Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

If It Were Not For The South, America Would Be Another Canada Or (Horror!) France.
ComtedeMaistre

Posted on 08/26/2003 4:15:08 PM PDT by ComtedeMaistre

I had yet another look at the 2000 electoral map, and I was struck by the fact that Bush carried every single state in the South, all by substantial margins. It made me wonder of how American conservatism would be, if the South had succeeded in its tragic War of Independence in the 1860s.

Sure, there are many bastions of solid traditional American conservatism outside the South. The people of the American West, in states like Utah, Montana, Alaska, Colorado, Nebraska and Idaho, are probably the most freedom loving people in the entire country. They are the strongest defenders of the second ammendment right to bear arms, largely because of their outdoors culture of hunting, ranching, and fishing. They are also the strongest defenders of free speech, self-reliance, property rights and are fierce individualists. They hate taxes with such an intensity, it is scary.

Many midwestern regions, are also solidly conservative. The small towns in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois and Michigan, represent the true heart of middle America. And there a few islands of conservatism in the East, in areas such as New Hampshire and Upstate New York, surrounded by a sea of liberalism.

But if you remove the South from the map, do you think that Northern Bastions of conservatism can hold out against the liberal tidal wave? Gore would have carried the 2000 election in a massive landslide, if it were not for the South.


TOPICS: Canada; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Philosophy; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: canada; dixie; france; south; usa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 201-202 next last
To: x
It was a joke X but thanks for the opine.
141 posted on 08/27/2003 4:12:24 PM PDT by wardaddy ("when shrimps learn to whistle")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
I do kids' parties also:


142 posted on 08/27/2003 4:13:40 PM PDT by Bluntpoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: x
This forum is great for introspection.


143 posted on 08/27/2003 4:17:21 PM PDT by Bluntpoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
He denies facts and then acknowledges the denied fact as fact and blames the fact he first denied as being inherently the fault of Southerners.

He is a tad "different" as we would say down here.

Now he has imaginary FReepmails lauding his intellectual prowess and rapier wit.

I fear "projecting" may be the most innocuous of his afflictions.
144 posted on 08/27/2003 4:17:43 PM PDT by wardaddy ("when shrimps learn to whistle")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
If the South is indeed the sheet anchor of conservatism that prevents us from following the European or Canadian way, that may be a good thing. But theories about the South as somehow inherently conservative or the Southern as eternally the right side are unfounded and dangerous. There's good reason to point out times when Southerners have been on the liberal or radical side -- the days of Jefferson and Jackson, or those of Bryan, Wilson, and FDR.

It would be simplistic to reduce everything to slavery or race, but there have been times when such issues weren't on the political agenda, when Southerners could be quite radical. The tidewater "Cavalier" or planter interest has often tended to conservatism, particularly when change threatened it, but it's not clear how much such conservatism would have had with contemporary American conservativism if the planters had really had their way. It might have meant a much more elitist society than most of us could tolerate.

Southern unity in politics presupposes an external opponent. Otherwise, internal divisions would prevail. Upcountry "Celts" were quite willing to oppose the lowland planters when controversies with outsiders didn't prevail over local conflicts.

The idea that it was an underlying theological bent that made the decendants of the Puritans more amenable to liberal secularism than those of Anglican cavaliers is an absurd one, as a look at British history shows. As is the idea that Northern and Southern Baptists and Methodists split for theological or ethnic, rather than political reasons. It was the fact that Southerners felt the need to circle the wagons against outside influences made them more conservative than Northerners, who gave up such defensiveness over time.

Similarly, there may be a Celtic unruliness behind some Southern attitudes but a look at what became of Celtic Scots and Irish and Welsh at home in the British Isles, and in the Northern States, Canada, and Australia confirms that there was no Celtic drive towards conservatism. Such unruliness takes different forms in different circumstances, and is as likely to be radical as conservative.

If the country really is deeply divided culturally, it's a dangerous portent for the future. It's a sign of a healthy society that all the divisions don't run along the same fault-line, that some states in each region vote for a different party from their neighbors. When two regions like up against each other as solid blocs, as the 1860 election showed, things can get dicey for the country. It's probably the Civil War that brings out this feeling, though. The traditional Republican lock on the Mountain and Prairie states or Democratic strongholds in New York, Southern New England and the rustbelt don't cause such worries, because they never led to war.

In recent years, Liberalism or progressivism have become too closely identified with the two coasts and the arrogance of urban cosmopolitans. The rest of the country came to look on liberals or leftists as alien or hostile. It's possible that if conservatism is too closely identified with the South, it will lose support in other parts of the country. According to some observers this has already been happening.

The more an ideology tends to become associated with some specific part of society, the more likely it is to grate on others. There is a spiritual pride that grows out of strong political conviction -- of whatever stripe -- that can have a bitter taste for outsiders, when it's too closely associated with a specific class or race or region or ethnicity.

You could make a good case that the Middle West is the true heartland of American culture, but if a Middle Western chauvinist school were to be established, if people were to think of themselves more as Middle Westerners than as Americans, it would be as likely to offend and turn off other Americans as Northeastern, West Coast or Southern chauvinists are now.

145 posted on 08/27/2003 4:21:08 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
I think you two need to get a room.

Now he has imaginary FReepmails lauding his intellectual prowess and rapier wit.

No not imaginary. And their not lauding any of my prowess, their simply laughing at your butt-buddy. He's giving them plenty of material.

146 posted on 08/27/2003 4:21:15 PM PDT by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
You are truly rattled...lol

I know it wasn't me or GOP ...you're used to us.


Bluntpoint's kind of scary isn't he?

His wit is as good as it gets here.

You should be nice to him.
147 posted on 08/27/2003 4:30:44 PM PDT by wardaddy ("when shrimps learn to whistle")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: ComtedeMaistre

148 posted on 08/27/2003 4:34:25 PM PDT by mac_truck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
If you think that that kind of wit is as good as it gets, you must've of loved it when Lloyd was fantacizing about lighting his farts in "Dumb and Dumber".
149 posted on 08/27/2003 4:35:54 PM PDT by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
You are truly rattled...lol

Rattled? Why do you think I'd be rattled? A guy posts a cartoon and I'm rattled? You're a goof. Bluntpoint is an idiot.

150 posted on 08/27/2003 4:38:20 PM PDT by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
I'm seeing as much blue in the South As I see in the North. lol
151 posted on 08/27/2003 4:40:10 PM PDT by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
reduced to invective and histronics...lol...yeah, you're right...you are not rattled...no way...lol


Have you seen the movie Requiem for a Dream?
152 posted on 08/27/2003 4:46:56 PM PDT by wardaddy ("when shrimps learn to whistle")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
Your map settles it.

I'm moving to Utah or Nebraska.
153 posted on 08/27/2003 4:48:59 PM PDT by wardaddy ("when shrimps learn to whistle")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
reduced to invective and histronics...lol...yeah, you're right...you are not rattled...no way...lol

I attack when attacked. You're the one that took it to this level and now you're getting it back. Bluntpoint is an intellectual chickens**t who posts cartoons because he's too afraid to debate. Simple as that.

Have you seen the movie Requiem for a Dream?

Not if it's new. I don't watch many new movies because it funds the left.

154 posted on 08/27/2003 4:50:35 PM PDT by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
I don't watch many new movies because it funds the left.

You're partially redeemed.

155 posted on 08/27/2003 4:57:02 PM PDT by wardaddy ("when shrimps learn to whistle")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
"Bluntpoint is an idiot."

At one time in my life that might have hurt my feelings.

Not anymore... I found peace!


156 posted on 08/27/2003 4:59:16 PM PDT by Bluntpoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
Bluntpoint is an intellectual chickens**t who posts cartoons because he's too afraid to debate.

Your not looking for a debate. But thanks for being there for all of us.

You are special.


157 posted on 08/27/2003 5:03:37 PM PDT by Bluntpoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Bluntpoint
Your not looking for a debate. But thanks for being there for all of us.

I was debating just fine until wardaddy decided he couldn't handle truth. Go away now chickens**t.

158 posted on 08/27/2003 5:13:37 PM PDT by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
You make the error of attacking the character or motives of a person, such as wardaddy, who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. Your most obvious example of this fallacy is when you malign the character of wardaddy for no other reason than to further your argument to a most unpleasant extreme. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

or, if like, you could continue this debate:


159 posted on 08/27/2003 5:38:57 PM PDT by Bluntpoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
"Chickensh@t?"


160 posted on 08/27/2003 5:44:33 PM PDT by Bluntpoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 201-202 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson