Hot answers tagged

7

I don't think they were particularly unusual in that regard. At the time of Andropov, all the other nations with permanent membership on UN Security Council (USA, England, France, and China) were lead by WWII-era politicians. All were WWII veterans, with the obvious exception of Margaret Thatcher. The USA wouldn't get its first post WWII-generation ...


5

The correct question would be "Why the Chinese manage to change their leaders smoothly?" Lifetime leadership is typical for Communist dictators, not only in Soviet Union. Cuba, Yugoslavia, East Germany, Roumania,... you can continue yourself. The two leaders of Communist Russia who stepped down, Khrushchev and Gorbachev, stepped down as a result of coup ...


2

For the most part yes, as their fundamental issue in both cases was support for segregation and white supremecy. They were a bit different in theory, in that the AIP was founded as a conservative (far right) party that then courted southern whites, while the Dixiecrats were formed out of the southern Democratic party. However, in practice they both drew all ...


1

The Republican Party remained more responsive than Democrats to issues of civil rights throughout the Great Depression. The Republicans were not forced to choose between their reputation as the "Party of Lincoln" and the "Party of Business" until the 1940s, due to the establishment of agencies like the Fair Employment Practices Committee in 1941. Unlike ...


1

Both parties were pro-business for most of the 19th century. As one example, in 1894 Democratic President Grover Cleveland sent in Federal troops to break up the Pullman Strike. The question, then, is is when did Republicans become the sole beneficiaries of business support? The turning point was 1896, when the Democrats nominated the populist William ...


1

An under-appreciated reason for the collapse of the Federalists is that they were, essentially, a neo-mercantalist party. Hamilton and others were pro-industrialization not so much because they wanted to see individuals get rich through manufacturing, but because industrialization made the United States a more powerful nation in the international system ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible