Posted on 09/16/2008 7:17:17 PM PDT by Eric Blair 2084
I confess that from the beginning I didn't get the Sarah Palin nomination. Everything about it seemed wrong, from her chirpy Matanuska Valley girl accent, to the MTV morals of her family life, to her complete lack of any experience or even of any stated views on national or international affairs.
But now I get it. It represents the last gasp of the effort to turn the Republican Party of 2008 into the Democratic Party of 1896. Or at least I hope it does. The 1896 presidential race represented the high point of populism in America. The Democratic candidate, William Jennings Bryan, represented many of the urges that have since migrated into the Republican Party, such as a distrust of Darwin. If you doubt that, consider what the great H.L. Mencken had to say on the subject in one of his essays on Bryan around the time of the Scopes Monkey Trial:
"The so-called religious organizations which now lead the war against the teaching of evolution are nothing more, at bottom, than conspiracies of the inferior man against his betters. They mirror very accurately his congenital hatred of knowledge, his bitter enmity to the man who knows more than he does, and so gets more out of life. ... What they propose to do, at bottom and in brief, is to make the superior man infamous -- by mere abuse if it is sufficient, and if it is not, then by law."
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.nj.com ...
Posted by drericablair on 09/16/08 at 9:53PM MORON PERSPECTIVE ALERT:
She was doing good here until she listed mattress salesman Rush LImbaugh and steakhouse spokesman Sean Hannity as conservatives. PM
MorrisJim and Paul:
I've been reading Paul for years. I like him. I'm going to miss him when the liberal Star Ledger goes out of business.
What you have to understand is that Paul is the arbiter of what is conservative and what is not in the Democratic People's Republic of NJ.
Frank Meyer? William F. Buckley? Ronald Reagan? Rush Limbaugh? Sean Hannity? They are all clueless as to what Conservatism is all about.
Only Paul Mulshine in the Newark Star Ledger is qualified to tell you what Conservatism is.
I give him credit for chutzpah and brass balls. He's a character.
Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a comment Posted by drericablair on 09/16/08 at 10:02PM Moron perspective, huh? You guys are so cute at that age!
Ok, if you want to call me 2nd Grade names as opposed to engaging in a meaningful debate, I can play that game better than you. I warn you Paul, I'm a master of the ancient martial art of Hu Flung Poo. :-)
You're a doodyhead and a poopyface, so there. Nya, nya, nya,nya, nya, nya, na. )-:
Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a comment Posted by drericablair on 09/16/08 at 10:04PM PS. I'm a man, baby!!!
PSS: I thank you for not deleting the post entirely.
Inappropriate? Alert us.
QED
“Populist” is a mostly meaningless word in America. One can be populist and socialist, populist and libertarian, populist and liberal, or populist and conservative. At any point, one party can be more or less populist than the other, but it’s not as if there’s an aristocratic/monarchist party out there seeking to install a class system. Unless you count affirmative-action, and maybe I do.
Muleshine, eh?
That fits.
Ah, New Jersey...the taint of the Northeast. ‘Tain’t New York...’tain’t Philly.
The prehistoric monkey bones crap again. Are these liberal guys having problems getting laid again? What does Darwin or Evolution have to do with any serious issue facing this country right now? How does making school children brood over imaginary graphs and charts of prehistoric monkey men solve anything except relieve the sexual anxieties of their secular humanist teachers?
"The inferior man" indeed.
“The 1896 presidential race represented the high point of populism in America”
No, populism was just another name for Progressivism, which had its high points under Wilson and FDR. And Palin is NOT a Progressive, even though she reforms things and likes God.
“The 1896 presidential race represented the high point of populism in America”
No, populism was just another name for Progressivism, which had its high points under Wilson and FDR. And Palin is NOT a Progressive, even though she reforms things and likes God.
"The inferior man" indeed.
I’ve always understood a different definition for populism. The Peron type of populism is essentially class warfare. You line everyone up on an economic scale from richest to poorest. You then tell the poorest 51% that the richest 49% are responsible for their economic condition. We see what happens next.
More like Mud Hind!
The writer begins his temper tantrum with the words “I confess” Well , he better confess as I’m thinking of sending a bunch of private detectives to take a look in his closet for skeletons.
“The Peron type of populism is essentially class warfare. You line everyone up on an economic scale from richest to poorest. You then tell the poorest 51% that the richest 49% are responsible for their economic condition. We see what happens next.”
Populism and Progressivism are really subcategories of socialism/fascism, which you describe well in your post.
It is possible to be a populist and a conservative. It is also possible, albeit a bit harder, to be an elitist and a conservative.
Paul may be a conservative but there is no doubt that he has his nose in the air.
He took it upon himself to add the “Moron perspective alert”. Hey, his house, his rules. It’s his column and blog.
Stop right there, read no further. The article is a time waster.
The good news is that come the morning of November 5th, 2008, we get to see the author of the article cry like the little Obama wussy that he is.
The only candidate I see employing the populist/fascist shtick is the Dem.
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.