Earlier today a family member told me they were leaving a social media format – because others this person works with are liberals and as this person does not toe the left wing party line, having the liberal co-workers find out about heterodox opinions could be costly. Meanwhile, Erick Erickson details how he is living under threat for being anti-Trump.
Last year a cousin of mine found out that my grandfather – George Childs Noonan, Sr. – was a bit of a “blood and guts” Noonan during World War One. His battalion was attached to a British force assigned a vital task in piercing the Hindenburg Line, grandpa (per a unit citation) was one of a group of men who, surrounded by the enemy, fought doggedly, killing and wounding large numbers of the enemy before being forced to surrender when they ran out of ammunition (it was late in the war so grandpa only spent a short time as a POW). Grandpa was fighting for freedom – and he gave it his best. He and all 7 of his brothers fought in World War one – and two of his sisters served as Red Cross nurses in France. All 8 of the brothers were wounded to one extent or another…and so determined what that batch of Noonans to fight for liberty, that one brother actually joined up with the British Royal Flying Corps before the United States entered the war. And now, 100 years later, we’re finding out at the all the dedication and sacrifice was completely wasted – the great-grandchildren of those men and women are getting to be opposed to freedom, as such.
It is just bizarre how little the young know of history, or of what liberty is. A fellow Conservative on Twitter retweeted a youthful, liberal comment about Trump…the kid was wondering why the government hasn’t already gotten rid of Trump! Say what you want about Trump – and I’ll say a lot – but it never occurs to me in the slightest to try and stop Trump from doing what he wants to do. Nor Sanders or Hillary or anyone out there. Free country, right?
Not any longer.
And I think it must be because we’re not teaching young Americans about history. Oh, to be sure – there’s something in school which is identified as a history class, but I’ll bet the whole thing is nothing but a screed about how lousy the United States has been along with a few identity-politics plugs for selected “in” social groups. I feel pretty confident that in and among all they are teaching, why we went “over there” in 1917 isn’t covered…and I’m frightened to think about what I might find covered in World War Two. Probably something about the internment of the Japanese and the Atomic Bomb…I’ll bet a lot of schools even steer away from the Holocaust because that might offend Islamist sensibilities. I suspect it because I see the results – plenty of young people are getting suckered into neo-Nazi ideology because they don’t know the truth, and so easily fall to Nazi imagery and those out there who have crafted elaborate Holocaust-denial narratives.
Freedom is never more than a generation away from being lost – so said Ronald Reagan a generation ago, and he was right.
Now, can we recover? I’m not sure – it might be that various stripes of tyranny battle it out until one wins and suppresses everyone else. I hope freedom can still prevail – but I worry that time to do so is rapidly running out.
My granddaughter is 21. Back when she was in the 5th or 6th grade, I had to pick her up from school a couple days a week, and one day I glanced through her history book. Keep in mind, this was around 10 years ago. I was shocked at the drivel that passed for a teaching of history. I can’t imagine it’s gotten better since then. I didn’t particularly care for history in high school. As near as I can remember, it was pretty accurate, but largely just memorization of dates and places and just not very interesting. When I got to college, my first history professor (Europe in the middle ages — required course) taught from the standpoint of what caused things to happen, and what were the ramifications of historical events, as well as how things might have been different if certain events hadn’t occurred or had occurred differently. As a result, I fell in love with history, and ended up only an hour or two short of a minor in history.
Everyone has heard the old saying, “those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it.” The Left has learned that, if you prevent people from learning from history by simply altering the historic record, you can get generations of people to keep trying and/or supporting the same failed ideas over and over. I suspect there are still a few Leftists who believe that eventually the right person/people will come along and get it right, but, IMO, the majority of modern Leftists simply see re-writing history as a means of controlling a large segment of the population who might otherwise rise up in revolt.
I suspect this summer may be a tipping point. One of the things I learned to do as a navy crypie is to listen to chatter and read between the lines. If you to learn to sort out the “kill-’em-all,-and-let-God-sort-it-out” types, who are generally just a lot of talk, you can piece together a pretty good picture of how things are likely to play out. I look for some bizarre, but strangely logical events to occur over the summer. One in particular is an allegiance between Black-Lives-Matter and the Muslim Brotherhood along with a few of the more radical elements of the OWS movement. I think it’s going to be an extremely violent summer, and I don’t envy those living in major cities.
It could well be a long, hot summer. Part of what is fueling Trumpist rage is 50 years of liberals making violent threats and holding disruptive demonstrations and no one does anything about it but cave in. There could be clashes between the two sides as the year goes on.
Until such time as the media stops being the arbiter of the truth and decides to stand on the side of truth, violence may be the only way the Left will be defeated. The irony will only be that much sweeter if they are the instigators of that violence, which, based on the last half century, they are almost sure to be. There’s an old saying among trial attorneys: never ask a question that you don’t already know the answer to. That mindset also applies to those who would use violence as a political tool — never start something that you aren’t prepared to finish.
The left is generally clueless – but they’ve also gotten away with things for so long that they likely think themselves invincible…that they can keep pushing people around and no one will ever push back.
This is merely one example of the attempt to rewrite American history to comply with a political agenda.
Many of us remember the shameful effort by the Smithsonian Institution to mount a lavish and detailed indictment of the United States in a dramatically revised version of the atomic bomb attacks on Japan near the end of WW II. Here is what I think is an interesting overview of the brouhaha from both sides. (emphasis mine) Sadly, I fear that the only lesson learned by the Left is that when they want to rewrite history they will have to wait till those who made it are no longer around to stop them.
Article 1. “Arguments over the original plan erupted almost as soon as it became public more than a year ago. Veterans’ groups complained that the presentation undervalued their part in ending the Pacific phase of World War II and painted the use of the bomb as tantamount to a war crime. They said it should have explained how the United States entered the war and should have mentioned Japanese atrocities during the war.”
Article 2—from the archives of the Smithsonian, their determination to have their distortion of history as part of the official record even when thwarted in their efforts to mount a full-fledged exhibit. This refers to an article written, and placed in the archives, to try to achieve this. The bias is blatant. The reason for halting the proposed exhibit was not that it represented the Smithsonian’s abandonment of “..its role as an independent exhibitor of unbiased history..” but merely political pressure and threats to Smithsonian funding from Republicans in Congress. The outrage at the lies proposed by the original exhibit and script was dismissed as merely being part of a “divisive social and cultural issue”. Through the inclusion of the article referenced in this quote, the distortion is now a permanent part of the Smithsonian archives, an end run around the determination to keep the Smithsonian honest and factual.
“The tone of this article is set at the beginning when the author characterizes the January 1995 cancellation of the original Enola Gay exhibition at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space Museum as possibly the greatest tragedy to befall the public presentation of history in many years.
The Air Force Association resented the exhibition of its Enola Gay icon as proposed, and worked with other veterans groups to change the presentation. The author calls their actions part of the larger culture wars of the time, which he identifies as the third element in explaining the controversy. Criticism against the museum came from politicians and the media, sweeping it into turmoil similar to that generated when various segments of American society discussed other divisive social and cultural issues of the time.
Museum director Martin Harwit sought to defuse the criticism by writing articles for the Air Force Magazine and leading negotiations with some veterans groups to revise the exhibit. By the end of October 1994, these efforts produced a fifth draft, which was promptly denounced by some veterans groups that wanted the exhibition cancelled and by many historians who felt the Smithsonian was abandoning its role as an independent exhibitor of unbiased history.
The fourth element of the controversy came with Republican wins in the November 1994 congressional elections. This brought pressure to cancel an exhibition the winners viewed as unpatriotic; cuts in the Smithsonian budget and hearings into Smithsonian management practices were threatened.
The fifth and final element came after I. Michael Heyman took office as the new Secretary of the Smithsonian in September of 1994. Heyman initially refused to cancel the Enola Gay exhibition, but reversed himself in January 1995 when he was unable to combat political pressures. Martin Harwit argued against cancellation, but the author writes that Heyman changed his mind about the feasibility of combining commemoration and history at a time when the Smithsonian was facing serious financial worries. Federal budget monies were threatened by a Republican Congress and warnings of drastic fiscal choices yet to be faced were issued by the Commission on the Future of the Smithsonian Institution, which was created by the Board of Regents.
And finally there is a long but very interesting explanation of the entire thing, including the false information upon which the Smithsonian based its decisions, its exhibit, its script, and its later defenses.
“The final change since the Enola Gay exhibit was cancelled in 1995 is the opening of Smithsonian archives with voluminous records of what the curators thought, did, and claimed they were doing. Whatever sanitizing might have occurred with these records, they tell a story quite at odds with the story told by Martin Harwit, Director of NASM whose program for the exhibit came under fire. We can now get a whole new outlook on NASM activities. My studies in these records yield three major indictments: the curators brought in to prepare the Enola Gay display were guilty of anonymity, hypocrisy, and ignorance. I only wish that the dozen or so boxes of records that Tom Crouch, one of the lead curators, had sitting in his office waiting to have taken to his home, were instead available in the archives.
But what is available in the archives shows a disregard for scholarship that is shocking, and it is hard to believe that the leaders of American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians rushed to the defense of these curators.”
– See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/6597#sthash.inLKFncg.dpuf
We are inclined to believe that the Smithsonian Institution is a repository of American history, nature and science, yet this is proof that it is now merely a tool of the Left in its nonstop assault on American exceptionalism and on actual history itself.
That was a big outrage – I remember that. Of course, in their eagerness to portray Americans as sick and twisted mass murderers, they entirely missed the opportunity to really discuss (a) what happened and (b) what is all means to decent people. To me, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima is morally no different from the area bombing of German and Japanese cities which had gone on throughout the war. And we now know after long and careful analysis that in a purely military view, it was ineffective. To be sure, any bomb dropped on a city helped to reduce the total military output of the nation being bombed, but it was also discovered that in real terms, it didn’t prevent either enemy from producing the means of making war…and may indeed by infuriating the enemy caused them to fight on all the harder. Much more effective in defeating Germany was attacks on German fuel production (towards the end of the war thousands of tanks and planes sat immobile for lack of fuel) while Japan was brought low by the unrestricted submarine warfare we conducted against Japanese trade (by the end, there was hardly a vessel in Japan which could move goods from one place to another…in odd happenstance, Nimitz’ effort here spared Doenitz from a date with the hangman…the tribunal was ready to hang him but Nimitz wrote them a letter saying that as far as submarine warfare went, Doenitz didn’t do anything Nimitz didn’t do).
I don’t think anyone should really try to get into what the Atom Bomb meant to Japan until they’ve read Bergamini’s Japan’s Imperial Conspiracy. He comes at it from a unique perspective for a westerner – he grew up in Japan, knew the people and the language and along with his family was interned as an enemy alien through the war. The most important thing he brings up is that Hirohito was, indeed, in charge – shielded by advisors (as was the Japanese way of government), it was still him who made the decision for war and the decision to keep fighting even after it was known by Japanese leadership that the war was lost (by mid 1943, that is). From the Battle of Midway on, actually, the Japanese were looking for a way out – first a way out which would still preserve the Japanese Empire, later a way out which would still leave Japan’s social structure (with the Emperor on top) intact…and they couldn’t figure out how to do it! Partially because even though they knew it was lost, they still couldn’t quite bring themselves to the sticking point of surrender but, also, partially, because they feared that too early and too easy a surrender would be taken badly by the Japanese people. The Atom Bomb was just what they needed – a clear and compelling excuse to quit. Had we not used it – or had we just set one off close to Japan as a demonstration, the war would have gone on…we would have invaded and millions would have died.
Ok, a few more thoughts
– While I agree we have a generation or two of poorly educated kids who have a distorted understanding of liberty and capitalism, I just don’t share the same apocalyptic view, nor do I think that Trump is the spawn of Satan as I believe many do. I will cast my vote for Ted Cruz this Tuesday because I believe he is the more sober choice, but I also don’t believe that Cruz is the last man standing between conservatism and chaos. I do however have real concerns about Cruz’s ability to win the general. I just don’t believe that he appeals to a large enough audience, and I think those of us here need to admit to ourselves that our brand of conservatism may be in the minority apparently even within the GOP, so as Reagan himself once said, “just give me 80%”, and Trump does offer that 80% but unfortunately many Republicans are hell bent on ignoring the plurality of votes of their constituents and planning to throw a tantrum and quite possibly lose this election.
– Trump has definitely exposed some raw nerves and in my opinion, people are needlessly losing their minds over his candidacy. I think Trump has revealed the cozy relationship Democrats have with establishment Republicans, along with the intolerance of some conservatives, who are willing to hand the election to Hillary if they don’t get their way. Ironically, when you read the written positions of both Trump and Cruz they are nearly identical, but apparently it is the delivery that so many people are hung up on, which is unfortunate because we do live in a time where Christians are facing genocide, where infidels are being burnt alive in cages, where drug cartels are pouring across our border killing anyone who gets in their way, where illegal immigrants are committing crimes on a weekly basis here in my community, and where the entire world is taking advantage of our softness. If Hillary were to be elected President, the destructive policies of Obama and the left will become entrenched and we may no longer recognize this country or this world after her term, so the only choice concerned Americans have is either Cruz or Trump and it serves no purpose to be overly dramatic about either one.
– Yesterday, the intolerant left once again attempted to shut down free speech, but then they realized they were in Arizona, where we don’t tolerate jack asses nor do we give them the “space to destroy”.
– I have traced my family tree back to 1701 when Peter and John came to America from Rheinland, Germany. John’s son fought in the Revolutionary war, and later Jacob fought in the war of 1812. By the time the Civil War came around, our family had moved west so there isn’t much history there, but it was fascinating to discover this and I am glad that you have done this as well.
I agree that many believe “.. Trump has revealed the cozy relationship Democrats have with establishment Republicans..” but what I don’t get is why these people are so comfortable with the fact that Trump is the poster boy for this cozy relationship. He comes right out and admits that when he was a Democrat he had a cozy relationship, bordering on bribery in exchange for political favors, with establishment Republicans, and his fanboys just don’t care.
Thank you for pointing out that “Ironically, when you read the written positions of both Trump and Cruz they are nearly identical, but apparently it is the delivery that so many people are hung up on…”. Yes, it is partly the delivery. Those who demand an entertainment quality to their candidates seem to be preferring the Trump message. Worse, they think he is the only one with this message. I am so sick and tired of Trumpbots bleating how Trump says this and Trump believes that, when Cruz has almost the same message—just without the circus atmosphere. This is why I have so little respect for these Trumpbots—because they make it so clear that it not the message that appeals to them but the glitz and appeals to emotion and brassiness and crudity and mental confetti. They don’t want policy, they want spectacle.
I would also like to point out that one reason so many people think Trump IS the message is because of the active participation of the Complicit Agenda Media, of whom Fox is not only now an active member but may be the flag bearer. How much media attention does Ted Cruz get when he says pretty much the same thing Trump says? That’s an easy answer—none to damned little.
In other words, Trump is the chosen GOP candidate of the media, including sellout Fox. Does anyone wonder why? Does anyone really think this is because the media in general believe that Trump is the better candidate? That would require believing that the media in general would like to see the GOP produce a strong candidate who could win the White House. Why would anyone believe that? So if the media are promoting Trump so actively, so avidly, don’t you think we should wonder why? What is their long game?
I think it is because, as I have said so often for so long and because so many others have said it as well, the Left (aka the Complicit Agenda Media, aka the Mainstream Media) are in the bag for the Left, always have been, always will be. How is this playing out in today’s election cycle? They are hiding/ignoring/downplaying Hillary’s many egregious crimes, while promoting Trump as if he is the Chosen One. That plays into a Leftist wish list, with a heavily protected Clinton able to hide behind yet more claims of just being victimized by “a vast right wing conspiracy” while the heavy guns are trained on Trump, detailing his many failures, his misogyny, his crudity, his serial lying, his flip-flopping on every possible issue even within the framework of his newly discovered or created conservatism, and so on. As one writer quoted here stated, within a very short time after being nominated, Trump will be radioactive.
How many of his business failures have been headline news? How many news stories have you read about his lying about only using his own money for his campaign, pointing out that he has LOANED his funds to the campaign, to be repaid out of federal campaign funding? How many interviews have the media had in TV or radio shows with people who have been defrauded of their life savings by Trump scams? How many articles have made the mainstream media news about his many investigations for alleged criminal activity, about one of his scams being described by a federal investigator as a classic Ponzi scheme? And this is only the tip of the iceberg. Take what I know and magnify it by thousands to get an idea of what the Clinton machine has been able to dig up.
Right now the media are offering coverage to both Clinton and Trump. They can’t really come out and advocate a Clinton candidacy, because she is so close to being completely radioactive herself, but they can refuse to cover the ugly truths about her actions and crimes. And they can, and do, tout Trump in so many ways, providing him with billions of dollars worth of free publicity. Any reasonable person should ask why, and I contend that when this question is asked the answers are pretty obvious.
BTW, the rhetorical tactic of misstating another position in an overstated and exaggerated way to make it appear ridiculous is what we usually see from the Left: “…Trump is the spawn of Satan…” No, no one has claimed he descends from Lucifer. No one even claims, as far as I know, that he is evil, malicious, or has a malignant intent.
On the other hand, as far as I can tell there is general acceptance of the idea that in his own mind he truly believes he is the savior of the nation, that only his innate greatness can rescue America from its death spiral, that the country needs what only he can offer and it will be all the better for it. It will be beautiful, and everyone will be so happy.
No, objections are based on the very real and documented fact that when he believes something he truly believes it, and then within months or weeks or minutes he is capable of believing the exact opposite with the same sincerity and intensity. They are based on his narcissistic personality, which dictates that he never believes he has been wrong, not even to the extent of asking God for forgiveness for anything, a personality which can be very dangerous because of its innate inability to recognize error and avoid it or at least avoid repeating it. This is related to his very casual relationship with the truth, as to a narcissist truth is what he decides it is at any given moment, and is never hard and fast but dependent on what he wants it to be. They are based on his insatiable need for recognition, which has evidently morphed into a need for adulation, and the knowledge that people driven by this compulsion are unpredictable, with their actions dependent on what they think will give them the gratification they need.
No, it’s not that he’s evil. He’s just mentally and emotionally unstable, with the power to draw people to him to reinforce his delusions.
And then there is this:
It is time this country grows a pair.
No doubt about it. But that is not really the question, is it? Isn’t the question really how something can be done legally, realistically, morally and practically?
Trump promises to just deport all illegals. He doesn’t say how he would do this, and his swooning acolytes never ask any of the obvious questions:
How will this be done?
Will all illegals be rounded up and shipped out?
On buses? In airplanes? In cattle cars? Under guard? Under armed guard?
What if they resist? Will we shoot them?
Who will do the rounding up? The military can’t legally do it, LEO are undermanned already. A new storm trooper kind of agency created? How does this comply with the constitution? With shrinking the size, scope and power of the federal government?
What if people came here from small villages, long ago, and no longer have any identification from their native countries? What if their stated native countries won’t accept them?
What about the private property of these deported illegals? Will we just confiscate it all? In that case, what happens to it? (Just watched Monuments Men and saw some parallels.) Will we buy their possessions, their cars and their houses and their furniture? With what?
Trump promises to just deport all illegals and then within a few weeks, when millions have based their support on this promise and how it gets them so excited, he admits that well, no, he really wouldn’t—he just said that as an opening salvo to get negotiations started. He said this in an interview, not in a rally, so few Trumpbots probably ever knew about it.
Trump promises to Build a Wall. How? He’ll make Mexico pay for it. How? With Mexico saying No Way, Jose and being pretty darned adamant about it, with the very idea so ridiculous only a fool could believe it, it is still a main part of his appeal. Some people really resonate with the idea, no matter how unreasonable it is the way he proposes it.
You say Trump really does have a rational, reasonable, practical approach to immigration. Maybe so, but so does someone else who has not gone out of his way to alienate millions upon millions of Latinos in this country.
From a March 1 article in The Atlantic: emphasis mine
“Matthew MacWilliams, a PhD candidate in political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, studies political authoritarianism.
The classic definition of authoritarianism implies a tradeoff—more security for less liberty—but MacWilliams says it’s also about identifying threatening outsiders and granting individuals special powers to pursue aggressive policies to destroy them. The best predictor of Trump support isn’t income, education, or age, he says. In South Carolina, it was “authoritarianism … [and] a personal fear of terrorism” that best predicted Trump’s support across the state.
Trump’s foreign policy, like his policy for anything, is a muddle. He’s cautious toward the Israel-Palestine conflict, yet he told Fox News he would kill the families of ISIS members to stop their advance, something awfully close to a public pledge to commit war-crimes.
But it’s his domestic security policies that have been astonishingly hawkish. He’s promised to shut down mosques, keep a database of Muslims, and round up the children of illegal immigrants. Indeed, when you put it together, Trump’s hysterical promises to protect his white in-group from non-white outsiders looks like race-baiting…
They Live in Parts of the Country With Racial Resentment
Find a map of the United States and draw a thick red mark just east of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. That’s Trump Country.
Although Trump appears to run equally well among moderates and conservatives in polls, Soltas found that, in New Hampshire, he dominated in more moderate counties. “For every 1 percentage point more liberal the precinct, Donald Trump’s share of votes rises by 0.48 percentage points,” Soltas found.
According to the New York Times’ Nate Cohn, who used data from Civis Analytics, Trump’s support is strongest from the Gulf Coast, through the Appalachian Mountains, to New York, among marginally attached Republicans (possibly former Democrats). It is a familiar map for some demographers, since it’s similar to a heat map of Google searches for racial slurs and jokes. “That Mr. Trump’s support is strong in similar areas does not prove that most or even many of his supporters are motivated by racial animus,” Cohn writes. “But it is consistent with the possibility that at least some are.”
…when you put it together, Trump’s hysterical promises to protect his white in-group from non-white outsiders looks like race-baiting… Not exactly an election-winning perception. Then factor in the woman-hating perception and you’ve lost quite a few voters.
(response to thread in previous blog post, because I seemingly can’t reply there anymore?)
I think the interesting question is why you care so much about who a random person on the internet is. Does it do anything to negate anything I’ve said if you could link me to some other screen name? Or is it just your special way of trying to delegitimize me rather than my statements in a way that you think is somehow less transparent than just calling me names? I suppose keep at it if it’s what rustles your jimmies. I promise I’ve never mentioned the southern strategy here before the last week or two, though.
– “We have heard the trolls bleating”
Well you certainly don’t think it’s a replacement for everything ad hominem, at least. Have you noticed that you frequently spend more time talking people in a conversation than what people in the conversation are saying? And you have the nerve to try to lecture anybody about “Identity Politics”?
I mentioned the wikipedia page not because it should be itself taken at face value (nothing by itself, much less wikipedia, should be). I mention it because it is a pretty solid list of at least suppositions about what the southern strategy was to at least try to verify or invalidate. Hearing things like M. Noonan claiming that there is “one” quote about it indicate to me that you guys haven’t even looked far enough to know what people mean when they talk about the southern strategy, much less having any idea whether it is reasonably refutable. Which, of course, it isn’t, because quite a few people involved have spoken openly about it, so there are huge amounts of first-hand accounts. So yes, I’d suggest you at least start with the wikipedia page so it doesn’t sound quite so much like you all decided that the republican party courting racists would be uncomfortable and/or incompatible with your world view and so assumed it must not be true and deliberately avoided any evidence to the contrary.
-“looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization.” is not the same thing, by any means, as discriminating against any race.
Now those are some impressive mental gymnastics. The republican party certainly didn’t benefit from racial polarization by getting all the minority votes. What benefit do you think he’s apologizing for capitalizing on, then? If you answered anything anything other than “racist voters”, you are being deliberately obtuse.
– “I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.” Wrong as in not trying to change this existing polarization, as well as thinking it could be used for political advantage. Again, not taking responsibility for creating it.
What, do you think he’s apologizing for letting racists vote republican? Does that sound like it’s something somebody would apologize for?
It’s probably my fault for not being specific enough, but it the claim I was responding to vis-a-vis the black culture conspiracy theory was the apparent assertion that liberals have convinced black people to hate success, which is substantially more specific than just giving them government handouts to engender dependency. Especially next to a stupid bit about Key and Peele talking stereotypically black (do you ever complain about poor rural white people talking like rednecks or do you only have time to blame black vernacular for socioeconomic underperformance? I even start drawling more when I’m around some of my extended family who tend to talk like that, is that proof of something?) the image I got in my head was that of bureaucrats going into black children’s homes to convince them to speak a certain way and to vilify success, which would be pants-on-head crazy.
– “Also, good trollworthy job of simply misstating what I said. Just FYI, here we call that “lying” and it is the hallmark of a Lefty troll.”
Here’s what you stated: “And the GOP needs to find a way to address this, to get the message across that success is available to ANYONE who is willing to work for it’
I combined that with the hopefully uncontroversial axiom that blacks underperform economically in this country, and they are therefore not successful. It’s not very hard to notice that the logical conclusion from there is that since they on the whole aren’t succeeding, they aren’t working for it. Is there some logic leap there that I’m missing, or do you just not like being paraphrased?
– “Clearly it is very important for you to think of Republicans as racists”
I don’t think that at all. There are a large number of Republicans (and people who vote Republican) who are not racist. I wouldn’t necessarily be willing to guess at the proportion, especially since “racist” is not at all a self-identified group (even the Trump supporter on PBS with white supremacy tattoos on her hands doesn’t seem to want to self-identify as racist, and might not even think of herself as such). My point isn’t any of that, my point is that the Republican party as an organization found it politically expedient to try to win votes by playing to racist sentiment. Under the right circumstances, I could even see how that would not be a dealbreaker for voters, because the two party system being what is, you have to sometimes accept some pretty unpalatable behavior when you’re in the booth settling for the lesser of two evils, so it’s not even like I’m trying to say that people were bad or evil for holding their nose and voting for a party who courts the racist vote.
I do still think that all this has led to the rise of Trump, though, and I think that anybody doing said nose-holding is going to suddenly have a problem getting traction on issues they actually care about if Trump is allowed to vindicate overtly stirring racial polarization as the basis for a presidential campaign.
But there hasn’t been even the least appeal to race as a factor in voting Republican – like, not ever. This is why Progs have to claim there are “dog whistles” and “institutional racism”…because the real stuff just isn’t there in any meaningful amount. We’ve all heard the song and dance – that various statements of conservative principal are just code words for racism. This is just plain and simple bull. But liberals can’t admit that – because to admit that, say, a desire for welfare reform is in the best interests of the poor is to admit that liberalism got it wrong in establishing welfare as it is. Liberals can and will do all sorts of things but there’s one thing they’ll never do: admit they were wrong.
But the most telling argument against the Southern Strategy is that if it existed, it failed – and failed rather miserably. It was only as the demographics of the South changed over a 40 year period that Republicans started getting anywhere. Nixon did win a few Southern States in ’68, but that was only because the Democrat vote was split. Reagan also did well in ’80 and ’84 but those were landslide years for the GOP. Alabama didn’t get a GOP governor until 1988; Mississippi not until 2000; in Louisiana not until 1980; in Georgia not until 2002. But that is only a small part of the story – the big part of it was party control of State legislatures. Those didn’t start going into GOP control really until after 2000, for the most part.
Bottom line, the whole idea of a racist element in the GOP is pure fiction – there is nothing in actual fact to support such a case…just fantasies spun out of whole cloth by liberals who can’t face facts.
I caught a little interest in the “dog whistles” comment because of a talk radio show I listen to on the way to work in the morning. No matter how even handed the moderator is–it is claimed that he uses “dog whistles” and other obviously covert terms, that I being a Stupid Southerner, do not understand.
Well, the moderator used the term “Entitlement” which brought a rash of criticism from expected parts of the audience; however the first thought that came to my mind was a Sen. Bernie Sanders rally. On the other hand, I just heard Eric “Mini Me Liar” Trump, dismiss flyover country stating (and me badly paraphrasing) “We are going back to Connecticut, and California where we own lots of property and New York (while speaking about Utah / Arizona) where we will do good with our people.
Hope no ones chokes on the large serving of hypocrisy. Maybe I should add the Hillary Doggie bark noise here ?
To me the shift happened around 1985 – Jim Crow had been dead about 20 years, African-Americans were ever more integrated into American life and people had taken to suing the Klan for monetary damages, thus driving them out of business. On the flip side of all that real progress towards a color-blind society was the increasing devastation of the African-American family (especially the poor African-American family) by programs set up precisely by Progressives as a fix for racism and poverty. The evidence was so obvious that the only thing Progressives could rationally do is admit error and seek different means…so, naturally, the Progressives started cooking up such things as “institutional racism” and other such nonsense to justify their continued harping on racial issues while ignoring the real problems of the minority communities.
It was towards the end of the 80’s that I started first hearing about “reparations” and the need for “minority-majority” legislative districts. About that time, as well, I started hearing how academic test scores must not be used to judge minority educational achievement, that minorities needed separate areas in colleges, that only minorities could represent minority interests, etc. The Progressive plan became, essentially, a program to separate minorities from the mainstream of American life, keep them poor and ignorant (for the most part) and reward with lavish wealth any minority “leader” who would march in lock-step behind Progressive Democrats and keep shouting “racism” any time someone looked at the real condition of minorities in America. Any minority person who dissented from the Progressive group was labelled a traitor (and this, to me, is an unexplored area of just why African-American voters have remained so loyal to the Democrat party even though Democrats bring nothing but utter disaster to African-American communities..it takes a lot of courage to buck the prevailing trend…not for nothing did the ancient Greeks consider Ostracism akin to a death sentence…to be rejected by your fellows is a terrible moral blow for a person and most people will do just about anything to stay “in”…with all the “leaders” being megaphoned by the MSM and all of them at the service of the Progressives, it would take a lot of guts for someone to come along and go all Thomas Sowell on Progressivism).
Now it is all pretty much set in stone – to break it down would require de-funding a large portion of the left and so far only Scott Walker has shown the guts to do that.
Three points that most people do not know that will always gain me an attentive audience when I feel up to “explaining” why the Democrats, in general, are not the best choice. Also fun if you want to confound people.
1) Washington’s crossing of the Delaware. The are two reported blacks on board of which one is believed to be Prince Whipple.
2) The first freed slave in America became a slave owner himself as it was considered a viable business at the time.
3) Segregation, at the Federal level, was instituted by Pres. Woodrow Wilson. Who among many other things set America back more than the 200 years we have gained, IMHO.
These are just a fraction of the simple facts that most Americans have no idea of but it does change the conversation when the discussion goes way into the arena of total mythology.
In very long-view history, I think that Wilson will be viewed as America’s most catastrophically bad President. I can’t think of one thing he did which in the short or long term was to the benefit of the American people. Of course, everything he did was guided by the nonsensical idea that “experts” could “manage” the nation for the benefit of all…all his bad decisions flowed from that; reinforced by what was apparently a firm conviction on his part that he was the most Expert of all Experts.
To take just one in a series of disastrous decisions – as America entered WWI, Wilson became convinced (because a few Czech exiles in tune with his thinking said so) that the Austro-Hungarian Empire was a prison house of nations and the only thing everyone wanted there was to be free from the dead hand of Imperial rule…so, he signed on to Czech independence and thus signed on to breaking up the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Now, to be sure, as in all human societies, there was corruption and cruelty in Austria-Hungary…and none knew better about this than those who led the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In fact, the reason why the Serb terrorists killed Franz Ferdinand (other than the general senseless bloodthirstyness of all those who turn to terror as a political tactic) was that he clearly recognized the need for deep reforms in many areas and was determined to carry them out in the face of those corrupt elements who liked the status quo…such reforms would have benefited the people of Austria-Hungary, not least the Serbian subjects and thus would have damped down anti-government feeling in Bosnia-Herzegovina. But the primary function of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in Europe was to keep a balance between Germany and Russia…breaking up the Empire merely opened up a power vacuum which was first filled by Hitler, then by Stalin, to the infinite woe of the peoples of the Austro-Hungarian Empire…and this leaves aside the fact that the poor, oppressed peoples of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, as soon as they were given power, started lording it over their minorities in a most cruel and unjust manner; such impulses were kept in check by the Austro-Hungarian government. It was all just stupidity – and a decision made by a man who hadn’t the first clue of European history except a cartoonish version which had it that Enlightenment meant pushing back the Catholic Church (Austria-Hungary was largely Catholic) and freeing people from the dead hand of Imperial rule…
Try, not everything is about you. All blog threads are closed to further posting after some time has passed—I;m not sure what that time period is.
Im not sure what you mean by “..why you care so much about who a random person on the internet is..” If you are trying to say you don’t know why anyone here cares who YOU are, for one ting when someone makes the effort to post here, repeatedly, that person is not a “random person on the internet” any more. If you are referring to wondering if you are a returning troll, the fact is that no one here cares WHO you are so much as suggesting WHAT you might be.
Our blog trolls have not been serious people seriously interested in serious discussion, but blog vandals who have come here for various reasons, none of which are tolerable there. It may be a sad need to wallow in personality disorders such as virulent hostility, it may be from a loathing for an invented Other that prompts attacks and insults, it may be any of several thing or a combination of several things. In any case, such people are considered blog vandals who bring nothing to the table but unpleasantness. If you are fretting at being considered one of these, who by the way have a pattern of trying to slip back onto the blog by using different names, all I can say is get over it. Either stop doing what they do, so you don’t come across as one and get yourself bounced from the blog, or man up and take responsibility for the impression you have made and change it. In the meantime, give some thought to the “If it walks like a duck….” saying.
There’s a lot of complaining that I don’t understand or particularly care about.
“….apparent assertion that liberals have convinced black people to hate success… Again, things would go more smoothly if you merely use my own words instead of running them through a filter and then responding to what the voices in your head tell you I MEANT. At least you are honest enough to admit that this IS just in your head, when you say: “…the image I got in my head was that of bureaucrats going into black children’s homes to convince them to speak a certain way and to vilify success, which would be pants-on-head crazy.” Your admission says a lot more about how you think than you might know, as it acknowledges the role your internal filter plays in how you process information, and your dependence on the resulting fantasies.
If your contention is that culture only comes from what bureaucrats tell people to believe and how to act, that might be the subject of your next post. I’d love to see you explain that. You might start with positing that black culture is far more influenced by what bureaucrats tell black people to think and feel than by, as one example, rap music. That would be a great segue into a claim that a young black man who speaks only ghetto slang, dresses like a gangsta, and refers to women as bitches and hos is going to be considered as seriously for any job as any young man of any race or ethnicity who dresses like mainstream America, speaks at least fairly correct and coherent English, and doesn’t use demeaning language about women.
I encourage you to fill out this post with personal observations of the bank managers, store clerks, insurance salesmen, rental car clerks, doctors, accountants, etc. who speak only the black vernacular, dress accordingly, and have eschewed educational advancement. It would be a fascinating read.
To seriously address this wildly erratic interpretation of what I said would take a lot longer than I feel like taking, and I have a feeling that is the idea—-you see, one of the troll tactics is to say bizarre things, to try to lure us into long explanations and defenses. So I will merely point out that if you are truly, seriously, unaware of comments from black people—not bureaucrats—-that blacks getting good grades is “acting white”, that using proper English is “talking white” and that success in a”white man’s world” means betraying a black identity, then you simply do not pay much attention to the world around you. It’s a phenomenon that has been openly discussed for a decade or so, usually by black people who HAVE been successful and are concerned about the roadblocks to success that many black people have erected, themselves. Rather than harangue us here with your outrage, why don’t you do something productive, such as read some of Thomas Sowell’s commentaries on this?
And, of course, we have the records of the scorn heaped upon so many highly successful black people, terms like “Oreo” for example. If “Oreo”—black on the outside and white on the inside—applied to successful black people does not indicate a feeling that to be successful means to be white on the inside, which of course would be absolutely awful, then maybe you can give us your interpretation of it. And of course the ubiquitous “Uncle Tom” hurled at people like Condoleeza Rice and Clarence Thomas rears its ugly head. Perhaps you do not see this kind of sneering and hostile attribution of success to “being white” or demeaning oneself by sucking up to white people as a message that to be successful means to invite insult, attack and hostility.
Sure, you can restate what I said to mean that only BUREAUCRATS try to impress young black children with the impression that talking like a white man means betraying your race—that’s really the only way to dispute the comment that so many black people refuse to do what they have to do to fit into the mainstream, which is by the way where jobs are, and jobs are by the way the rungs on the success ladder, because they feel that to do so would be trying to appear to be less black.
In a similar vein are the attacks on black conservatives, claiming they are, because of their political philosophies, “not black enough” or “betraying their race”.
When blackness itself is defined by externals such as speech patterns, dress, educational achievement, and even political philosophy, and then imposed on black people by other black people, entertainers and pastors (think of the Rev. Wright) peer pressure and general commentary, black people cut themselves off from the rest of the world. When black “leaders” and black culture in general nurture and reward hatred of white people and all that they stand for, they cut themselves off from the part of the world that holds the keys to independence and success.
..my point is that the Republican party as an organization found it politically expedient to try to win votes by playing to racist sentiment.” It was the Republican Party that fought, and fought and fought and fought, for the passage of the Civil Rights bills that the Democrat Party fought, and fought, and fought. It was the Republican Party that fought slavery, long before that. It is the Republican Party trying to keep alive the dream of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. that all people be judged by their character and not the color of their skin. It is the Republican Party fighting as we speak for equality in education, through a system that will allow parents to apply public school funding moneys to private schools of their choice, to all even the poorest children access to the kind of education they will need to succeed.
It is fascinating to see Liberals, who presumably vote Democrat, making this kind of claim when theirs is the party that so blatantly, callously, tries to “..win votes by playing to racist sentiment..” This is the party that has played the race card so often it is tattered and frayed, and is still playing it. And this is the party that tries to distract from this by constantly claiming it is the REPUBLICANS who are the racists, knowing that there are plenty of people like you, Tryvasty, who are eager to believe it.
“… if Trump is allowed to vindicate overtly stirring racial polarization as the basis for a presidential campaign…” would really only create a more level playing field with Hillary, who doesn’t even try to vindicate her blatant pandering to race, trying to build on the racial polarization so callously enhanced and reinforced by Obama and his crew of race-baiting Leftists in their efforts to destabilize the nation by turning various demographics against each other.
I think the friction you get with a phrase like “Southern Strategy” is because that gives an image of a top-down plan of action borne of racism.
Instead, what happened was that several political strategists, including the RNC Chair and the Nixon machine, saw an opportunity and seized it. While Nixon’s personal bigotry is well documented, he would have followed a Southern Strategy whether the South was angry for racist or angry for national speed limits.
The fact that a lot of racist Democrats became racist Republicans was no more of a strategized event than all the Syrians who became German last year. The Southern Strategy was not racism turned into politics, it was politics discovering a party-less population.
The reason the phrase gets friction here is because it was one of the constant whines of prior trolls. Evidently it was in the packet of lies they got from their minders because it was constantly used as an intended indictment of Republicans–the spelling, grammar and punctuation might differ pretty widely from one post to another, but the basic message was always word for word the same thing, indicating that it was just being copied from a single source.
You missed the Bad Old Days when there might be 30 or more such virulent posts in a day, here on this blog. Trolls were eventually banned from the blog, by having their posts deleted, and in some extreme cases I heard the blog managers had to block their IP addresses when they would repost the same deleted post 30 or 40 times in an hour. We heard all about this dreaded (and mostly imaginary) “Southern Strategy”, as well as all about the “code words “(usually for racism but sometimes for sexism) and “dog whistles” and all the other wild-eyed Leftist claptrap, so when it rears its ridiculous but ugly head again it is met with the same scorn, derision and rejection it always has been.
One thing we need to remember, as well, is the fluctuation in definitions over a period of time. A JFK Democrat was a completely different animal than a Hillary Clinton Democrat. Hell, a Bill Clinton Democrat was quite different from a Hilary Clinton Democrat.
Look at how dependent the Left is on what happened 30, 40, or 50 years ago. Again, because you are new to the blog, you might not see the irony in this, as we went for quite some time arguing with a group of radical Leftists who had a radical blog that was a mishmash of lesbian porn, confused but very passionate Socialist beliefs, a dependence on elaborate alter egos complete with fantasy names, credentials and occupations, and so on. Trying to address some of the more delusional ideas from one of these creatures, I brought up some historical fact. I don’t remember what it was, but it was completely relevant, and this was met with a shrill accusation that I was TRAPPED IN HISTORY !!!
Now that historical events are all the Left can point to, history seems to be acceptable. But only revisionist history, in which the Left was fighting for equal rights for black people against the eeeevil Right which was allegedly dedicated to keeping black people subjugated and under the boot heel, blah blah blah. The blatant and toxic racism of the Obama administration and the subsequent rise of racial movements, and the overuse of the term “racist” to the point of making it meaningless, have led to having to go back half a century or so to dig up something that might be spun as important and proof of Republican racism.
Wait, you know of a blog with a “mishmash of lesbian porn?” Is it my birthday already?
You know, Bob, as soon as I posted that comment I realized I may have made a mistake. Trust me, you would not be attracted to anything on that site, at least not anything I found when I checked it out. For one thing, your “lesbians” might not be women at all, just boys who strap up their parts so they can play with the girls. It’s a sad place for sad people peopled by sad people and overall it would just be sad if it weren’t for the vileness and viciousness and downright meanness of its inhabitants. That just moves it over into the “ick” category.
Forget I said anything. Never mind. Sorry.
Wait a minute, you know a site with boys who tuck their junk? Hello, Christmas!
Yeah, I’d like to apologize for that last joke and to all them boys what tuck their junk and all. No disrespect.
Well targeting the blacks is one thing but the hippies?? That’s outrageous. I want some justice!!!
You know it’s heartwarming that in this current age of Muslim homicidal rampages throughout the world that this country remains focused on things that really matter like perceived racial injustices, risque photos of a candidates wife, the need for transgendered bathrooms, and the scourge of xenophobia. No wonder things are going so well.