Election Explained
Reasons for voting Democrat:
More freebies, welfare, government jobs, grants; satisfaction of leftist ideological malice; if you are a minority, the pleasure of sticking it to Whitey.
Reasons for voting Republican:
Unless you are a big capitalist, a defense contractor, an employer of illegal immigrants, or a politician hoping for the perks of office, there are none.*
*Historical note: The Republican Party prospered pretty well for a century and a half by never doing anything for its voters except giving them a sense of respectability, of superiority to the immigrant herd and Southern barbarians. But now, except in the clueless boondocks, it is more respectable to be a Democrat. (Some people have voted Republican in the hope of slowing down the Democrat destruction of the country, but they have been and are certain to continue to be disappointed. To keep doing the same thing over and over although it never works is one of the definitions of insanity. However, in this case it is not so much insanity as desperation and inability to think outside the box.)
Entries(RSS)
But now, except in the clueless boondocks, it is more respectable to be a Democrat.
Curiously, in America, the higher up the social rung one moves, the further to the left one is expected to go. In other countries upper-middle and upper-class leftists are a curious species known as the gauche caviar or "Champagne socialists." (In America one used to hear of "Limousine lefties" or "Mercedes Marxists," but these days those seem to be the norm among their respective socioeconomic categories.)
Does this say anything about America as a whole?
Truth manifests itself differently to its receiver while remaining constant in its given context; e.g. 'only the truth wounds,' or 'only the truth is funny,' or both at once (rarely).
Your quote: "But now, except in the clueless boondocks, it is more respectable to be a Democrat. (Some people have voted Republican in the hope of slowing down the Democrat destruction of the country, but they have been and are certain to continue to be disappointed." Might be a good example with some recipients, of truth's being both at once, though certainly, either/or.
Many, myself included guessed that Republicans hit bottom when the lights of the party picked a candidate for Vice President in Sarah Palin as a certified member and representative of 'the clueless boondocks' in 2008. It begs the question was Mitt Romney, a lifeless storefront mannequin as Presidential candidate in 2012 finally a granite bottom for Republicans? What next if they continue burrowing deeper, a Chinaman? I don't want to give them any ideas for 2016, but perhaps a half-Chinaman; (long as, needless to say, he identifies primarily with his Chinese half.) Eurkea: that's the ticket!!!
PS - "Eurkea" is a Chinese female.
Dr. Wilson,
This is the best post election analysis I have read to date --- Both in its brevity and in its painful honesty. Reading it aloud this morning to my wife made her wonder if we would not all be better off without the GOP? Your thoughts ?
I have been saying that for at least 40 years.
Dr. Wilson's example gave me the courage to come out as an anti-Republican some years back. Next to his friendship and his biography of James Johnston Pettigrew, Carolina Cavalier, it is his greatest gift to me.
Furthermore, since I became a welfare bum (Social Security) before my time because of Republican mismanagement of the economy, I suppose I should become respectable, i.e., a Democrat. Let me think about that . . .
Dr. Wilson, do you propose woking through a third party or forming a conservative caucus within the Democrat party?
Is either one even possible at this point?
I know the Republican party must be got out of the way since its sole function is to prevent anything worthwhile from happening and lately it has become even more evil than the Evil Party. I never fully agreed with Sam Francis in calling the Republicans the Stupid Party. That implies that the leaders betrayed their people because they did not understand. I think they understand but do it anyway.
As a practical matter, I think the only possible strategy, and it is a difficult one, is for a third force, or some combinatioin making for a third force, elect enough members of the House of Representatives to prevent either party from having a majority organising it. Then they will be forced to deal. I dont care if it is a coalition of Greens, potsmokers, Southern nationalist, etc.
When you bring this up people start automatically thinking about new parties and Presidential candidates. That is hopeless. What is needed is a minority force large enough to block both parties in the House. where it might do some good. In that case, the two parties might combine to defeat the insurgents, which would reveal what they really are---a two-faced court party.
The GOP leadership has determined the party must track center right. Which means the combination of the two parties to advance mutual agendas thus possibly leaving a vacuum to be filled by coalitions that could thwart them. It rings of the Israeli Knesset. Although I would not hold my breath .
Yep, death to the GOP!
Dr. Wilson writes: "have been saying that for at least 40 years."
Yes, but there certain truths that can not be repeated often enough so out of admiration for your lifetime of service, I like to give you every opportunity to restate your thesis.
".... it has become even more evil than the Evil Party"
As you know the wasteland is difficult to measure as it is so vast in its emptiness, cunning
and fear but so far as it can be glimpsed or quantified,the current GOP is as good as any. We are all devilish duopolists now as even your intelligent recommendation admits. It is not Milton's "evil, be thou my God!" but"decadence,be thou my good!"
Without Dr. Wilson’s contributions Chronicles’ blog would lack two-thirds of the Rev. Burchard’s description of post-bellum Democrats, which he would now like to replace with a less alliterative constituency: Environmentalists Libertarians and “Southern Nationalists.” (The first vote for Democrats. The second provide the margin of victory for Democrats in close races. They don't oppose the regime. They support it.) For almost a century Republicans protected American jobs and oversaw the growth of American industry. We are still living off that achievement. Dr. Wilson’s real disagreement with Dr. Francis is his attitude towards ordinary Americans, who are using the tools at hand to try to preserve their way of life without leadership and subject to the contempt of the wealthy, the media and professors like him. No person and no group are perfect, but I know whose side Sam Francis was on his whole life.
Chris, your attack is somewhat incoherent and as far as I can tell accuses me of various things of which I am not guilty. I have no idea what in the world you are talking about re Rev. Burchard. My mention of the Greens was simply illustrative of the need to form a firm coalition in the House that is not bound by and willing to defy the duopoly, even if it meant a temporary coalition of the disaffected. That Southern nationalists support the regime is absurd. No group of people has been more salient in abjuring the present regime. Unlike you Establishment Republicans our stand has come at a price. You know nothing about us. Yes, the Republicans did such a great job of fostering American labour. It was their tireless devotion to American workers that led them to spend vast sums buying congressmen and favourable publicity for the tariff. Alas, that propagaqnda is still working. You dont really know enough American history to have an opinion on our economic history. I knew Sam Francis quite as well as you did. Unlike you, I wrote several admiring eulogies to him. Sam's opposition to Southern nationalism restede on his unwillingness to see the white population divided. I don't share that hesitation. Finally, you seem to accuse me of being contemptuous toward ordinary Americans like "the wealthy, the media, and professors like him (me)/. You lie. My entire writing career has been devoted to the defense of ordinary Americans, and I have done 50 times more service in that regard than you ever thought of..
Christian,
I hate to see my mentors feud but I have been in enough bar room brawls to not head for the tall grass every time grown men begin to disagree. I will just note that this is a tough crowd, my heroes have always hung around places like this and it is good to read your posts. I wish they were more frequent.
Dr. Wilson has never hid his prejudice (prejudgements) he is a true Southerner who will sometimes admit to himself, if no one else, that some Catholics and Northerners ain't so bad on a good day. Besides, I hate it when we can no longer say exactly what we think among friends, although I will agree that words should be chosen more carefully than any of us here ever do. I also think that Southerners tend to embrace emotional and silly attitudes in important matters such as religion, cooking and politics ----though they are some of the best Christians, cooks and politicians our country has ever had. There is a big difference between the character of Robert E. Lee and some of the nuts parading as "Southern Nationalists" today.
Addenda: I admit to being rubbed very wrong by a nasty and baseless attack from a one-time friend of youth.
It can be proved by hard evidence--for a long time and until quite recently, Southern Democrats put up a stronger and more effective to Great Society, open borders, official atheism, etc than yoiu Republicans ever did. In fact, a majority of Republicans voted for most of the bad things that have happened in the last half cenbtury.
I am not a big capitalist, a defense contractor, an employer of illegal immigrants, or a politician seeking the perks of office, but I think I had good reason the support the Republican ticket against Barack Obama.
I have not always voted the Republican ticket. For example, in 2000, I actively supported Pat Buchanan's third party bid for the White House. (I will note, for the record, that so did Chris Kopff. Chris was in attendance at the Reform Party convention in Long Beach). But there are certainly times when it does make sense to support Republicans, and the 2012 election was one of them.
Pat Buchanan taught me that the GOP is just a different wing of the same bird of prey. Clyde Wilson has taught me it has been so from the beginning. Tom Fleming has taught me that anyone who is bothered by these assertions today is too engaged in things that really don't matter in the long run. .
Let us grant that in the main Prof. Wilson is correct in his negative assessment of the GOP. What then? It is perhaps a bit optimistic to expect a new party to emerge, rooted in common sense, patriotism, and the good old principles of our old Constitutional order. In writing optimistic, I was myself optimistic.
One way I look at this is to contrast the vicious inclinations of the two parties: The Democrats are the party of envy, the Republicans of greed. The Republicans favor the triumph of the imperial union, while the Democrats merely hate everything normal in all our traditions and regions. The Republicans are the party of war profiteers, government contractors, and stock-jobbers. The Democrats are the party of perverts, gangbangers, infanticidal prostitutes, aliens, and bums.
Practically speaking, it seems to me, one is still justified in preferring the rule of stockjobbers to the rule of sodomites, abortionists, and alien welfare recipients. To paraphrase a former board member, in politics we do not get to fight with the party we want but with the party we have. I know what the GOP thinks of people like me and it is not much, but while they may laugh in contempt at everything I respect, they do not wish to kill me or force my sons to marry each other. It ain't much, but these days it is enough to make me sorry that the hapless Romney lost.
"They laugh in contempt at everything I respect, they do not wish to kill me or force my sons to marry each other. It ain't much, but these days it is enough ..."
Yes, my son was kicked out of school in the second grade for playing a game he did not even know the meaning of called, "spear the queer." His physical education teacher was a switch hitter and took offense at the kids politically incorrect name they gace the game, so he was sent home. Yes, it isn't much but its all we got.
You all greatly under-estimate the number of perverts and abortionists and illegal-lovers in the leadership of the Republican party. Roe v. Wade was passed down by a Republican-dominated court, if I remember rightly, and the 1965 open borders act passed with majority Republican support. The Republican party as an organisation does not in any sense represent "ordinary Americans." The sole purpose of its leadership, besides their own power and profit, is to capture the decent inclinations of ordinary Americans and make sure they never have any effect. A false friend is worse than an enemy. I cannot understand how any decent American could possibly stomach Romney. Given his war-mongering and socialised medicine associations, it is not even certain he is the lesser evil. As I tried to point out in an earlier post, the only hope for decent Americans is a bloc in the House powerful enough to make both parties into minorities.
I cannot understand how any decent American could possibly stomach Romney.
Clyde,
You are a gem among rough cuts and a living legend in the South you love and have fought to honorably to defend. But you are also a gentleman who knows after you get the guy down and bloody him real good its ok to let him up for air or simply walk away. For heavens sakes man, it's an honest question to ask :" I cannot understand how any decent American could possibly stomach Romney."
But then again, have you taken a look at stomach option number 2 ? That is all your friends are saying.
Dr. Wilson wrote, “But now, except in the clueless boondocks, it is more respectable to be a Democrat.” Simple question: To whom was he referring by “the clueless boondocks?” I assumed that it was “ordinary white Americans,” who voted by significant percentages for Republican candidates on the national level. I put “Southern Nationalists” into scare quotes because white southerners voted for the national Republican ticket at even higher percentages than their fellow citizens elsewhere in the US. So who inhabits the clueless boondocks? In a later posting, it turns out that they cannot be considered “decent Americans.”
The reference to the clueless boondocks was, of course, ironic, referring to how they regard us, not to what we are. Maybe too subtle for some. Yes, Southerners voted for Romney, for which you should express your heartfelt appreciation. Southerners long ago learned that your decadent society could not turn out anything worthwhile. We are accustomed to choosing the lesser evil and dont expect anything else.
That's the spirit in the imperfect world, groups, blocs. Character doesn't win it, strategy preempts. Lee was ambivalent, character intact. Bedford Forrest at Bull Run would have taken D.C. I just juxtaposition those two sensibilities in time and place to illustrate what it takes to deal. Sadly and I suppose happily there's the winners, and losers. Winners like Forrest know what it takes and where to stop; unlike the 'winners' today.
Practically speaking, it seems to me, one is still justified in preferring the rule of stockjobbers to the rule of sodomites, abortionists, and alien welfare recipients.
This needs to be repeated and posted on every corner, everywhere, as often as possible.
Regarding political strategy, Sam Francis, neo-Confederates, and everything else being tossed around, I have several thoughts, if anyone cares for my $2.00 worth (inflation has really taken its toll, y'know? sorry, but sometimes you have to laugh, too, or you'll start crying).
First of all, "white nationalists" are wont to forget (among other things they forget or ignore) that while there are many souls open to conversion, there are inevitably more than a few whites who are themselves irredeemably enemy. We cannot know who these are on an individual basis, but we know, on a grand scale, "where" they are demographically and isolating oneself and one's family is not wholly unjustified. Unity, by all means, but not at the expense of truth.
Second, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but "middle America" strikes me at least in practice as a euphemism for "the popular class" or "the masses" or "the people." I for one am at least as frightened by the ochlocracy of "the people" as I am by the klepto-plutocracy of the "stockjobbers," not the least because these "masses" turned out in droves to support G.W. in 2004. And I knew quite a few Southerners - sometimes fairly well-heeled ones who believed this to be quite a bit more than the "lesser of two evils" - one of them, a year later, would even go so far as to coo that some of the cultural decay was already "reversing." (In a moment of despair, one might be tempted to ask, "What was he smoking, and where can I get some?")
Perhaps many of them now recognize the error of their ways (unfortunately, the friend I mentioned has not, but that's another story: in brief, he lives in a HUGE bubble). Samuel Francis was a man who loved what was wholesome about America and who rightly wanted to preserve it, but that better part of the U.S. lacks the requisite aristocracy to assert itself as even a viable opposition. In the South, much of the scion of the old landed gentry has joined the carpetbagging bourgeoisie not only in economic profession but also (as that one friend I mentioned, since become a Freemason, illustrates - his family had a plantation at the time of the Civil War) often in life outlook. In the North, the Catholics are largely the scion of the proletariat immigrants and too many of those who have managed to pull themselves up have abandoned their Church in all but name.
This, I think, explains why what remains of wholesome America so vulnerable to the predations of opportunistic evangelists preaching revival and unbelieving or barely-believing neocons promising national salvation: there is no counter-leadership with both sufficient capacity and strong enough willpower to fend them off to any significant degree. And it also explains, on a philosophical level, why a decent third party has such a hard time surfacing (the logical constraints imposed by a universal first-past-the-post and non-proportional representation are also important factors, but here I am concerned with the sociology of it all). Who are going to be the cadres of this party? The Paul family? and who else? and through what channels will they diffuse their message?
Alas, Micholas, there is too much sad truth in what you say. All my long years I have believed that the people were OK, it was just the leaders who were bad. I think that used to be true, but Deweyite education has succeeded at what it was supposed to do,make the population stupid and rootless. Except in tandem with lowest common denominator popular culture it has created trivial decadence rather than obedient little "citizens." It still seems obvious to me that Southerners have, at least until the present generation, been providentially less "American" than most of the rest. And I mean in ways more important than politics.
In Chronicles, several issues back, before the presidential nominations, I asked readers to consider the question of the lesser evil. There was rising grassroots discontent as indicated by the "tea party" movement. Would the Republican party represent this discontent of its voters or would the Eastern elite rule as usual? While the strength of the party is now in the South and Plains, we had a ticket headed by two men from the Deepest North with no connection or sympathy with the grassroots. The governor of Massachusetts, the State with the fewest and most untypical Republicans, who yet manage to rule your party. Obama represents his voters. Had you put the Republcan elite once more in the White House, it would not have represented you, its voters. It had no such intention. It holds you in contempt. What a sad, even heartbreaking, spectacle it is to see conservatives voting for and even defending Bush II and Romney. You have nothing left to surrender, no ground left to stand on.
All my long years I have believed that the people were OK, it was just the leaders who were bad. I think that used to be true, but Deweyite education has succeeded at what it was supposed to do,make the population stupid and rootless.
As a rule, it is always true for a time after the Revolution, sometimes for a long time. But in the end a basic anatomical principle always holds: the body dies after the head is cut off. Accordingly, once the Christian ruling classes were supplanted by an elite cadre of Deists, atheists and agnostics, it was only a matter of time before the Christian masses would apostatize as well. That is why we do need to raise up Christian aristocrats (small-"a"; these are not, at least not at first, necessarily formal members of a "noble estate" or "landed gentry") if we are ever to have any hope of prevailing, in the end. I cannot think of a single prominent "right-wing" or "Christian" big guns in the public eye today who would fit the bill.
A couple of threads ago, when we discussed the sorry state of the social sciences, we might have added that one of the innumerable failings of most sociological approaches to history is that, in treating individual humans as interchangeable, they miss, by default, the fact that some individual figures are larger than others, and therefore do not leave room to note the indispensable role that great men - heroes and villains - play in history. In reality, there IS such a thing as a hero and as a champion. Christians of all people should know this - we have, after all, the greatest real Hero of all time and beyond time. A "better" society than a contemporary one could only come about through heroic deeds on the part of great men - think of the martyrs in Imperial Rome, the Saints and warriors of the Middle Ages, the missionaries of the colonial era...
Perhaps in our era this is not meant to be, for now. We shall see...
"You have nothing left to surrender, no ground left to stand on."
Dr. Wilson,
It looks like Mr. Obama is going to nominate a GOP fellow for Secretary of Defense. Any chance a man from Nebraska can pass the test? I doubt it, but I would feel better about my son's service in the Marine Corps if he were the Defense Secretary. Billy Kristol and his boys are saying ,"No way -- this guy knows something about combat. He served in Vietnam, was a former Senator, knows too much about Washington D.C. and is not a pliable patriot. If I were a betting man, I would bet on Billy Kristol and his boys whipping Chuck Hagel good before the old combat veteran returns to teaching. You?
I think the tendency of Republicans to sell out their base (the best examples being various Supreme Court rulings) has less to do with some inherent nature of the Republican Party and more to do with Dr. Wilson's frequent observation (per Tocqueville) that one of the defining traits of the American character is a craving for respectability. As the views of the Republican Party true believers are by no means respectable in the comfy confines of the Beltway, naturally the elected/appointed Republican officials drift steadily toward the left, where respectability lies.
"defining traits of the American character is a craving for respectability"
Well Mr. Oliver, if it is still a defining trait of Americans to appear respectable, we sure have developed a hell of a way of demonstrating it.
Judge Reavis,What the herd of pseudo-intellectuals who infest America think is respectable is not the same thing that you and I and our forebears considered so.
Professor Wilson,
All my life I have favored the GOP, (though I briefly flirted with the idea of voting Dem when it looked like Senator Robert Kerrey, the Medal of Honor recipient and former governor of Nebraska had a chance at the nomination) but your principled objections and persistent truth telling are beginning to get me past my hatred of the democrat party. As you say, it is becoming increasingly difficult to believe the GOP is merely stupid. There may be a few more immoralists in the democrat party, and of course, they are more flagrant, but you are right to point out that there is plenty of that in the GOP; it is only that, the rich, as always, have had the means to sin discreetly.
More importantly, we must not be ensnared by the agendas of the duopoly any more, which, after all, are merely to get elected and stay elected. I think your idea of getting a non-party affiliated third force elected to serve as a spoiler is a great approach, as it avoids the prickly issues of past loyalties and past partisan feuds.
O/T: Clyde Wilson (or Thomas Fleming, or any one from Chronicles who is in the know),
I was wondering if you intended to review the latest 'Lincoln' movie epic; it sounded more deceptive than the usual modern biopic on the man, and I would have loved to get your take on it.
I have little to contribute to the discussion, but I must confess that I am finally seeing what Dr. Wilson has described as the Republicans immobilizing those people of good will, preventing any serious action from ever taking place. It's almost like a relief valve in a steam system - people get agitated, the TEA Party forms, and the Republicans swoop in to absorb the disturbance and make it slowly fade away keeping the overall system intact.
Take Ron Paul for example. Many young people are enthusiastic about what he says, for a third party ish type candidate he raised lots of money. His supporters are often rabid. And, because a) he's not a very charismatic leader and b) he's a member of the Republican establishment this movement is effectively neutered. Even the many who would find themselves agreeing with him wouldn't bring themselves to vote for him because he's "non-electable" - "not mainstream" - "too fringe" . . .etc.
I'm not saying that the libertarian ideas are the way to go, just giving an example of how anything contrary to the current duopoly is effectively shut down by the Republicans.
Mr. Maxwell, I considered the review you suggest but have decided not to punish myself. Life grows too short. Besides, saying bad things about a Republican on this site might hurt someone's tender feelings.
Mr. Maxwell, you should shortly receive the January issue. It features an excellent review of Lincoln by George McCartney, as well as a superb review of William Marvel's Tarnished Victory: Finishing Lincoln's War by Dr. Wilson.
About hurting people's feelings, I am not warm on the Republican Party, but America is unique in that most voters are in fact registered with a party affiliation; that is not the case elsewhere. Attacks on Republicans are often taken (rightly or wrongly) for attacks on registered Republicans, and it is true that these days GOP electors are on average more normal human beings (in the sense that Dr. Wilson, Judge Reavis, myself and others up here consider "normal") than are Democratic electors. In some quarters, however, I could be lynched for confessing that I voted Mitt Romney. (I did not actually wear plastic gloves while marking my overseas ballot, but it might not have been a bad idea.)
About a conservative caucus within the Democratic Party: to assume that this is now possible because theirs was historically the party of Confederates and Catholics is akin to claiming that Miami is still at the core a sleepy American tourist town. Here and there one can find quaint little relics and even living traces of Miami's pink paradise past, much as one can keep viable tissue samples of the deceased for generations in a laboratory, but the core of the city has shifted 100 percent. Idem for the Democratic Party, which apart from a few quirky electors is decidedly NOT the party of Al Smith and William Jennings Bryan at its basest level. Shed a tear for George Wallace if you must, but leave that party to the dogs and seek out your pearls elsewhere.
There are no tender feelings in this crowd. This is one of the toughest crowds I know and whoever posts here better be ready to have his hide pulled back for lying, cheating or stealing -- occassional fist fights and insults are allowed in very important matters such as affronts against ones friends, family, politics or religion Otherwise a guy should be as courteous and serious as he can be or shut up. This blog is just a slice or glimpse of what once upon a time considered a community of sinful but honest souls. (Clyde Wilson being one of my favorites in that category ,although a guy ain't supposed to choose favorites either unless he can keep from it, which I cannot. )
I think Dr. Wilson has outlined some uncomfortable truths about the GOP that only strengthen his point that we need to forge a new party or coalition to dismantle the duopoly that dominates our government.
Looking at this past election on a practical note from here in the heart of the Rust belt, Romney lost in large part because he could not carry Ohio - a second consecutive loss for the GOP here in a must win state - nor could he pry Wisconsin or Pennsylvania away from the Dems. The latter state seems permanently lost to the GOP. To ask why this is so is to confront the fact, in my humble opinion, that most of the folks who stayed home on election day were victims at some level of the massive loss of industrial jobs over he past two decades. I suggest most of these people blame the GOP's "free trade" policies for this and I would concur.
Further, although many in the non-urban regions of these states are conservative folks who abhor abortion, big government and unending foreign wars, even the most obtuse among them realize that for one, the GOP leadership is contemptuous of the rank and file anti-abortion people and the party pays pro-life action lip service. Secondly, Romney's rather late term aversion to big government and Obama care couldn't plausibly be taken seriously so soon after he burdened Massachusetts with a similar plan while governor and thirdly, these same people who've now endured a second generation of minimum wage jobs aren't eager to keep providing their un- and underemployed offspring to be troopers in the interminable wars in the Middle East. Another point, given the recent horrific news from the CT school massacre; does anyone think a President Romney would not be caving in to the gun grabbers at some level by now too?
I completely concur with Dr. Fleming's amusing description of Democrats, but given where we are today I ask any Republican to paint a plausible route to recapture the White House anyway, so the status quo must go.
Thanks to Tom Piatak and Scott for the Bork comments. May he finally enjoy eternal rest.
I am sure there were some occassions in the past when the GOP has faced political issues with determination and conviction, I simply cannot think of any by myself. Now there is this Chuck Hagel fellow for Defense Secretary that is a GOP man. Maybe they will stand up for one of their own?
The prospect of a conservative caucus arising from the democrat party is indeed dim, but, if I read him right, Professor Wilson's idea was to raise a cohort of non-partisan obstructionists, whose mission would be to throw a monkey wrench into whatever the duopoly wanted. I sense that there are plenty of younger folks out there who get that the party game is over and they both must go, or at least be cut down to manageable size and power. These are a different breed from the namby-pamby "independent" voter, who just sat on the fence and let the prevailing sociopolitical wind blow him to one side or the other.
The namby-pambys I meant to refer to above are the so-called "undecideds", rather than the independents, although there may be some overlap.
Another plus for this obstructionist force is that it need not engage in any deep thinking over platform, policy, and legislation. They merely have to react. It may be a great way to tap into young males' destructive urges; one can see it as an alternative to joining the military
I think forming a "conservative caucus within the Democrat[ic] party" is a splendid idea, but each time I suggest it on this board it is either ignored outright or ridiculed. The ridicule continues, I see. I've spent what time of my life I've devoted to politics trying to revive the conservative/Southern wing of the Democratic party, which was still relatively healthy in the 1980's and 1990's. Now, of course, it is virtually decimated. Still I stand strong by the notion that the Democratic party belongs to us, Southern traditionalists, and if we truly wished to, we could storm its current bastions and return it to some normality. But habit, misinformation about the number of pro-life Democrats still out there, and the feeling of some lower class whites that voting Republican puts them on the same level as the Rockefellers and the Duponts, has stymied the effort.
My people hated the Republicans for what they did generally to the country and specifically to Southerners. My late grandfather, so wedded to this tradition, chastised my father for supporting Goldwater instead of LBJ.
I'm willing to get something started again, but I need help!
Ah, I missed that. Very nice, though I would have loved to get Wilson's take on it.
Dr Wilson, some day Id love to get your take on different Civil War/Antebellum movies down through the years. One of these days I am going to find a copy of Tennessee Johnson and send it to so I can get your take.
Mr. Jacobi and Mr. Colin, thank you for finally paying attention to my main point.
Dr. Ivey, thanks for paying attention to what I actually said. There are still plenty of people in the Democratic party who are not perverts, abortionists, or multiculturalists, but cant stomach the Republican party of the rich. And they are generally less timid than Republicans and more willing to act in opposition to conventional notions and power. In fact, most of the really conservative Republicans are mostly former Democrats. Reagan, the most honoured Republican, started out as a Democrat and talked about state rights in his first campaign. The blue States are mostly former Republican and the Red States are mostly formerly Democrat. The last conservative member of Congress elected in Ohio, one of the most liberal and most segregated (but I repeat myself) States, was Traficant, a Democrat. In fact, as late as the 50s Ohio had a Democratic Senator who was in many ways more conservative than Taft. Of course, to take effective political action of the type we are discussing requires leadership and hard work, and in a great many potentially fruitful places.
Mr. Maxwell, sorry I failed to reply to your remarks about WBTS movies. I have often thought of writing something on those lines and have accumulated a lot of material. Perhaps I will, Lord willing and the Yankees dont attack again. I have seen "Tennessee Johnson" and it is not that good.
I Look forward to it.
TJ was one movie that I think had the right intention, perhaps like Santa Fe Trail that promoted a reconciliationist view of the war and the period that now seem downright subversive. I have heard it wasnt good on a film making level though, so perhaps that is what youre getting at.
Anyway, perhaps you can explain the problems with TJ and the others if you ever are able to come out with such an article (I hope it will be a long one because there is quite a bit to talk about).