Comments on: The Way We Are Now—Republicans http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2007/08/27/the-way-we-are-now%e2%80%94republicans/ Your home for traditional conservatism. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 19:05:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Nathan Eversole http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2007/08/27/the-way-we-are-now%e2%80%94republicans/comment-page-1/#comment-80574 Nathan Eversole Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:22:15 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=296#comment-80574 I find it interesting that anyone would complain about our interventionist state, whether at home or abroad. It has been found in our nation's history that when everything is left alone, chaos ensues. Recall WWI, WWII, The Great Depression, the Civil-Rights movement; when the government and its people take no course of action things tend to go downhill. We have to remain actively involved in geo-politics and have a government concerned about the well being of the citizens it serves or we shall slip into depression and it will be our eventual downfall. I find it interesting that anyone would complain about our interventionist state, whether at home or abroad. It has been found in our nation's history that when everything is left alone, chaos ensues. Recall WWI, WWII, The Great Depression, the Civil-Rights movement; when the government and its people take no course of action things tend to go downhill. We have to remain actively involved in geo-politics and have a government concerned about the well being of the citizens it serves or we shall slip into depression and it will be our eventual downfall.

]]> By: Thomas Flinn http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2007/08/27/the-way-we-are-now%e2%80%94republicans/comment-page-1/#comment-55073 Thomas Flinn Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:52:42 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=296#comment-55073 I have mentioned this on another post, but I grew up supporting the GOP as the "conservative party." The realities of the current regime slapped me squarely in the face and made me ask some uncomfortable questions. Is the GOP conservative, or was it ever? Depends on your definition I suppose. Certainly it is doing its best to conserve power and wealth in the hands of those who really are the foundation of the party (and always have been). We used to call them Rockefeller Republicans. Yes, southern Democrats liked their "pork" Did northern Republicans not like theirs? I have always wondered why, while voting and supporting Republicans over the years, the political leaders I have most admired in my life were conservative Democrats. I have dipped a little more into the history of the parties recently and done some old fashioned mental cogitation to understand why I felt this way. Anyone is free to correct me if I have missed it, but it seems to me the reason (in Dr. Wilson's words) why conservative Democrats have been better than Republicans even in the area of "pork" is that the Dems were tied to traditionalism and localism. The Democratic pork tended to benefit the "home folks:" locally owned businesses and farms, and rural and small town people. GOP pork on the other hand seemed to flow to railroads, steel companies, and international banking and financial interests who have no sense of local pride, tradition or loyalty. The old Democrats were party men, no doubt, but only so long as the party line didn't hurt the locals. It seems that Republicans now follow the "party line" no matter where it leads. The Trent Lott affair was pretty illustrative. When Bush and his lackies began screeching for Lott to apologize for his remarks about Strom Thurmond, the proper response by Lott and other republican senators and congressmen should have been, "Mind your own damned business." Instead, the machinery went into action and across the board the GOP slobbered out its insistence that it wasn't racist and didn't associate itself with such racist stuff (Surely there wasn't an anti-Southern bias here was there?). So much for the "southern strategy." I can't imagine the same thing happening to, say Richard Russell, if he had done the same thing years ago. Yes the national dems might have squawked some, but I think there would have been enough of Russell's supporters in the party to shut them up or marginalize them. When FDR tried to purge the conservative Democrats he was usually unsuccessful. I have mentioned this on another post, but I grew up supporting the GOP as the "conservative party." The realities of the current regime slapped me squarely in the face and made me ask some uncomfortable questions. Is the GOP conservative, or was it ever? Depends on your definition I suppose. Certainly it is doing its best to conserve power and wealth in the hands of those who really are the foundation of the party (and always have been). We used to call them Rockefeller Republicans. Yes, southern Democrats liked their "pork" Did northern Republicans not like theirs? I have always wondered why, while voting and supporting Republicans over the years, the political leaders I have most admired in my life were conservative Democrats. I have dipped a little more into the history of the parties recently and done some old fashioned mental cogitation to understand why I felt this way. Anyone is free to correct me if I have missed it, but it seems to me the reason (in Dr. Wilson's words) why conservative Democrats have been better than Republicans even in the area of "pork" is that the Dems were tied to traditionalism and localism. The Democratic pork tended to benefit the "home folks:" locally owned businesses and farms, and rural and small town people. GOP pork on the other hand seemed to flow to railroads, steel companies, and international banking and financial interests who have no sense of local pride, tradition or loyalty. The old Democrats were party men, no doubt, but only so long as the party line didn't hurt the locals. It seems that Republicans now follow the "party line" no matter where it leads. The Trent Lott affair was pretty illustrative. When Bush and his lackies began screeching for Lott to apologize for his remarks about Strom Thurmond, the proper response by Lott and other republican senators and congressmen should have been, "Mind your own damned business." Instead, the machinery went into action and across the board the GOP slobbered out its insistence that it wasn't racist and didn't associate itself with such racist stuff (Surely there wasn't an anti-Southern bias here was there?). So much for the "southern strategy." I can't imagine the same thing happening to, say Richard Russell, if he had done the same thing years ago. Yes the national dems might have squawked some, but I think there would have been enough of Russell's supporters in the party to shut them up or marginalize them. When FDR tried to purge the conservative Democrats he was usually unsuccessful.

]]> By: PcH http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2007/08/27/the-way-we-are-now%e2%80%94republicans/comment-page-1/#comment-15076 PcH Sun, 02 Sep 2007 21:30:06 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=296#comment-15076 Thanks, Dr. Wilson, for that excellent explanation in #35. Thanks, Ed Roberts for #38! :-) Thanks, Dr. Wilson, for that excellent explanation in #35.

Thanks, Ed Roberts for #38! :-)

]]> By: Ed Roberts http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2007/08/27/the-way-we-are-now%e2%80%94republicans/comment-page-1/#comment-14882 Ed Roberts Sun, 02 Sep 2007 01:16:39 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=296#comment-14882 I agree, sir. Mine was a civil response and was offered as a sincere suggestion. I agree, sir. Mine was a civil response and was offered as a sincere suggestion.

]]> By: Theodore Van Oosbree http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2007/08/27/the-way-we-are-now%e2%80%94republicans/comment-page-1/#comment-14418 Theodore Van Oosbree Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:53:35 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=296#comment-14418 Civility please, Mr. Roberts! Personal abuse is a symptom of a weak mind. Civility please, Mr. Roberts! Personal abuse is a symptom of a weak mind.

]]> By: Ed Roberts http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2007/08/27/the-way-we-are-now%e2%80%94republicans/comment-page-1/#comment-14415 Ed Roberts Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:42:25 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=296#comment-14415 Mr. Van Oosbree, you really should refrain from huffing glue before posting. Mr. Van Oosbree, you really should refrain from huffing glue before posting.

]]> By: Steve Berg http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2007/08/27/the-way-we-are-now%e2%80%94republicans/comment-page-1/#comment-14361 Steve Berg Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:17:20 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=296#comment-14361 Sid Cundiff is correct that the Gingrich Revolution was largely a counter reaction to the so-called "Assault Rifle Ban" and to a lesser extent the Clinton Crime bill. I was involved on the periphery of this when it happened. It started out as an effort up in Washington state to kick the then speaker, Tom Foley, out of office. A motley group of software engineers, a retired naval officer and a screen writer/movie actor got together, and set up a PAC on the internet. They raised more than $25,000, and proceeded to support Foley's opponent Nethercutt. It took them 6 months or so of hard work, but they bounced the first sitting (or lying as the case may be) SPeaker of the House. WHen Gingrich became speaker, this group called the De-Foleyate Coalition, or DF8, contacted him, and told him what they had done. They expressed their concerns about the assault on the Second AMendment under the Clintonoids, and said they would prefer to work with him, but if he did not work to repeal this crap, they would start to work to unseat him, too. GIngrich met with them, and some senior NRA officials and agreed that the laws should be repealed. Things were progressing until the Reichstag Fire event at the Murrah Federal Building, when everything came to a speedy halt. One of the main players in this group,which changed its name to Noban, was a gent named Jim Bohan, AKA Lobo Azul, or the Old Blue Howler. He was instrumental also in getting a new governor elected in Louisiana, and in getting concealed carry put in place in that state. He also was getting death threats, and also threats to his family there in Yoakum, Texas. He died of a heart attack at his computer keyboard. Scott RIchert should be proud to know that it was a Macintosh. My impression is that the so-called Republican Revolution was an intentional farce. Any modest reforms introduced by Gingrich and pushed through the House, would be killed in the Senate by Bob Dole. A lot of sound and fury, but nothing of significance. The "Assault Rifle Ban" finally lapsed due to a sunset provision, but it will undoubtedly be re-installed under the upcoming Clinton co-presidency. Sid Cundiff is correct that the Gingrich Revolution was largely a counter reaction to the so-called "Assault Rifle Ban" and to a lesser extent the Clinton Crime bill. I was involved on the periphery of this when it happened. It started out as an effort up in Washington state to kick the then speaker, Tom Foley, out of office. A motley group of software engineers, a retired naval officer and a screen writer/movie actor got together, and set up a PAC on the internet. They raised more than $25,000, and proceeded to support Foley's opponent Nethercutt. It took them 6 months or so of hard work, but they bounced the first sitting (or lying as the case may be) SPeaker of the House. WHen Gingrich became speaker, this group called the De-Foleyate Coalition, or DF8, contacted him, and told him what they had done. They expressed their concerns about the assault on the Second AMendment under the Clintonoids, and said they would prefer to work with him, but if he did not work to repeal this crap, they would start to work to unseat him, too. GIngrich met with them, and some senior NRA officials and agreed that the laws should be repealed. Things were progressing until the Reichstag Fire event at the Murrah Federal Building, when everything came to a speedy halt. One of the main players in this group,which changed its name to Noban, was a gent named Jim Bohan, AKA Lobo Azul, or the Old Blue Howler. He was instrumental also in getting a new governor elected in Louisiana, and in getting concealed carry put in place in that state. He also was getting death threats, and also threats to his family there in Yoakum, Texas. He died of a heart attack at his computer keyboard. Scott RIchert should be proud to know that it was a Macintosh. My impression is that the so-called Republican Revolution was an intentional farce. Any modest reforms introduced by Gingrich and pushed through the House, would be killed in the Senate by Bob Dole. A lot of sound and fury, but nothing of significance. The "Assault Rifle Ban" finally lapsed due to a sunset provision, but it will undoubtedly be re-installed under the upcoming Clinton co-presidency.

]]> By: Theodore Van Oosbree http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2007/08/27/the-way-we-are-now%e2%80%94republicans/comment-page-1/#comment-14353 Theodore Van Oosbree Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:16:13 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=296#comment-14353 Although I am not a Southerner, I have no particular dislike for the South (nor am I particularly fond of Yankees). Neither do I have any unqualified political commitment to any political party. Political parties are pure instruments in my view and are owed no loyalty beyond what they earn by serving the public interest. In truth, the political system between 1865 and the 1960s achieved an equilibrium generally beneficial to the working man. The Republicans supported economic development while the Democrats made sure that working people were not left out in the cold. The two party system ensured that each party tended to cancel out the vices of the other. The Republican tendency to cater to capitalists and the wealthy was countered by the Democrats. The Democrats taste for demagoguery, war and economic nostrums (free silver, free trade) that would have damaged the economy was countered by the Republicans. This healthy dialectic has long since broken down. The Republicans now support free trade, funny money, anti-white affirmative action policies, mass immigration and endless interventionism. The Democrats support all these too (in fact, they practically invented them). Their vices are now unchecked and have become the received political system of the ruling class. The only question for them is: who's going to run the show? Although I am not a Southerner, I have no particular dislike for the South (nor am I particularly fond of Yankees). Neither do I have any unqualified political commitment to any political party. Political parties are pure instruments in my view and are owed no loyalty beyond what they earn by serving the public interest. In truth, the political system between 1865 and the 1960s achieved an equilibrium generally beneficial to the working man. The Republicans supported economic development while the Democrats made sure that working people were not left out in the cold. The two party system ensured that each party tended to cancel out the vices of the other. The Republican tendency to cater to capitalists and the wealthy was countered by the Democrats. The Democrats taste for demagoguery, war and economic nostrums (free silver, free trade) that would have damaged the economy was countered by the Republicans.
This healthy dialectic has long since broken down. The Republicans now support free trade, funny money, anti-white affirmative action policies, mass immigration and endless interventionism. The Democrats support all these too (in fact, they practically invented them). Their vices are now unchecked and have become the received political system of the ruling class. The only question for them is: who's going to run the show?

]]> By: Clyde Wilson http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2007/08/27/the-way-we-are-now%e2%80%94republicans/comment-page-1/#comment-14143 Clyde Wilson Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:13:20 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=296#comment-14143 Mr. Van O., The Republicans of the 1850s and 60s claimed to be for "Free Labour." If you read the insider correspondence of the Republican leaders, you see that they wanted to do away with slavery so as to depress wages. The slaves had a lifetime private welfare system. They did not depress but rather kept up the wages of Northern workers (as well as providing cheap raw materials for factories). Freeing this pool of labour to survive by wages would depress the value of labour for the benefit of the Northern capitalists. The intelligent Northern labour leaders understood this and were very anti-Republican and always sided with the Southern Democrats. (They held mass meetings in NYC and Detroit to back John C. Calhoun and free trade. I refer you to the draft riots in NYC and other places against Republican exploitation of labour.) The same Republicans also, of course, pushed the tariff, which raised the prices of all goods for workers and everybody else, and the national bank system which allowed a private banking cartel to manipulate the currency to its own advantage by, among other things, reducing the value of the workers' money Further, you ought to look into this: The Republicans during the War passed a contract labour law which facilitated bringing in gangs of immigrant workers---the obvious purpose being to keep wages down (as they said privately). It is sad to see someone still believing in the old fraudulent, cynical propaganda of the Republican party. Your dislike of the South and your misunderstanding of the economic and social role of slavery in American history has led you astray. Mr. Van O., The Republicans of the 1850s and 60s claimed to be for "Free Labour." If you read the insider correspondence of the Republican leaders, you see that they wanted to do away with slavery so as to depress wages. The slaves had a lifetime private welfare system. They did not depress but rather kept up the wages of Northern workers (as well as providing cheap raw materials for factories). Freeing this pool of labour to survive by wages would depress the value of labour for the benefit of the Northern capitalists. The intelligent Northern labour leaders understood this and were very anti-Republican and always sided with the Southern Democrats. (They held mass meetings in NYC and Detroit to back John C. Calhoun and free trade. I refer you to the draft riots in NYC and other places against Republican exploitation of labour.) The same Republicans also, of course, pushed the tariff, which raised the prices of all goods for workers and everybody else, and the national bank system which allowed a private banking cartel to manipulate the currency to its own advantage by, among other things, reducing the value of the workers' money
Further, you ought to look into this: The Republicans during the War passed a contract labour law which facilitated bringing in gangs of immigrant workers---the obvious purpose being to keep wages down (as they said privately).
It is sad to see someone still believing in the old fraudulent, cynical propaganda of the Republican party. Your dislike of the South and your misunderstanding of the economic and social role
of slavery in American history has led you astray.

]]> By: Randall Ivey http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2007/08/27/the-way-we-are-now%e2%80%94republicans/comment-page-1/#comment-14139 Randall Ivey Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:44:40 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=296#comment-14139 Michael, thank you for the reference. I guess I do not read as many 19th century Chicago newspapermen as I should. In any case I would probably consult the wisdom of Tennessean Sut Lovingood in matters of politics, the clergy, etc., before I would Mister Dooley. Best, R. Ivey Michael, thank you for the reference. I guess I do not read as many 19th century Chicago newspapermen as I should. In any case I would probably consult the wisdom of Tennessean Sut Lovingood in matters of politics, the clergy, etc., before I would Mister Dooley.

Best,
R. Ivey

]]>