Posted on 04/17/2008 7:44:24 PM PDT by claudiustg
Every four years, conservative "pragmatists" trot out the "We Can’t Let So-And-So Win" mantra. Of course, the so-and-so in question is always the Democratic Presidential candidate. For all of my adult life, I have been listening to so-called "conservative" Republicans warn us of the impending doom that would befall our country if the Democratic candidate were elected. And this year is no different.
This year’s Republican primary did provide a wonderful aberration, however, to the usual choices between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Republicans had an opportunity to nominate a real American constitutionalist, a statesman in the similitude of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. That man was Texas Congressman, Ron Paul. Unfortunately, the Republican faithful seem to be incapable of discerning the marks of true greatness, not to mention fidelity to constitutional government. It is doubtful that most of them even understand what constitutional government is. And as for Christian conservatives, they can barely see any issues beyond abortion and "gay rights." To try and convince them to support a constitutionalist candidate is like talking to a brick wall.
So, what choice does the Republican Party offer the American people this year? The worst of all possible choices: good old John "McSame" McCain.
Let’s be clear: a John McCain Presidency will be no better than a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama Presidency. In fact, in many ways, a McCain White House will be WORSE than a Democratic one.
(Excerpt) Read more at constitutionparty.com ...
What are your thoughts on American anti-Federalist "constitutionalism's" relationship to the European statist Right (which on the surface seems its polar opposite) and to "identity," as theorized in my post?
Anybody who thinks Ron Paul was the answer is asking a pretty stupid question.
Bump to self
Very insightful posts.
Thank you.
“I quit”?
This keeps getting repeated over and over but it makes no sense. For this to be true, one would have to believe that the ignorant voters believed RATS would be more conservtive. The notion is too ridiculous to even contemplate. All one has to do is look at the results and if anyone voted Democrat believing they would be more conservative, shame on them!!
I think they're definitely interrelated questions. I look at it this way:
Take a typical South Carolina anti-Federalist as a hypothetical.
This South Carolinian may have been, in line with Jeffersonian principles, in deadly opposition to a stronger federal government and deeply insistent upon individual rights as well as the sovereignty of the state of South Carolina.
This stance would appear to be at odds with, say, a French monarchist.
That opposition is only marked, though, in terms of his relationship with the federal government.
What about his attitude toward the state of South Carolina?
His South Carolina was stratified according to race and to class.
40% of the population were black slaves who had, as far as he was concerned, no natural rights of any kind. 50% of the population were whites who held little to no land and owned few slaves of their own. These people had natural rights, but not political rights.
Then there were the 10% of whom the Anti-Federalist was a member: white landowners and slaveowners, men of property who had the right to vote in elections governed by property qualifications.
Most of them were Episcopalians, while the smallholders and unpropertied whites were more generally Nonconformists in religion.
This enfranchised uppercrust chose South Carolina's state and federal representatives, its judiciary, and chose the officers of its militia.
This is thus the closest possible American analogue to the European Old Right: a pureblooded, homogenous, agrarian landed aristocracy which controls the political, economic and religious life of the country (in this case the "sovereign" state of South Carolina). Culturally - like the European Old Right - they disdain manual labor and cultivate a life of leisure which looks down on "new men" and trade and industry. Like the European aristocracy, there is a strict code of honor, marriages conceived of as familial alliances, a glorification of traditional aristocratic pursuits like swordsmanship, military reknown, hunting, literary pursuits. The European notions of courtly romance and delicacy are essential to womanhood, etc.
Antebellum South Carolina was essentially a kingdom without a king: a council of a few hundred noble families united by blood and interest stood in the place of a formal monarchy.
And, as this way of life is increasingly threatened by a larger disgust for slavery and an enthusiasm for trade and industry there develops an entire ideology in South Carolina and other areas of the South wherein Southerners are conceived of as a separate race not just from their slaves, but from Yankees as well - the Yankees are a mongrel amalgam of Roundheads, Irishmen, Slavs, Italians, Jews and blacks while the Southerners - thanks to their strict caste system - are a pureblooded race of Cavalier warriors.
The literature of the secession period furnishes so many examples of such a worldview it seems to exclude all else.
I am saying that no matter how far Rs drift to the left, they're still not going to catch up with the RATS and anyone who voted for a RAT on the basis that they thought the RAT would be more conservative than the Republican must be smoking something. That is why I do not buy your original argument that Republicans lost because they were not conservative enough.
My money is on McCain due - if nothing else - to the Wilder effect. And given the kind of things we've been leaning about Obama's background and associations, I don't even think McCain will need the Wilder effect to win.
Can you imagine if McCain were to carry over 40 states? There would be no living with the man. If indeed I see that scenario developing, I for one, in this very blue state, intend to vote third (or in this case, is it really second?) party.
Baldwin wants us to be like the founding fathers, but at the same time not like the founding fathers...........
In my research over the decades, I have found that the majority of our founding fathers were Christian conservatives........
When people, families, governments are trying, I repeat, trying to live by high ideals (the commandments from our Creator) there is less crime, fewer health problems, fewer poor, fewer divorces, fewer broken homes, less greed, etc., etc............resulting in less government and lower taxes, and, a more productive and more safe society......"the pursuit of happiness".
Baldwin, and many other Libertarians want the blessings of Providence without those messy , pain in the butt commandments, commandments given to us by an all knowing God, who really does know what is best for us, our families, our country.......
For those Libertarians who will invariably want to set me straight about religion in government.............we have a choice, our laws will either be influenced by the commandments of God, or, by the teachings of men who think that they are smarter than God (socialism,communism,marxism, etc.).........THIS IS A GIVEN! Wherever a society is, in respect to proper obedience to our Creator, there, too, will be the measure of that society and the laws that they do enact........
What has made this the greatest, wealthiest, strongest, most powerful, most giving country ever in recorded history is the fact that many of our laws, in the past, have been a reflection of a good and decent Christian people.........sadly, we, as a nation today, are dismantling the very thing(s) that delivered the greatness.......... Oh, yes, one more thing........we have made mistakes, as a people, as a country, but, I would rather make mistakes trying to properly follow the Smartest Being In The Universe, as opposed to the alternative.........
I sincerely believe that most Christian conservatives do indeed work to preserve our Constitutional Republic, but, there are several reasons why Ron Paul has only garnered about 3-5% in national polls..............if Baldwin, who projects an image of someone who is well informed, has not figured out the "why" yet.......well, he is not being honest with himself, or, with his readers.........
:}
Your description of the antebellum South merely drives home how totally alien it was to the Bible Belt South of today.
One matter: the antebellum South was pro-free trade while the North was protectionist.
Sorry, I didn’t wake up crazy this morning. Try again next week. I never really liked Chuck, but he’s totally jumping the shark on this one. Poor guy doesn’t realize just how irrelevant his support of RP made him.
That’s fine. We’ll win without you, and that’s the best of all possible outcomes.
True, but the driving force of that was not a principled commitment to the free market, but the reality that 99% of Southern exports were raw commodities.
Another factor was that 80% of Southern assets were held in the form of land and slaves - there was very little liquid cash as a percentage of assets, and so any legislation that impaired capital flows was objectionable for that reason as well.
The North was not ardently protectionist either - despite Buchanan's revisionist historiography.
During the 1850s, tariffs were the lowest in US history up to that point - much lower than the "Tariff of Abominations" of 1828 and even lower than the compromise tariff that was agreed to later. Yet it was not a major point of contention in either the 1856 or 1860 elections in the North.
Also, during the 1850s, cotton prices doubled and Southern GDP went up 70% per capita, while Northern GDP only went up 40%.
If not yet, some historian should make the case that the enormous growth in Southern wealth in the 1850s was one of the psychological causes of the Civil War: the South's prosperity reassured many secessionists that they could afford a full-scale war.
Right on.
“Then you will be voting for a socialist. Congratulations!”
No, I am not voting for Obama.
“One matter: the antebellum South was pro-free trade while the North was protectionist. “
YUP. The south were consumers. And cotton was our $1 export. back in the day, the textile jobs were in lowell, mass. not south carolina, and King Cotton was like boeing and Microsoft of today.
Consumers and exporters should always be pro-free trade, since it really is for LOWER TAXES on something, namely goods we buy and sell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.