, a revelation of what each of these men is made of. With no election at stake, they are simply following their hearts.

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 09:02 PM
The Best of Friends:

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 09:16 PM
I'm guessing that was the nexus of all evil, the infamous Boheimian Grove? Ok, and the point is?

The odd couple are or have in the past attended. Along with a who's who of America's and the world's movers and shakers. Talk about high level networking...

new topics

top topics


log in