Last Recourse of Failed Presidents
Both the 20th and 21st centuries have seen failed presidencies.
William Howard Taft lost in 1912, though he might have retained office had not his old friend and former leader Theodore Roosevelt run as a third party Bull Moose candidate and won more votes than Taft.
Herbert Hoover failed through no fault of his own. The Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression were beyond his control, and every remedy he tried failed adequately to work.
Had the popular Cal Coolidge sought a second full term in 1928 instead of declaring, "I do not choose to run," he would have been in the White House when the crash came and cast by history in the role assigned to Hoover.
But, as one wag said, Silent Cal's career seems to have been a product of repeated celestial interventions.
By 1952, Harry Truman was a failed president. His approval rating was below 25 percent. Chiang Kai-shek's China had fallen to communism. Josef Stalin had stolen the secret of the atom bomb through espionage against the United States. Truman had fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur and was in the third year of a Korean War he could neither win nor end.
The administration had been exposed as shot through with corruption and treason in the persons of Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White and the Rosenberg atomic spy ring, among others.
Rejected in New Hampshire, Harry wisely chose to pack it in.
Lyndon Johnson, his 44-state landslide in 1964 and Great Society notwithstanding, was by 1968 a failed president being repudiated in the primaries of his own party.
Truman and Johnson quit rather than run again and risk defeat.
But Jimmy Carter, whose poll numbers fell as low as Truman's and who was widely seen as a failed president, chose to fight Teddy Kennedy in the primaries and Ronald Reagan in the general election.
Carter had one signal achievement: the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty.
But by 1980, he was presiding over an economy with 21 percent interest rates, 13 percent inflation and zero growth. The Soviet Empire had annexed Afghanistan and was on the move in Africa, the Caribbean and Central America. Iran had fallen to the mullahs. Fifty American embassy personnel were being held hostage in Tehran.
What makes that 1980 election relevant is that it was the last national election and the only postwar election where a Democratic president widely perceived to have failed chose to run for re-election.
And what strategy did the Carter campaign adopt?
They sought to demonize Reagan as a tool of the rich, a cold-hearted wretch who would savage the safety net, a crazed anti-communist Cold Warrior whom it would be dangerous to entrust with nuclear weapons. Ronald Reagan was Barry Goldwater redux.
Yet, looking back, what else could Carter do? Looking forward, what else can Barack Obama do?
By 1984, Reagan could credibly run for re-election on the slogan, "Stay the Course." Let us continue on this path that is leading us to the sunny uplands of a new prosperity and a stronger, more respected America.
Carter could not do that in 1980. Hoover could not do that in 1932. And Obama cannot do that today.
With the nation believing Carter had failed by the fall of 1980, and prepared to remove and replace him, Carter had one lane left to victory. He and the liberal media had to define Reagan for the electorate as an uncaring extremist and dangerous man.
Lest we forget, this Carter strategy was working.
Not until the late debate with Carter did the electorate take a closer look at Reagan and decide that this genial, principled conservative was no threat, but an acceptable alternative and far preferable to four more years of Carter.
After that debate, the undecideds came down hard for Reagan, millions of Democrats switched to him, and he buried Carter.
Again, that election is relevant because it is the election most similar to this one. We have a Democratic president who has presided over a huge loss of jobs, four straight trillion-dollar deficits and 42 months of unemployment over 8 percent. With Obama's approval in the 40s, it is clear that America is ready for a change.
One difference between 2012 and 1980? President Obama retains a reservoir of goodwill President Carter never acquired.
If this analysis is correct, the Democratic convention and the next nine weeks will witness one sustained slander of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan as Ayn Randian agents of a plutocracy hell-bent on seeing its taxes reduced and the tax cuts paid for by eviscerating programs on which America's poor and the working and middle class depend for survival.
The one sure way Obama can win is to convince a nation ready for change—to fear, loathe and recoil from the proposed agents of change.
Obama aides and media auxiliary have already painted the Republican convention in Tampa, Fla., as permeated with lies and dog whistles to racists.
Yet, one wonders: After such a campaign, how does Obama unite and lead the country should he win.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM
Entries(RSS)
"Yet, one wonders: After such a campaign, how does Obama unite and lead the country should he win."
Win or lose our country is divided and will continue to fragment. Pat is a smart politician and astute journalist and has asked the question first. Yet, Romney and Ryan can no more unite the country after the election than can Obama and Biden. This election is starting to cut to the quick and as the nerves become frayed ,more exposed, and painful to the touch, there could be consequences. These shouting matches reflecting a deep divide between conservative leftist, progressive leftist and what remains of a Christian remnant, won't simply resolve themselves simply because folks voted. My lord, Pat, the representative media Catholic, Chris Mathews, was trumpeting Obama and Biden's abortion policy, their defense of same sex marriage,their refusal to enforce laws the left dislikes, such as defense of marriage act, immigration, etc. Romney is no more equiped to answer this type of revolutionary than Mr. Bummble from Texas was, in fact now the same old pols from the Bush camp who helped elect Obama, have now taken up residence as GOP advisors.
Mr. Buchanan is being very misleading when he cites the figure of 42 months of unemployment over 8%.
To know whether the US government has had an adverse or favourable impact on employment, we'd have to see what the unemployment would have been without its intervention, and THEN compare.
Besides, we'd also have to see what is the extent of the US government's ability to influence employment, and whether they used the maximum possible tools within their reach. America is not some 100% public sector economy, and the level of hiring often depends on the decisions of its private sector. US government can only indirectly influence employment by means of fiscal stimuli, and that too is limited in its effectiveness by other variables. Private businesses have had a lot of private debt and they have been paying off their loans instead of hiring people, so more demand from government can't create more jobs as easily as it could.
Basically, it's unfortunate how even the best of people are prone to blaming exogenous problems on Presidents and Prime Ministers. They can't control oil prices, but high oil prices are always their fault. They can't control huge private debts, but lack of private sector hiring or employment is always their fault. And in the Middle East, Hosni Mubarak and others could not control the price of wheat grown in Russia, but high food prices were their fault (and enough reason to overthrow them).
Basically, it's unfortunate how even the best of people are prone to blaming exogenous problems on Presidents and Prime Ministers.
... except that I don't think Buchanan ever did. His mention of Herbert Hoover failing "through no fault of his own" seems to make clear that he is defining a "failed presidency" not in terms of a president who failed to improve an impossible situation pronto, but rather in terms of a president who fails to win re-election or who drops out seeing the writing on the wall.
"Basically, it's unfortunate how even the best of people are prone to blaming exogenous problems on Presidents and Prime Ministers."
In a more honorable age it was not necessary to cast so much blame because leaders were real leaders and more honorable. If and when bad things happened on their watch they often assumed responsibility and would not reflexively and cravenly hold on to their office at any and all costs, by lying, cheating, casting blame and slandering their opponents as the oligarchs and democrats have from the beginning. Placing all your hope and dignity in politics as our recent Marxists and secular types feel obliged to do, can lead to nothing but injustice because the very philosophy it is based on is so frugal with truth and bereft of so much goodness.
Presidents who seek credit for things over which they mostly have no control (like the economy) should be held to the same standard with respect to blame.
Thank you, Mr. Chan. Yes, in one sentence you said it.
"Osama is dead and General Motors is alive," is similar to "After trillions of dollars and untold treasure, Saddam Hussein is dead and we are better off. " A plague for both boasters.
"With Obama's approval in the 40s, it is clear that America is ready for a change."
This is a problematic statement. The comparison to Carter falls a little flat when Carter was polling around 25%. Also, in today's political landscape, the 40s is practically a mandate.
Also, I bet you $10,000 that most people would not put Romney's charisma, appeal and wit in the same category as Reagan's, so I'm wondering if a debate pivot would even be possible. I might watch Ryan v Biden, that could be hilarious though.
Also, I bet you $10,000 that most people would not put Romney's charisma, appeal and wit in the same category as Reagan's
And that's a shame, because whatever his faults as a statesman might be, Romney is probably a hundred times more intelligent and competent than Reagan (see Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy by Murray N. Rothbard)...
Isn't 40% about as low as Obama's approval rating could ever go? Thats roughly the percentage of people on the government dole. Add to that all of the self-loathing white lefties, and I don't think there is any way on earth that Obama could ever have lower than a 40% approval rating.
Mickey,
Polls indicate there is more to the left than just the dole.
For instance:
" Among those who rarely or never attend church or other religious services, Obama leads by 22 percentage points. Among those who attend services weekly, Romney leads by 24. The candidates are even among those who attend church occasionally.
Romney leads by seven among Catholic voters and holds a massive lead among Evangelical Christians. Among other Protestants, the Republican challenger is ahead by 13. Among all other Americans, including people of other faiths and atheists, Obama leads by a 62% to 26% margin."
Sempronius, commenting on Mr. Fleming's Daily Mail piece, Down With Democracy, insinuates even more than can probably be justified by the data but the bottom line is the cold hard rationalism of the 18th century is alive, well and still mad as hell at their Creator.
Part of Carter's problem was that much of the public could not identify with a man from the Deep South, while a folksy Midwesterner who made good in California was just the ticket. (Though not a too boring Midwesterner like Ford.) Also, Carter was never really liked by the Establishment, while they tamed Reagan from almost the beginning. Obama, on the other hand, does not have any of Carter's handicaps, and he is the hero of a multicultural society Today's electorate being rather on the whole unlike that of 1980---much more "diverse." I would not count Obama out. It is perhaps just as well since one more Rockefeller Republican adminstration will finish us for good. .
Part of Carter's problem was that much of the public could not identify with a man from the Deep South, while a folksy Midwesterner who made good in California was just the ticket. (Though not a too boring Midwesterner like Ford.)
There is, however, a problem with charismatic leaders with whom voters can identify: they can seduce and deceive the public all that more easily. The old foegys were boring, but in general not too impulsive. I for one would have preferred Ford to Reagan and Giscard d'Estaing to Chirac any day of the week. (I really think both Reagan and Chirac were total imposters, though of different sorts. A man does not so easily change his political ideas under the influence of his woman unless he has little substance. That sheds a lot of light on Reagan's intelligence and Chirac's "selling out.")
"Carter's problem was that much of the public could not identify with a man from the Deep South."
Dr. Wilson,
I must admit I never liked Jimmy Carter very much and when I had the opportunity to visit Atlanta recently and visit the Carter museum, I found I liked him even less. He seemed to be a half-assed Southerner, half-assed Christian, half-assed democrat. He was however quite an intelligent and astute man, a Naval Academy graduate who took the nuclear submarine option, and a gifted engineering type He was anti-catholic to a fault in my opinion ( to the point of revealing a profound ignorance of religious history) but I thought his parents quite admirable in many ways. He did great damage to the democratic party in my opinion with his willing capitulations to everything cruel and crass and of course did not help himself much in the current climate by attempting to be "honest broker" in foreign affairs.
Reagan and the Republicans of the time were propably worse than Carter, however. I was certainly snookered at the time against the advice of my wise parents, but I was young and probably wanted to believe in the GOP's false patriotism and mistook their sabre rattling for love of country. Heck, I even joined the Marines during the Reagan years. I was probably blinded by my own youthful desires at the time. But at least, Reagan was portrayed as an American. He knew how to ride a horse for instance, ( The movie, Patton, had unfortunately popularizeded the yankee saddle) Reagan in fact road for western pleasure but for instance he did at least give American gifts such as Weatherby rifles, and casks of wine in exchange for a thoroughbred cross stallion -------- a long way from thumb drives, I -pods or returning old busts--- For Heaven's Sake!!! And at least Reagan was normally portrayed as a type of Commander and Chief the greatest generation admired--- or at least while Pat Buchanan was his communications director.
But hell, Clyde, there isn't a dimes worth of difference between the entire lot of them today. The duopoly theme song for this election should be the lyrics from Signed Sealed Delivered - "your future, got your future babe (here I am baby) Here I am ...signed, sealed, delivered, I'm yours !"
As so often before, I find myself of a mind with Dr. Wilson--don't count Obama out! Especially since I've seen it reported that Romney's "bounce" in post-convention popularity is a paltry 37%--three points below Obama's supposed hard-core popularity. While I expect Republicans to throw around a lot of money, and doubtless they'd like R&R to win, I stand by my original impression that they don't care if Obama is re-elected because by their lights he's really Bush III or W-lite. Cynicism--Dishonesty--Duplicity--EVIL, thy name is Republican, now and forever.
"Part of Carter's problem was that much of the public could not identify with a man from the Deep South."
I will certainly defer to my elders and betters who were alive at the time, but it seems to me that Carter, although a Southerner, had somehow picked up some of the stereotypical attributes of the New England Yankee - especially the worst, an unearned self-righteousness. I don't question his faith, which was probably more genuine than that of any of his successors, but in everything I have read or seen, it always seemed to be accompanied by that preachy tone.
James Kabala wrote : "I will certainly defer to my elders..."
Me too James ---especially if the elders are Clyde Wilson or Tom Fleming. But I suspect Clyde is playing coy when it comes to President Carter. Carter was, is, perhaps remains, a Southerner but not the kind dear to Clyde's heart. Although with hindsight we can see he was as good or bad as the rest of the bunch.
I worked as a student for the George Wallace campaign of 1976. That campaign was threefold doomed: Wallace's heart was not in it; his staff had been, from the national level to the state organizations, infiltrated; and the Democratic Party had a very effective plan against him - run Carter against him in the Southern states and beat him there, particularly in Florida where this plan worked to perfection, and have Carter as a strong VP candidate pulling the "solid South" with Hubert Humphrey as President. Providence trumped the DNC plan: Humphrey got cancer, and the DNC was stuck with Carter. Carter had to undergo a metamorphosis from the "enlightened" Southerner, already a danger to things truly Southern, to an American with an appeal to a broader spectrum of the Democratic Party, an ever more fanatic spectrum of the party. Carter did not in the campaign complete that necessary change, did not complete it while he was President, and has not yet completed it. Moments of a conservative Southern soul peep through from time to time; those moments get him in trouble with the ideological elites, but those moments do not last long. Carter struggles against them, seeming to wish to die a liberal and to get that ultimate reward, not the one from his Lord as one might imagine, but the label of "respectability" from the liberal establishment, a label for which better and lesser men, particularly Southerners of his generation and mine, have sold their souls.
Among my "conservative" Southern and Christian friends, I find myself to be the lone ranger. On the one hand, they fear Obama, and rightly so; however, for the wrong reason, namely he is unwilling to continue our wars and fight for Israel, a foil invented by the Republicans which I do not for a minute believe because in the end, he is the marionette of at least the same-minded Marioneteenmeister as Romney if not exactly the same men. On the other hand, my same friends, have this utterly unsubstantiated notion that Obama will be defeated. My offspring live among the most radical of Yankees in Madison,Wisconsin, and Seattle,Washington. I visit their strongholds and know first hand how fanatic and dedicated they are - pure Jacobin ideologues. Despite the fact that Christianity in the South, across denominations, has begun to morph from a faith to an ideology and despite the fact that alien ideologies have taken root, not unlike the alien kudzu, in the South, most Southerners on a given day are not thinking about re-creating the world in their image or even re-creating Wisconsin or Washington in their image. They are concerned about the weather, about the crops, about whether or not the cows are standing of lying down indicating whether or not the fish are going to bite and about SEC football. They do not realize that beyond the Mason-Dixon and even within the territory historically associated with the South, there are highly motivated Jacobin ideologues pushing for a victory of the Democratic Party and Obama. They think that because all of the people in their circles are going to vote against him by voting Republican that Obama cannot win, being as they so think that utterly ignorant of the rabid fanaticism of the faction against them, of the radical shift in demographics through legal and illegal immigration, of the negative shift across the nation on moral issues such as abortion and gay marriage, and of the ever-growing number of those working for the general government either as employees, as corporate welfare recipients, as social welfare recipients or as fellow travelers in the media, on Madison Avenue, on Wall Street and in Hollywood. They simply do not understand what is arrayed against them.
Finally, the ultimate betrayal of Southerners, Christian or otherwise, is their betrayal of themselves by turning to the Republican Party, a party conceived in an unholy tryst of bankers, anti-Southern abolitionists, anti-African free soilers,and newly imported Middle European (mostly German) nationalists and internationalists for the purpose of destroying the South, not only its wealth and political power but also its traditions, customs and habits. We are not unlike the ancient Israelites, who, when beset from the north by the Assyrians, would turn to their old enemies the Egyptians, each time to be betrayed in some fashion.
Personally, as we approach this election, see Romney as the lesser of to great evils for the near future, i.e. the next four years; but I also see him as perhaps the greater evil for the long term because his Mormon and Republican rhetoric allows him to acquire and live out the American nationalists myth in which far too many conservatives believe.
To vote or not to vote? That is a question. For whom to vote or not to vote? That is another question.
As I contemplate this, I am reminded of a saying coming out of the mouths and hearts of Germans has WWII came to, for them, its horrible end: "Besser ein Ende mit Schrecken als ein Schrecken ohne Ende."
(Better an end with terror than a terror without end.) Right now, so it seems, the Democrats will take us to hell faster; the problem is that the Republicans will also eventually get us there as well, but they will likely take us to a deeper and more horrible region of hell.
Nobody speaks beuatiful things or hard truths like Mr. Peters. Thank you, Sir.
"alien ideologies have taken root, not unlike the alien kudzu, in the South" May God Bless him, his family and others like them --- living and dead.
Mr. Peters, I agree with you about voting for Romney. Dr. Wilson says that before we can bring down the Democrats, we must first destroy the Republcan party. I'm afraid that if we vote for candidates like Romney, the Republicans will continue to put up similarly flawed candidates and perpetuate the party. We will never be given an acceptable candidate. I think it is a chicken & egg situation though. I don't believe we will get an acceptable candidate until the majority of Americans change their expectations. That will be a bigger surprise than the collapse of the Soviet Union.
"Dr. Wilson says that before we can bring down the Democrats, we must first destroy the Republcan party."
I really hope and pray this can be acccomplished within Dr. Wilson's lifetime but if not,I think it would be honorable for those of us who admire him and who have been inspired by his wisdom , "that instead of flowers" we promise to continue to work towards this laudable and worthy goal, in his name. Such as The Southern Wilsonians and His Sons of Thunder or "The Bonnie Blue Flaggers and Clyde" or Followers of St Andrew's Cross, The Sod ( and GOP) Busters. etc.
Mr. Reavis,
The "beautiful," to the extent that I am able to articulate it at all, comes from my mother; the hard, which comes easier, comes directly from my father, whose earthy wit and sayings cannot be placed on an open forum. Papa was never gratuitous or pornographic with his hard earthy sayings. They were always a metaphor for a lesson which he wanted to get across. He had the timing of a comedian.
He had a wisdom beyond his formal education. He "saw" much of that which our scholarly mentors on these fora see and understand, although certainly not all. He defended his insights with the language which he commanded.
Mr. Reavis and Mr. Van Sant,
The good usually loses battles and the few that it wins do not usually have lasting results that serve the good. What the good does, and this is articulated in both the classical (Stoic) tradition and in the Christian tradition, is to endure, the call that William Faulkner made in his Nobel Prize speech - the challenge to endure, a challenge which no few of us Southerns understand to have been directly addressed to us. This call to endure, despite few or no victories, is deeply embedded in the Southern mind. The inscription on the Confederate Memorial in Section 16 of Arlington National Cemetery is, I am sure you know, articulating this challenge since it reads in the words of Lucan from his "De bello civili" or "Pharsalia," and on the south side of the monument no less: "Victrix causa diis placuit, sed victa Catoni." Ultimately, the good must endure because that which is good comes directly from the source of all good, the Creator. This,too, is captured in a Southern motto, in that ol' ablative absolute "Deo Vindice."
Thus, let us play whatever role Providence gives us, and play it well indeed; in the end, that which is good will endure and most assuredly the Republican Party, a transient artifact of evil, will be, in the time appointed unto it, overthrown.
Mr. Peters, Mr. Olson, Mr. Van Zant, et al
"Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around."
I have a friend who is a committed Presbyterian and hail from Seattle. That is not a city I have ever been to, nor one I ever intend to go to, but judging from her testimony and from pretty much every other testimony I have heard the depths of the anti-Christian - "not just anti-religious" - sentiment there are quite remarkable.
However, if one lives as I do, frequenting ,with but a few rare exceptions conceded for longevity of acquaintance or simple arbitrary good fortune, only people who think largely "as I do" on the confessional and sociopsychological plane, one can easily forget just how truly hostile everyone else is. The Latin Quarter where I live is frequented by student types, many of whom would love to burn me out of my apartment if they knew my political beliefs, and the Gay Pride parade every year runs right past the parish where I go to Mass most Sundays: we take care to post guards on the occasion. No doubt there are many in the neighborhood who would love to see that particular church edifice razed, as well. It gets to the point where one cannot eat in the cafeteria at work for fear of being too relaxed and disclosing information about oneself that could be used as by one's adversaries as a weapon in future intra-office conflicts. (Not being French, I am in somewhat less danger than others I know, whose family background and postal codes would serve as sufficient dirt.)
And indeed, then, it is tempting, in a moment when one happens upon the weirdness that now passes for normal, to conclude that there is little about the larger society outside one's own religious circle or even social class that is worth saving. Of course try to imagine a truly decent and Christian man as chief executive over France or the U.S. these days. It cannot happen, because a prince must "accept the people as he finds them," to quote (with my apologies) Machiavelli, and by and large the people are sick in such a way that a sort of grandiose salutary force is needed, one beyond the capacity of any ruler, good or bad. This is perhaps what the psalmist meant when he admonished us to put not our trust in princes, though he surely lived in a society with less of a death wish than that which we see in our own.
And to this end, there were some people in the last election who decided to burn down the house behind them: Catholic nationalists who voted for François Hollande in the second round, gleefully hoping to bring about another Revolution. They obviously forgot to ask themselves, when has the Right ever won a modern revolution? On the other side of the sea we hear calls for the destruction of the GOP, calls that are not poorly placed but that fail to address the postbellum constitutional apparatus that in practice guarantees the Democratic and Republican parties a duopoly on participation in government until the end of time. Should we replace the Constitution? Perhaps, but under the circumstances, what would we possibly replace it with?
These are the sorts of questions that come to mind when contemplating participation in politics in the modern world. It is well worth asking oneself if the moral danger is worth participating at all, but in some circumstances the answer may well be yes. And in the present circumstances, as a matter of survival, I would prefer to deny the Seattle-hipster crowd another few years of its god of choice in the White House.
Dr. Peters, I too worked in a Wallace campaign as a student--in 1968. It was my real initiation into the realities of American politics (Doubtless the dossier keepers will take notice of this previously undisclosed fact.) On election day I was a pollwatcher for Wallace in the most Liberal college town in North Carolina, or perhaps I should say, in those days THE Liberal town in North Carolina. The manager of the polling place was a notorious longtime queen of local leftists (rumoured to be an actual Communist). I observed her giving two ballots to every black person who appeared, without checking qualifications. When confronted, she explained that it was only just, to make up for the past when black people had been denied the vote (something which had not happened in that county in living memory). The Republican pollwatcher, a liberal student from the North, also saw this but was nonchalant. As was the Republican county chairman, who declined my urging that it be reported to the FBI. (There was no Wallace county chairman). Nothing more was ever heard of the matter. Nixon had carried the State by a plurality and the Republicans had no reason to challnge the result. The Republican leadership had no interest in honest elections or public outrage. This did not assist the pursuit of power and pelf, which was all they cared about. Which, as I now understand, is all Republican leaders have ever cared about.
In 1968, Nixon carried the State, with Wallace a strong second and Humphrey a trailing third. Thanks to Reagan-Bush immigration policies such a result would be impossible today. The State has been heavily colonised by Northeastern "intellectuals" and rich people, Mexicans, and Asians of every description. Obama almost carried it last time and it would be no surprise if he carried North Carolina this year.
(I hasten to add that some of the Northern folk who have settled are very fine people, more dedicated and energetic than the natives, perhaps because they understand better what is at stake.)
Nick: great post. you have , without demonizing anyone or any group, said virtually all that charity and prudence demand , regarding the subject of princes, parties and participation .
Update your blog-site - it's well worth it.
Mr. Nicholas,
Your words:
"Should we replace the Constitution? Perhaps, but under the circumstances, what would we possibly replace it with?"
There has already been a revolution, the Jacobin "French" Revolution led by the Republican Party from 1860 through 1877, with its aftermath continuing in the two-party system with its various sputniks - Hollywood, Madison Avenue, Wall Street, etc. - until this day. Two unions of constitutionally federate republics, the United States of America and the Confederate States of America, were destroyed and replaced by a Hobbesian state with a monopoly on coercion, with the ability to define the limits of its own power, and with the animation of a powerful will of ideologues, bankers, and bureaucrats plying the "democratic" masses to fulfill their own agendas. Since the sovereign states - which wrote and ratified the Constitution through which they naively thought, although some knew better, to create and control a general government as their agent - their Constitution is dead. At least, the Confederate Constitution is allowed to reside in repose in the graveyard of documents called archives. The U.S. Constitution, regrettably, is a zombie whore, with which the power elites fornicate, producing new monsters such as Roe v. Wade or Brown v. The Board of Education, and before which the foolish masses genuflect as if she, poor adulterated soul, were a goddess. All of which you have spoken has already happened, and we are wallowing in the foul fruits thereof.
"The U.S. Constitution, regrettably, is a zombie whore, with which the power elites fornicate, producing new monsters such as Roe v. Wade or Brown v. The Board of Education, and before which the foolish masses genuflect as if she, poor adulterated soul, were a goddess."
Well, that settles it. Since it is impossible to improve on that condemnation, we can all move on to complaining of other things, and leave Madison's document to its fate.
Mr. Jacobi,
I remain committed to the subsidiarity which was the fundamental principle of many of those who participated in the drafting, ratification and implementation of the Constitution, although there were among those whom we have come to call "the founders" men, like Hamilton and even the chameleon Madison who had other agendas; however, in the end, the experiment, and that is what they called it, in creating a more perfect union of federated republics through a new constitution which we have come to call The Constitution failed. It is over.
I for one am not complaining. I am simply attempting to point out where, it seems, we are. We have been in a post-federative, consolidated and centralized Hobbesian state since 1865, with its power and size having grown with each passing year. The left, with its notion of the "living constitution" has actually been more honest. They know that the union of constitutionally federated republics is dead and so are the republics which made it up. They recognize whether consciously or not that in order for the constitution to fit the new reality, it must be contorted and distorted. On the other hand, "conservatives" deny the obvious, namely that the union and the republics of that union are dead and gone, and believe against all hope that if they continue to uphold the "literal" constitution, they can breathe new life into a dead union and into dead republics. I have been one of those conservatives. No more.
I hold with Jefferson Davis:
"The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form.”
It is for that principle which I contend, not the relics of its failed implementation in the past, although those relics, like all relics representing the good that men attempted, ought to be honored and reflected on, helping keep the hope for that other day and that other form alive.
Dr. Peters -
In brief, we are in a bad way. Very bad. My point was just that: this is the evil we have to live with/under. Our "constitution" is a "living document" suffering from the worst necrosis. Dr. Fleming admonished a couple years ago that it was "sweet to want to restore the Bourbons" to the throne of France but that such sentiments should be confined to fiction. Frankly, though, as one who has lived in both countries, I can tell you that a restoration of the Bourbons is if anything more likely than a secession of the South or an undoing of the Democratic-Republican duopoly.
Anyone who wishes to forage into the icky muck of U.S. politics has to accept that fact.
But what I did not mention in my post is that, in the interest of not losing the 13 percent (yes, it is that high!) of French voters who state they are open to a restoration of the monarchy, the center-right parties are obliged to take some sort of a stand, even if it is a hypocritical one. Our attitude vis-à-vis the GOP needs to be the same. Again, as a non-Southerner I do not have the same visceral reaction toward the GOP that some of you do, but in the present circumstances I can scarcely see a better way to bide time.
The Constitution that the sovereign states wrote to create and control a central government to be their agent- that constitution is dead. Of course it is dead- McCulloch, Marbury, Cohens, Gibbons ,etc. killed it long before Republican jacobins and the flotsam and jetsam of middle european immigration could. Roe and Brown are not monsters spawned by the Constitution-dead or on life support- but the foul fruits of what some call the foolish masses. Hollywood and Madison Ave are sputniks-satellites- they have no power of their own to pull anyone out of orbit. Every State, organization, club and girl's scout troop has " powerful players pursuing their own agenda", it may not be the modus operandi of bee hives and ant hill, but is part of every human enterprise. What State does not exercise a " monopoly on coercion" and if it could not "define the limits of its own power" it would not be a sovereign State but a sputnik. The sovereign states set out to create a "more perfect union" not a perfect union and in princple that union still permits - in other forms and in another time- even , what some would call failed relics to be implemented. Go to it.
"The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form.”
This seems to have been forgotten in pretty much the whole of U.S. conservatism from Barry Goldwater onward, imagining as they have that there was still some sort of constitution to protect us if only we could stop the evil left from coming to power and misappropriating it. In reality, obviously, this plays into our opponents' hands in the most dastardly of ways.
Mr. Nicholas,
I do not put my political faith in a new Southern secession or in the undoing of the duopoly. I realize that "voting Republican" in this particular election, may be a holding action deemed to be necessary, not unlike, however, I would warn, the Christian Roman Britons getting the pagan Saxons to fight the northern barbarians. That seems to be where we are.
Mr. Schulz,
I wrote, quite metaphorically of course, the following:
"The U.S. Constitution, regrettably, is a zombie whore, with which the power elites fornicate, producing new monsters such as Roe v. Wade or Brown v. The Board of Education...."
In my metaphor I do not say that the monsters come from the Constitution. To re-word my more sexually oriented metaphor, the monsters come from the elites using the "living constitution as a cover" and manipulating it to their own ends while placating the masses.
I do, of course, question the notion of "sovereignty," because only God is sovereign; the authority which any social order or polity thereof has is held in stewardship; however, in the American context of the late 18th century, a "state" such as Virginia was not the polity with its executive, judicial, legislative and bureaucratic apparatus, but a particular people on a particular territory, such as Virginia, with specific traditions, customs and habits. Those people, when in convention, spoke as the sovereigns. Such an understanding of state and its "sovereignty" lies much closer to Aristotle than it does to Mr. Hobbes.
That union which the states created cannot "still" and "yet" do anything; for it no longer exists.
"It is for that principle which I contend, not the relics of its failed implementation in the past, although those relics, like all relics representing the good that men attempted, ought to be honored and reflected on, helping keep the hope for that other day and that other form alive."
Dr. Peters,
Along with others here I will praise your comments and add that, while I am in agreement with all you have said the above phrase is what resonates with me the most. I have often thought of the Culture War being over, and, much like the Civil War, the side I would root for lost. At times I have felt that a sort of "guerilla culture warfare" was an appropriate metaphor for the idea of pockets of resistance spread far and wide, from homeschooling families to the Rockford Institute, doing what they could to fight back and raise new troops. What your phrase leads me to believe is that the better metaphor is not that of guerillas but of monks. We are, once again, in the Dark Ages, and it is our job to preserve that which is good so that, when the light dawns again, wherever and whenever that may be, these treasures will once more be accessible. We are not enough to fight the barbarian hordes, and it is a waste of energy to think such a fight possible or desirable at this point. In fact, my past thoughts that we are all too scattered come back to me not as a curse but a blessing. As small monasteries, preserving that which we have, being scattered makes it easier for us to hide or avoid destruction. Were we all to gather into one state or region it would be all too easy for the irresistible forces opposing us to crush us once and for all.
In the meanwhile, we can still weep like the widow of Naim, waiting for that day when the dead shall live again.
Mr. Cornell,
Christianity retreated to the catacombs; the Irish monks held out at Skelling Michael; Alfred retreated to the marshes; waiting for the day when Providence calls for the break out. So, we must wait, but not merely wait, endure in our great Hope.
I do not put my political faith in a new Southern secession or in the undoing of the duopoly. I realize that "voting Republican" in this particular election, may be a holding action deemed to be necessary, not unlike, however, I would warn, the Christian Roman Britons getting the pagan Saxons to fight the northern barbarians. That seems to be where we are.
That's not a bad way of putting it, though arguably we are in much worse shape than those Britons...
Mr. Peters,
Thank you for an informative reply. I might have said that the left, shameless villains that they are, are simply more blatant about their perfidies than the right, who still seem burdened (very lightly, it's true) by trace elements of shame and consequent reluctance to admit to themselves their wrongdoing.
I fretted, after firing off my comment, that it might carry (an unintended) tone of satire or tongue-in-cheek. I did not mean to reduce your comment to the level of mere complaining. I am simply hopelessly infatuated with rhetoric, and your example is to rhetoric what a '33 Bugatti Racer is to motorcars.
While you are attending this thread, I wonder if you would tell me your favorite Wm. G. Simms book and any others you think I might enjoy.
P.S. A while back someone asked you to write more and you replied the muse sleeps. I think she's waking up.
Mrut . Peters: Of course "only God is sovereign" but the issue for the princes of this world is not where ultimate sovereignty resides, but how many divisions does it command. The idea of stewardship is akin to the principle of Jubilee- oft referenced seldom practiced. The people, when in convention speaking as sovereign, seems closer to Rousseau than either Hobbes or Aristotle.
Mr. Schulz,
I am not among the world's best communicators, in the written word or in the spoken word. I am even less so on these fora, in which words come before sober thought; however, I struggle toward being a better communicator.
I obviously did not make as clear as I had intended that I am skeptical of the entire notion of sovereignty and understand, I believe, its roots and its abuses. I stipulated that for the late 18th century Americans held for the most part to a notion of sovereignty, rightly or wrongly. Among the Jeffersonians, the to-be-called anti-federalists, among men like James Jackson, John Taylor of Caroline and others, sovereignty, assuming that it existed, did not exist in the aggregate of "the people" but resided in a commonwealth or a republic with common traditions, customs, and habits such as with the people of Virginia or the people of South Carolina. It is not the notion of sovereignty which is Aristotelian but the fact that if sovereignty exists, even as authority held in stewardship, it exists best in a social order of a particular scale with shared traditions, and not with an abstract corporation which appeals to the authority of an aggregate of people outside any reasonable scale or real and not abstractly shared traditions. It is that social order of a particular scale with shared traditions which is Aristotelian not the notion of sovereignty.
Dr. Donald Livingston and Dr. Clyde Wilson have written some excellent papers and articles on this issue.
Here is one such article: http://www.anamnesisjournal.com/issues/2-web-essays/34-donald-w-livingston
Mr. Jacobi,
I have read two books by William Gilmore Simms. I enjoyed both. The Golden Christmas, which some claim was a response to H.B.S.'s Uncle Tom's Cabin, and Woodcraft, which was for me the better of the two. I find that those who know Simms much better than I find Woodcraft to be his best work, which I cannot judge since I have not read all of his fiction.
I have thoroughly enjoyed "Balcony Stories" by Grace King, published in 1914. They can be found online. Miss King lived from 1852 to 1932 in and around New Orleans. She experienced the Union occupation of her city. Although she was neither Creole nor Catholic, she was immersed in Creole culture and attended Catholic Schools. Faulkner and his friend William Spratling satirized Miss King in their work Sherwood Anderson and Other Famous Creoles, published I believe in 1926. Some have seen an influence of King on Faulkner. That may or may not be accurate; however, they were in New Orleans at the same time, she of an older generation, and he, of course, of a younger. Faulkner at least knew of her.
Gentlemen,
Another fine example of good conversation rarely found anywhere else but Chronicles. Thank you all. My heart is with Mr. Peters, his reflections, his type of people and country but my brain is always against revolution and throwing rascals around when simply requesting them to get out would work just as well. I have enjoyed reading and listening this weekend rather than charging in with many suggestions, which I know many of you will appreciate as a most welcome development. Again, thanks for the excellent discussion.
Retreat is never a popular maneuver in a public's imagination but no less a fighting force than the United States Marine Corps has used it on occassion to great success. They simply call it "attacking in another direction" or "waiting for better reconnaisance." or sometimes simply, "digging in" . It is a very contemplative form of fighting involving the most difficult and persistent aspect of courage ---- endurance or obedience ---- The listening to great commands with a loving heart.
Let me echo my friend, Mr. Reavis. This conversation has been very rewarding to me, but I have not contributed much to it. Mr. Peters's contributions have been especially interesting. I'm a pretty staunch Dixiephile for the admixture of Swedish and Yankee stocks that I am. You see, I lived in Chicago for 26 years.
Mr. Jacobi--I heartily second Mr. Peters's recommendation of Simms's Woodcraft. I'm making my way through his works at a snail's pace and have read a mere handful of other works, the best of which, next to Woodcraft, is his first great success as a novelist, Guy Rivers. Set on the Georgia frontier in the very early nineteenth century, it is full of violence and evil scheming as well as of morally mixed characters--no bad man is entirely bad, nor good man untainted by evil--with whose complexities Simms is obviously enthralled. Indeed, Simms's concern for what makes a character tick is one of his greatest virtues, largely because he is content with failing to find out: individual human nature remains a glorious if frightening mystery to him. In Guy Rivers, however, he has not yet mastered the form of the novel, and there are often times when one wishes he had had a coach-and-editor prodding him to cut away the flab or cut to the chase, as it were. Still, it's an impressive if not a great book.
Let me suggest to you interested readers a few other neglected antebellum Southern writers that you might appreciate. George Washington Harris, Johnson J. Hooper; Augusta Jane Evans Wilson.
Or James J. Pettigrew's NOTES ON SPAIN, for which a review long promised by Chronicles never materialised. Or postbellum, Thomas Nelson Page, Grace King, and Elizabeth Maddox Roberts.
Enjoy and learn some suppressed and worthy parts of American culture.
"Or James J. Pettigrew's NOTES ON SPAIN, for which a review long promised by Chronicles never materialised."
Dr. Wilson,
Thank you for these recommendations. As for the long promised review, there is no time like the present. It would be a shame not to hear your thoughts about Pettigrew's NOTES ON SPAIN, if for no other reason than to demonstrate that the sun also rises in the south.
Dr. Wilson, what a coincidence, I was just reading Two Little Confederates this morning.
Robert--Dr. Wilson may feel compromised about reviewing Notes on Spain because he wrote the introduction for the U. of So. Carolina Press republication of it that is the most available edition these days. I bought a copy of the book after reading Clyde's Carolina Cavalier, a biography of Pettigrew that I consider the finest book about a now-obscure figure who begs to be better known that I've ever read. I haven't yet read Notes on Spain, but the mention of it now bumps it up in my reading queue.
Ray,
If what you say is true, then you should write it. The prejudgements mentioned in the introduction by Pettigrew( which he did not find in Spain) are the same prejudices Americans have about Spain to this day. I have also noticed that alot of you older fellows are becoming better in old age than you were fifteen years ago. It is a pitty not to harvest fruit when it is ripe instead of picking everything green and hoping some poor soul will still buy it. I can't wait to grow as old as you, Tom, Clyde, Taki, Chilton and the rest. Cheers ......
Mr. Reavis, don't be in too big a hurry.
Ray, I'll bet Chronicles would welcome you submitting a review of NOTES ON SPAIN Dr. Fleming is neglecting his duty to Charleston.
OK, I'll ask about it.