Polite Kid

Guy White has been discussing the ANP, the American National Party over at his blog. It seems it is still not clear exactly who the party founders or representatives are. Read Guy's blog entries to get the whole picture, at least as far as it's known.
When I first linked to the party's website and expressed a desire to know more before getting involved, there was little information posted on the website. However, I noticed that after my blog entry and the resulting discussion here, I saw that I did get a couple of hits on this blog from the party's website which indicates that they were aware of my post about them, probably having followed the link I posted.
One would have expected that given my expression of interest in the party, and my readers' interest, they would have paid us a visit and been forthcoming with some information, or a welcome to whoever was interested in learning more. No such response was forthcoming, which I considered odd. I mean, if I were starting such a party, I would try to get mentions on many sympathetic blogs and forums, and to respond to any expressions of interest in or curiosity about the party. After all, isn't the idea to drum up interest and get people to join and to spread the word? The ANP, whoever they are, seemed uninterested in attracting potential members.
Or did they, after checking out my blog and its contents, decide that this blog did not represent the image they were seeking to cultivate? Presuming they checked out my blog and read my questions about them, and my readers' comments, I might speculate they had not been favorably impressed with what they saw here, because shortly thereafter, I found they had posted this statement:
The ANP does not shy away from the particularly sensitive subjects of culture, identity, and ethnicity. As such, we recognize that we will be regarded by the powers-that-be as a controversial party, as if our ideas were out-of-the-ordinary.
The American National Party is an American political party designed with the interests of European Americans in mind. We represent European Americans, and, accordingly, our target demographic is European Americans. Given the modern political climate, we understand that this position can easily be manipulated and repositioned into something that it is not, by both supporters and detractors.
Let it be known that the American National Party thoroughly and completely rejects the idea of ethnic supremacy and ethnic hatred. The concept of ethnic supremacy is scientifically unfounded and purely subjective, and it corrupts healthy and positive expressions of authentic ethnic cohesion. Any person that seeks to use the party and its resources as a vehicle to spread such views shall be immediately removed from their post, condemned, and cast out of the party.
The people to whom we�d like to appeal are honest, law-abiding, and forward-thinking. We want people who understand the difference between the love of one�s own and the hatred of others. We do not aim to provoke a negative reaction from anyone. We want our own people to react in a positive manner to our message. We�d like to encourage loyal and dedicated European Americans to get involved with the American National Party and make their voices heard.''
So even if they had not been favorably impressed with my blog and my viewpoints, I have to say I was underwhelmed by that statement, to put it mildly. In fact I would say I wrote off the party at that point, because the statement has the definite whiff of political correctness about it. I mean, I understand that some think it best to present a moderate image which does not scare off the respectables or the timid folks. So perhaps they don't want those who are politically incorrect to join their party or to darken their door. Fine. We understand each other, I suppose, and the party is not a good match for me, certainly, just as they may see people like me as not being party material.
I think all of us who meet on this blog are 'honest, law-abiding, forward-thinking,' as per their description. And I think we express love of our own without hatred of others. I agree with not espousing 'ethnic supremacy' and 'hatred', but the thing is, those terms are used as loosely these days as the word 'racism'. Who is defining the terms as they are used in the party's statement? How do they define 'ethnic hatred'?
All of us on the realist right have been accused of 'hatred' and just about anybody who believes in White survival or separation is called a 'supremacist.' The leftists who have made themselves the ultimate arbiters of who is a 'hater' or a 'supremacist' have a very broad and inclusive definition, and it doesn't take much to get put on their little list. All too often 'hatred' is in the eye of the beholder.
As I've said before, I don't care to participate in a forum or blog where political incorrectness might be called 'hate'. So neither do I want to be in a party or any organization where I have to constantly watch my speech and my opinions lest somebody catch me in an infraction of PC and eject me. I don't want to walk on eggshells or be afraid of offending some coddled group or other.
I see that the linked page now has quite a few favorable and encouraging comments though I have heard that some people have had comments removed for raising certain sensitive issues. Have any of you out there had a comment on the site deleted or censored?
But I wish the party well if they truly are a nationalist party which advocates for White people, but I know that I don't belong in a party which is in any sense dependent on staying on the good side of the PC police. I've accepted that criticism and name-calling goes with the territory, and I believe that it does us no good to try to toe the PC line and end up being condemned and called names anyway; far better to let the names roll off like the proverbial water off a duck's back, and press on.
There's a place, I suppose, for the respectable, middle-of-the-road efforts as well as the more "radical" ones; one size does not fit all. I simply think that time is scarce, and we don't have the luxury of taking the slow, stealth approach. Those who are frightened off by political incorrectness are not likely to even approach any kind of European-American or White nationalism.
Still good luck to whoever sincerely has our interests at heart, and whoever is willing to speak up for us, as there are few who will do so.

Labels: Ethnonationalism, Nationalism, Political Correctness, Political Parties, Pro-White, Realism

David Yeagley discusses Michele Bachmann's candidacy and what it means for our country.
Though he praises her lavishly for her politics and her 'beautiful, tender, loving voice', he ultimately concludes that electing a woman, even a very 'conservative' woman, would mean the end for the White male in political leadership.
But, again, why are we talking about Michele Bachmann, mother of five and twenty-plus, wife of thirty one years, and seemingly perfectly normal�we should say, normative�American woman? She is in our sites because she is now running for president of the United States.
How is that possible? Through the emasculation of the white male.
It is the same abuse of "equality" that calls for the wealthy to surrender their wealth to the poor, and the strong to give up their strength to the weak.
[...]
Next, a child will become president.
What in the world happened to the white male? Has he been asleep? Is he on dope? Can he rise again? ''
Actually, in 2008, it seemed to me that the White male was already being displaced. A point that I tried to make then was that the election had established a precedent that would be hard to break, and was in fact an 'overturning' as Dr. Yeagley says of the potential election of a woman president.
It's already happened, and it could be that to have a woman president next would further marginalize male leadership, specifically White male leadership.
Where are the male leaders? This question has been asked here and elsewhere. Obviously the political movers and shakers, or the elites, have decided that no strong male will be allowed to be elevated to high position. Only the weak, the politically correct lackeys and appeasers, are to be presented as candidates.
I was thinking of these things earlier as I watched the live video feed of the Vancouver riots. I noted the number of female authority figures interviewed, and their schoolmarmish responses to the reporters. They did not present an authoritative image, these women; rather, they sounded like slightly irritated kindergarten teachers dealing with misbehaving five-year-olds.The male officials as well as the females kept using words like 'disappointed' in regard to the violence.
As I watched the rioters in action, I could only think: this is what a society of fatherless children looks like. It's true of all Western families. We often read articles about the problem of children, especially boys, who grow up without the presence of a father, specifically, a father who is actively involved. Even though many of society's misfits have been raised solely by women, in effect, our whole society is fatherless now. We have no real effective male authority figures or father-protector figures. We have only these irritable feminist schoolmarms in charge of things, and they cannot fill the male role. We are seeing proof of that all around us.
Women certainly have a role, but in the rightful order of things, men are to wield the real power, to enforce standards and rules, to administer justice. Women are too easily swayed by emotion, and tend to seek to 'understand' everybody, and they often fail to use a firm hand or to be harsh when that is called for. Just as our mothers tended to be the ones to forgive or overlook our misdeeds when we were children, and our fathers were the disciplinarians, representing order and justice, each sex has its particular qualities, and women are not best equipped to wield authority and to enforce order.
The fact that there are certain exceptions, such as the very masculine or faux-masculine women in authority here and there, does not prove the generalization false. Has anyone else noted the presence of so many female police chiefs and fire chiefs in many towns? Every time there is a press conference about a crime or fire, it seems a woman chief is front and center. This seems to be de rigueur nowadays. Political correctness, of course, demands this. And more often than not, the woman is also a minority.
It's no new observation, but our society has become so unbalanced towards the feminine side -- leftism/Marxism is a very feminine entity -- that we need to make a sharp correction in the opposite direction, and very soon.
As for Michele Bachmann, she seems like a very 'nice' lady, but her politics are far too politically correct, and this is most assuredly not what we need.
And even if her politics were more 'conservative' or pro-White, I would say she is far too 'nice' to exercise authority. Niceness and goodness are not the same thing, and we don't need more of the treacly niceness in this age of crisis we are entering.

Labels: Ethnic Loyalty, Gop, Identity Politics, Political Parties, Societal Decay

Over at Intergalactic Source of Truth, the Colonel linked to this piece from One Cosmos, entitled 'The Pathetic Last Children of Nietzsche's Pitiable Last Men.' Blogger Gagdad Bob writes a very cogent analysis tying together the present degenerated state of party politics in America and the breakdown of the family and male/female polarities. Some of you may have read this post when it first appeared way back in January 2006, but I missed it, and it's a great read, touching on some themes that I have dealt with here at times.
In this piece, Bob also mentions an article entitled Wimps and Barbarians, by Terrence O. Moore, which you may read in its entirety here. Moore's article discusses the lack in our modern society of manly virtues such as what the Greeks called Thumos, which is
...the part of the soul that contains the assertive passions: pugnacity, enterprise, ambition, anger. Thumos compels a man to defend proximate goods: himself, his honor, his lady, his country; as well as universal goods: truth, beauty, goodness, justice. Without thumotic men to combat the cruel, the malevolent, and the unjust, goodness and honor hardly have a chance in our precarious world. But two conditions must be present for thumos to fulfill its mission. First, the soul must be properly ordered. Besides thumos, symbolized by the chest, the soul is composed of reason and appetites, symbolized by the head on the one hand and the stomach and loins on the other. Reason has the capacity to discern right from wrong, but it lacks the strength to act. Appetites, while necessary to keep the body healthy, pull the individual toward pleasures of a lower order. In the well-ordered soul, as C.S. Lewis put it, "the head rules the belly through the chest." In the souls of today's barbarians, clearly thumos has allied itself with the unbridled appetites, and reason has been thrown out the window.
The second condition that must be present is a sufficient level of thumos to enable the man to rise to the defense of honor or goodness when required. Modern education and culture, however, have conspired to turn modern males into what C. S. Lewis called "men without chests," that is, wimps. The chest of the wimp has atrophied from want of early training. The wimp is therefore unable to live up to his duties as a man:
'We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.''
Please read the discussion thread following Bob's essay on One Cosmos. The discussion covers, among other things, the role of anger in our society, and the tendency of some religious traditions to censure anger, notably Christianity (or some interpretations of it) and Buddhism.
Bob says
To the extent that a tradition tries to eliminate anger, it is a false or partial teaching. Righteous anger is needed, but only in service of what is good or moral. Again, these traditions apparently noticed that anger was a problem in human affairs, and thought that they should just jettison the whole thing instead of doing the much harder work of diferentiating between healthy and pathological anger or moral and immoral violence.
[...]We know so much more today about psychology than they did then, about the roots of pathological anger in childhood trauma. The key is not to split off or repress anger, but to integrate it harmoniously within the psyche.
With regard to Christ's teaching, if in saying that we should always be passive in the face of violence, he wouldn't be a very wise man, would he? He certainly wouldn't be worthy of worship. After all, if I am more moral than the God I worship, what kind of God is that?''
Evidently Bob is not a Christian, although unfortunately there are many nominal Christians who interpret Jesus' words in the same negative way. I would judge the dominance of psychology and the therapeutic culture, which Bob seems to be very conversant with, to be a huge part of the breakdown of our society and to be a contributing factor to the number of 'men without chests.' All the navel-gazing that is at the heart of modern man's self-focus, all the hand-wringing and ambivalence, and all the psychobabble about not being 'negative' or not 'judging' others, contributes to the loss of the manly qualities. Think of neurotic urban postmodern culture, embodied in Woody Allen movies and Dr. Phil, and secular liberal culture in which the least manly 'men' reside, the men who think hunting is barbaric, firearms are for redneck crazies, and war and self-defense are regressive ideas.
These people do not get their lack of manliness from Christianity and traditional Western culture.
A commenter, Kelly, on the discussion thread, makes some insightful comments about women and the loss of the male virtues; she says that women, too, suffer from the lack of courage and commitment. This seems true; the attitudes of many of today's ultraliberal women would not have been of much use on the frontier or back in the early days of the colonies. Women, too, are affected by the breakdown of our culture's values.
Moore's article says, in describing our culture's emasculating effects:
A close look at the culture in which boys are raised reveals not only that they are no longer encouraged to become vigorous and responsible men, but also that practically every factor affecting their development is profoundly hostile to the ideals and practices of traditional manhood and the painstaking steps necessary to attain it. The demanding regime of physical and moral instruction that used to turn boys into men and the larger cultural forces that supported that instruction have been systematically dismantled by a culture that ostensibly enables all individuals but in reality disables men. "It's too easy!" complained John the Savage of the overly efficient, overly sexual, overly youthful, overly fun Brave New World. That dehumanizing tyranny of pleasure, described by Aldous Huxley, resembles the world of easy effort and easy virtue that entices adolescent males today to indulge in their appetites at the expense of their nobler longings and passions.''
Moore also describes the debilitating effects of fatherless families, deficient discipline in schools, and the lack of male rites of passage in guiding boys to healthy manhood.
The essay and the blog discussion are stimulating reading.
I think the discussion of the role of anger, specifically, is one of the more important ones for us today, given that our society is under threat by some formidable forces -- demographic assault, and an invasion marked by sporadic violence, to which we seem unable or unwilling to offer the necessary resistance. Are we ourselves lacking in the courage and conviction, or is it only our rulers? Or do we get the government we deserve, as Joseph de Maistre said, and as I have quoted him? Why do we seem to choose the 'wimps' as rulers? Is this all we have to work with these days? Are there no 'men with chests' to lead? This also ties in with our discussion of the lack of leaders in our time.
And what's the solution? In our political scene, we seem to be locked into this struggle between the 'mommy party' Democrats, and the 'daddy party' Republicans. Or are the Republicans becoming another mommy party, with their 'compassionate conservatism', their political correctness, and the 'welcoming nation' policies? Do we need a real 'daddy party' to represent the masculine virtues which are so essential? Maybe this is part of the reason why a new party, a real conservative party is needed; the male virtues are not really represented in the two-party system we now have.
Personally I think we desperately need the male virtues in this day and age; the female approach, accommodation and peacemaking, are useless against merciless and aggressive enemies and rivals.

Labels: American Society, Feminism, Political Parties, Societal Decay, Therapeutic Society

Here's an interesting piece on Mitt Romney and his shifting positions on immigration:
Some excerpts below.
Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney had a tough message on immigration at a March 22 luncheon in Council Bluffs, Iowa.
``I don't think there should be a special pathway to citizenship for those that are here illegally,'' he said. ``It makes no sense at all to have a border which is basically concrete against skill and education but wide open to people to just walk on in who have neither.''
That position sets the former Massachusetts governor apart from a major rival, Arizona Senator John McCain, as well as President George W. Bush, both of whom back a guest-worker plan that gives undocumented workers the opportunity to become U.S. citizens. It also sets him apart from some of his own former positions.
Over a year ago, Romney said it would be impractical to deport 11 million undocumented workers and suggested giving some the path to citizenship he criticizes today. ``The 11 million or so that are here are not going to be rounded up and box-carted out of America,'' Romney said in a March 29, 2006, interview with Bloomberg News.
Romney's decision to shift his stand demonstrates how a big issue sometimes boils up from the voters, forcing candidates to adjust their messages. ``For Republicans it's immigration; for Democrats it's trade,'' Illinois Democratic Representative Rahm Emanuel said yesterday at the American Society of Newspaper Editors meeting in Washington. ``Both issues reflect the unease Americans feel about the effects of globalization.''
[...]
According to a Jan. 5-12 Harris Interactive poll, 73 percent of Republicans see large-scale immigration as an extremely likely or very likely threat; only 43 percent of Democrats feel that way.
[...]
Greg Mankiw, former chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers and another top Romney adviser, was responsible for the 2005 economic report of the president that made the case for open borders.
``On net, immigration is a positive for the U.S. economy,'' Mankiw said Feb. 17, 2005, on the Public Broadcasting System's Nightly Business Report. During a news briefing earlier that day, he said he remembered his Ukrainian immigrant grandmother sending remittances back home.
``The tradition of workers coming to the U.S. and helping support their often much poorer families abroad is a phenomenon that's existed for many, many decades,'' he said. ``We are a country that absorbs immigrants quite well.'
Romney spokesman Kevin Madden plays down the idea of a philosophical divide over immigration within the campaign. ``Advisers and campaign staffers are just exactly that,'' he said. ``We're dedicated to promoting the ideas and policies of Governor Romney, not our own agendas.''
[Emphasis mine]
However, despite the aide's disclaimer of promoting their own agendas, the comments by Greg Mankiw, with the obligatory sentiments about his 'immigrant grandmother', seems to indicate that personal feelings do influence policy. How liberal is that?
This piece points up some inconsistencies in the opinion polls: while, as the article says, a sizeable majority of GOP voters (73%) see immigration as a threat, still most of these voters seem quite content to accept and support candidates who, like Romney, range from pro-immigration to equivocal pro-enforcement statements.
So why the disconnect? Why do so many people (and not just poll respondents, but real-life people) seem up in arms about our illegal invasion, yet they are happy to settle for the same old, same old, when it comes to picking possible candidates?
The woman, quoted in this part of the article, seems to feel much as I do:
Romney, 60, confronts grassroots anger over the flood of illegal immigrants almost daily. In Council Bluffs, that meant hearing from people like Carol Cates, 53, a local police officer.
``It's going to bankrupt our nation if we don't make some changes soon,'' said Cates, who came to size Romney up at the luncheon. ``That's almost a deal-breaker for me. If they're soft on immigration, I won't even consider them.''
Thank you, Carol Cates; you are a discerning woman, and a woman of integrity. Still I think she is an exception; people who are talking tough on the border issue one moment may be praising Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich in the next breath. What is that about? Is it denial? Is it cynicism and resignation? I hear comments about how 'Tancredo (or Paul, or Hunter) is not electable; he could never get nominated, much less elected, so we have to be realistic.' That resigned attitude is very common. Yet is there not something of the self-fulfilling prophecy about it? If we never try to raise up a candidate who represents the popular will and traditional principles like, oh, maybe enforcing our borders, and protecting our Republic and our historic culture, we will definitely never have such a candidate. But to this attitude of resignation, I have to ask, what does it say about our Republic if we tell ourselves that the popular will, the will of the majority, has no chance in our system? If we say that, we have all but announced to the world that our system, our Republic, is defunct, deader than a doornail, and that we live in some kind of despotic state now. Have we decided that to be the case? If we believe it, then our belief makes it so.
Look, Mitt Romney may be a good, clean-living, decent man, but I agree with Carol Cates, the policewoman. His wishy-washiness on immigration is a deal-breaker.
I have heard all the responses to this; usually they run along the lines of ''well, we can't have everything we want, and I don't vote just on one issue; smaller government is important, and the War on Terror, and pro-life issues, and stopping gay marriage, and protecting our Second Amendment rights...'' and on and on. Fine; those issues are important to me, too, but I am dumbfounded that people don't see the primacy of the immigration/border issue.
If we fail to take control of our borders and our exploding population of immigrants, legal and illegal, and the transforming of our country, all the rest is moot. Smaller government is impossible when we are being overrun by invaders who are overwhelmingly net users of expensive social programs; there is no way, with open borders and mass immigration that we can ever reduce the size of government and reduce spending. Social programs in particular can only grow and grow, with immigrants being infinitely more costly than our home-grown poor folks. And as far as the terror threat, closing our borders and curtailing all immigration would only reduce our vulnerability to terror attacks. Remember, open borders and amnesty would increase not just Mexican and Latino populations and influence, but also the Moslem 'community' and the implicit dangers thereof. As far as the rest of the conservative agenda, the presence of millions more immigrants will only ensure that the country will move hopelessly leftward, and the conservative influence in our government would dwindle away to nothing; we will be swamped by left-leaning demographics. There will be little hope of preserving our Constitutional rights and our traditional American values in a country which will be made up of a disparate collection of people from diverse countries, the vast majority of whom do not share any, not one, of those traditional American values we claim to cherish.
Our country will be more crime-prone, less safe and secure, and our government will be even more Politically Correct or culturally Marxist than it already is, should we fail to get control of our borders and our promiscuous immigration policy.
Immigration is THE issue; the rest is all secondary, folks. If we fail to take back control of what was once our country, and to elect people who truly represent us, then we will be forever marginalized, and our country handed over to strangers and their collaborators in 'our' government.
Conservatives are supposedly people who are profoundly realistic, but I am seeing a distressing amount of denial and wishful thinking when it comes to picking our next President.
So despite the talk and the complaining about immigration, too many of us are willing to settle for a candidate who represents more of the same, who will at best, do nothing to reverse the dire situation we are in, or who will, at worst, be in favor of an amnesty and the destruction of America as we have known it. We have Rudy 'Sanctuary' Giuliani, with his melting-pot, immigrant sympathies, and we have Romney, who changes with the wind, depending on his audience, and we have John 'Amnesty' McCain; these are our frontrunners. And moving up fast, we have Fred Thompson, who has a lackluster record on immigration, a 'C' grade on his Senate record in the past, and some carefully phrased tough talk on borders. The prospects are not promising.
What will it take to remove the blinders from voters' eyes? I fear we will have just more of the same failed policies, thanks to the timidity and lukewarmness of the American electorate, and the fate of our country will be sealed.

Labels: Conservatism, Illegal Immigration, Open Borders, Political Parties

Fellow blogger Flanders Fields warns us:
Don't Trust Fred Thompson
...I will not consider one who pretends to be a conservative but who gets into office to carry water for the leftist corporatists who run our political world in the USA, other countries of the Western world, and much of the entire world.''And here we read about Fred Thompson's Pan-Islamist Campaign Manager, Spencer Abraham, described as an Islamist sympathizer and open borders advocate.
Although we read Thompson's comments on the appalling Hazleton decision, and we see that he is essentially saying the 'right' thing, (though he carefully refers to illegal immigration only), talk is cheap, and actions speak louder than words. So despite his saying what a prudent candidate would say about the court decision on Hazleton, his choice of Abraham speaks louder than his comments about illegal immigration. And by the way, if he has gotten religion on illegal immigration, he has only recently done so, since he has never shown any restrictionist leanings in his past.
This report from CNN.com tells about the woman protester in Houston who was removed from a welcoming reception for Thompson.
A woman screaming "you�re not a real conservative, sir" was removed by police from a welcoming reception for likely GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson Wednesday morning. A second protester was also taken from the room.
Houston police officers escorted the woman � as well as a man � from the hangar at Hobby Airport, where Thompson was shaking hands with a crowd of supporters. They were not arrested.
The woman questioned Thompson as he talked to reporters. She asked him why he was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and noted that the organization supported the North American Union with Canada and Mexico."
Unfortunately the Fredheads will dismiss this woman, whose statements were substantially correct -- Thompson is not a conservative and is a member of the CFR -- as a 'liberal' or a 'crazy.'
These comments illustrates that mindset:
Fred Thompson is a conservative and he scares his opponents - Democrat and Republican alike. I am excited about him entering the race and look forward to sending him more money.'
There are quite a few comments from readers below the story, and it does appear as though there are plenty of people who are not taken in by Thompson's masquerading as a conservative, which is a hopeful sign despite all the enthusiasm from the GOP faithful and the Fredheads.
Richard Viguerie issues his own warning: Conservatives, Beware of Fred Thompson
The frustration of conservatives is understandable. Faced with the prospects of Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney as the next Republican presidential candidate, many are pinning their hopes on former Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee.
Could this actor-politician be the new Ronald Reagan?
Mainstream media types assure us that he is. His record suggests otherwise.
This is the second time conservatives have pinned their hopes on Thompson. When he was first elected in the Republican sweep of 1994, he was seen then as the "new Reagan"�a charismatic movie star turned politician. Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole quickly picked Thompson to give the five-minute GOP rebuttal to President Clinton�s economic address, and no less than The New York Times swooned with its headline the next morning, "A Star Is Born."
He turned out to be a shooting star�a dazzling flash in the sky, soon gone, not there dependably, night after night, like the Big Dipper. Or, as The Tennessean later put it, "A year ago [Thompson] looked like a rising star. Today he looks more like a fading comet."
Especially to conservatives who have taken the time to examine his record.''
Among the reasons Viguerie mentions for distrusting Thompson: his handling of the Asiagate scandal, the Clinton White House's Asian fundraising irregularities, the McCain-Feingold Act, his ''failure of the Goldwater Test'' - which means his failure to show opposition to big government, his "failure of the 'Reagan Test" the question of whether he surrounds himself with conservatives.
And then there is his overall record: 8 years in the Senate, during which he voted:
FOR restricting the rights of grassroots organizations to communicate with the public.
FOR allowing the IRS to require political and policy organizations to disclose their membership�a vote against the constitutional rights of free association and privacy. (The Clinton Administration used such IRS intimidation against conservative groups that opposed them.)
AGAINST impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, specifically the reappointment and reauthorization of managers (drawn from the Republican membership of the House Judiciary Committee) to conduct the impeachment trial in the Senate.
[...]
AGAINST restraints on federal spending, specifically the Phil Gramm (R-TX) amendment to limit non-defense discretionary spending to the fiscal 1997 levels requested by President Clinton.
FOR affirmative action in federal contracts.
FOR the Legal Services Corporation, the perennial liberal boondoggle that provides political activism disguised as "legal services" to Democratic constituencies.
FOR an increase in the minimum wage, which, of course, increases unemployment among the young and poor.
FOR President Clinton�s nomination of Dr. David Satcher as U.S. Surgeon General. Among other things, Satcher opposed a full ban on partial-birth abortion.
[...]
FOR restricting the First Amendment (free speech) rights of independent groups.
FOR the trial lawyers lobby, and specifically against a bill that would put common-sense limitations on the medical malpractice suits that increase health costs for all of us. (Of course! He�s been a trial lawyer himself for some three decades.)
And, last but not least:
FOR limitations on campaign freedom of speech, by limiting contributions to national political parties to $2,000 and limiting the rights of individuals and groups to participate in the political process in the two months before elections.''
But of course all these facts will mean nothing to the Fredheads, who will respond along the lines of this commenter on the CNN blog thread linked above:
Add enough of this po� mouthin�, Republican candidates and you all will get Mama Hilary for President. If you think she�s a choice is truely crazy. Explore what she and her hand picked leftest coilition did for Arkansas Public Schools. Heck! She almost did the same thing with the nation�s health care, You think HMOs are Heck??? Well, just keep on going after the rep. candidates and you�ll really get yours after the elections.''
When much of 'conservatism' these days consists of knee-jerk anti-Democrat reactions, and personality cultism (Fred was a TV actor on a popular show! Another Ronald Reagan!) Thompson is the kind of candidate we can expect, unfortunately.

Labels: Conservatism, Gop, Party Politics, Political Parties, Presidential Candidates

Chuck Baldwin asked this question last week:
Is 2008 The Year Conservatives Abandon The GOP?
[And just off the top of my head, I would say that the answer is an unequivocal YES. given the disappointing batch of faux 'conservatives' who are being presented to us as presidential material.
The bad news is: there may be far fewer conservatives in America than many of us think.]
Here is an excerpt from Baldwin's article:
It is no hyperbole to say that conservatives throughout America are extremely disappointed and disillusioned with the national Republican Party. This discouragement is only deepened as they peruse the field of prominent candidates being trotted out as "frontrunners."
It appears that conservatives will be asked to choose between the chameleon Mitt Romney, the pro-amnesty-for-illegal-aliens John McCain, and philanderers Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani. A few conservatives seem slightly excited that former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson is mulling entrance into the presidential race. However, a closer inspection of his voting record finds him to be just another globalist neocon, who would do little to change things in Washington, D.C. For example, Americans for Better Immigration gives him a puny career grade of "C."
Now, given this last paragraph by Chuck Baldwin, check out the Presidential poll at Right on the Right.
I notice the enthusiastic, almost euphoric response to Fred Thompson's candidacy; who knew that Thompson had so many zealous admirers, or that he is the knight on a white horse who will save conservatism? Maybe the voters and commenters at Right on the Right know something that I don't know, because my assessment of Thompson, based on what I could find about his voting record when he last held office, was rather lackluster. I agree with Baldwin that he would represent more of the same failed neocon policies, and I note that his report card on immigration accorded him only a 'C.' That C is not for conservative, in my book.
Baldwin further spells out the dilemma faced by the grassroots conservatives in the GOP:
The Republican Party's unwillingness to advance a genuine conservative has left millions of grassroots Republicans on the verge of leaving the GOP. For example, a poll at the recent CPAC meeting found the "overwhelming majority of conservatives displeased with the leadership of the Republican Party, and most conservatives scowl at the thought of having to vote for Rudoph Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney." '
I have had my ear to the ground, as far as the presidential race is concerned, and I am baffled by the fact that a solid majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to amnesty and 'comprehensive immigration reform' or a 'guest worker program' or a 'path to citizenship.' Most Americans at this point are savvy enough not to fall for the double-talk and the euphemisms, and most of us know the politicians are trying to pull the wool over our eyes with these various verbal sleights-of-hand. Yet at the same time, I am hearing a distressing number of Republicans all ready to vote for Rudy, or Mitt, or Fred Thompson, apparently. And then there are always a few who actually think Newt Gingrich is Mr. Conservative, oblivious to the fact that he speaks with a forked tongue on the amnesty/borders issue. He parses his words carefully, trying to sound pro-enforcement, but at the same time, preaches the usual PC platitudes, carefully treading the line, not too far to the right.
So where is the disconnect? Why are people who seem to have certain conservative principles and inclinations so eager to compromise the principles and vote for another open borders guy like Giuliani or a waffler like Romney? Or settle for a guy like Thompson with a lukewarm grade on immigration?
The usual weak excuse given is that 'we can't be purists', and we can't get everything we want in a candidate. There is no perfect candidate. Fair enough, at least it is true up to a point. But some things ought not to be negotiable; some things are so important that we don't compromise on those vital issues, while we might do so on the inconsequential matters.
But how can any real conservative be willing to compromise on the protection of our borders, and on the right to our national sovereignty, and the sovereignty of the will of the majority in this country? By accepting the selling-out of our country and our culture for the sake of cheap labor or globalist designs, we are being asked to accept the loss of America as we have known it.
It needs to be said again: no conservative would favor sweeping changes to our country, irrevocable changes, which would result from amnesty and continued mass immigration. No conservative would be in favor of any policy which goes against the sovereign will of the American majority. This is just not consistent with conservatism, in any way, shape, or form. So anybody who supports amnesty, mass immigration in our present circumstances, and globalism, is not a conservative, no matter what he calls himself.
Giuliani enjoys a lot of support based on his supposedly masterful job of handling the post-9/11 crisis in New York City. But in the wake of 9/11, the man still supported the 'sanctuary city' policy for NYC, in which illegal immigrants are exempted from any consequences of their illegal presence in our country. How can anyone think this is consistent with Giuliani's reputation for 'toughness' and for being a law-and-order kind of guy? It does not square with that image. And advocating such laxity presents a real danger to the safety and security of the city and the country.
So how do GOP voters reconcile these incongruities? They don't. Many simply give the benefit of the doubt to someone they like, to someone who talks a good game or who presents a tough image. President Bush has enjoyed the same benefit of the doubt, as he adopts a tough policy in regard to the War in Iraq but leaves our doors and windows wide open here at home, welcoming not only Latino illegals by the tens of millions, but also more Moslem immigrants and visitors than ever before.
I am seeing less and less difference between the average Republican voter and the average Democrat. I see more people choosing candidates based on personality or image rather than on the principles the candidate supports, or on the actual record of the candidate. I had always assumed that Democrats make emotional choices, not grounded in logic and common sense, but I see plenty of this among Republicans, too.
The only comfort I can take is that it's early days yet; the campaigns begin much too soon, these days, and a lot could and likely will change before the conventions and the elections next year. Things may shake out very differently than we expect; I certainly hope so. If things continue mostly unchanged, I think Baldwin may well be right; the conservatives who are still GOP voters may jump ship. I certainly will, unless a real conservative candidate is nominated.
As I said, though, the number of real conservatives in the GOP might be smaller than I had imagined, at least based on the presidential preferences.
Conservatism needs a real renaissance in order to once again be a force in America; in order for that to happen, I think a lot of people must first recognize that the GOP is not the natural home of conservatism now, if indeed it ever was. I think this upcoming campaign will finally disillusion the real conservatives, and sift the GOP.

Labels: Conservatism, Gop, Political Parties, Presidential Candidates

I notice that over at Free Republic, Bobby Jindal is being talked up as the 'new Gipper.'
When Michael Steele was announced as the new chairman of the RNC, the FReepers thought he was a great choice, and just what was needed to counter the Democrats' Dear Leader. I notice Steele's recent remarks about a new 'hip-hop' Republican Party were met with rather muted responses over there, but few were willing to say that they were wrong to swoon over Steele a few weeks ago.
The enthusiasm for the essentially unknown and unproven Piyush Jindal is a product of the same mindset: the self-abasing idea embraced by many Republicans that the party is 'behind the times' and deficient without a nonwhite leader to legitimize it. To me, the fact that so many Republicans have adopted this notion is just proof of how deeply they've internalized all the politically correct orthodoxies on race which the Democrats champion. And yet they imagine that they are the opposition to the Democrats, while in fact they are just the little shadow of the Democrats, politically correct to the core.
Unless some other party or group arises which represents the interests of the White majority in this country, it looks as though we are imposing a kind of dhimmitude on ourselves, even before we've become a numerical minority in this country.

Labels: Ethnic Division, Gop, Identity Politics, Political Correctness, Political Parties

A recent discussion on this blog addressed the question of potential scenarios for a breakup of the United States. What about the possibility of a political solution to our pressing problems? Is it plausible? Can it be done by political means, presumably by means of working within the existing system?
I've made it pretty clear that I no longer think it can be done, simply because the two existing parties have both been subverted and destroyed from within. Not too many years ago I wouldn't have imagined that I would become one of those cynics who says 'the system is rigged' or 'no matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in.' But I have lost faith in our system. I have no confidence that the electronic voting system is honest, or that various forms of voter fraud (which are known to occur) haven't decided the outcome of our elections. And even if the casting and counting of ballots were scrupulously honest and above board, it seems that the candidates at a national level are handpicked by people behind the scenes. The candidates are pre-chosen in ways that give us little say or little choice. In this last travesty of an election, we had two candidates who were in favor of amnesty, for example, and who differed little on crucial matters that beset our country, such as race relations.
The primary system, too, was seemingly rigged in a way that skewed the results.
Never have I had so little trust in 'the system.'
I spent a lot of time and bandwidth arguing for a third party which would represent some alternative to the status quo, a party which would represent traditional America, or at least a party which is not one more variation on the same old PC themes. The Constitution Party seemed an acceptable alternative, as did Ron Paul's candidacy, though Paul and his followers insisted on race-denial.
However it seems that both those alternatives made a dismal showing, in part because some voters on the right felt that the possible scenarios would not allow for ''throwing one's vote away'' on a third party, and so they felt compelled to vote for McCain or in some bizarre cases, for Obama on the 'worse is better' theory. How's that working out, by the way?
So, given that for the moment we seem to be stuck with the existing two major parties, both of which have seriously failed us, what chance do we have for staying with the status quo and turning this ship around before we hit the lethal iceberg, in 2042 or before?
Read the discussion at Sailer's blog on the question 'What can the GOP do to revive itself?' However, if you don't want to be completely demoralized and discouraged, best not read it. The impression I get from many of the comments is that most people think 'winning' by compromising in various ways (stop 'gay-bashing', get rid of those annoying Christians, ''reach out'' to some minority or other, go libertarian, etc.) is the only thing.
Sailer's commentariat is, I would guess, slightly to the right of most Americans and even they are far to my left.
Even if the GOP somehow was revivified and regenerated into a recognizably conservative, American party, the part of the White majority, do we even have time to use electoral means to avert the crises which loom ahead? Will it be possible to do so after four years (at least) of the reckless 'remaking America?' Could a 'remade' America even be put back together again, or would it, like Humpty Dumpty, be irreparably broken?
Would even an ideal political party be enough to offset the changing demographics of America, and the intractable problems of dozens of competing nationalities, races, and religions under one 'American' tent, however big?

Labels: Conservatism, Democracy, Demographics, Gop, Political Parties, Politics, Social Change

I had plans for a different blog entry today, but as I was surfing the blogosphere, I came across a 'conservative' blog, which is one I only recently found via a link, which had a lengthy post in response to the Colin Powell endorsement. The post was one very long and detailed timeline of every pro-black measure promoted by the Republican Party and every pro-black act by Republican presidents and congressmen.
The point being made, evidently, was that Powell and other blacks should be properly grateful and loyal to the GOP because it has steadfastly advanced their interests, ever since the War Between the States.
The comments echoed this kind of sentiment: ''don't the African-Americans know that the Democrats only hold them back? Why don't they realize that they need to vote Republican? It's the Democrats who are the real racists. We just have to make blacks realize that!" --- and so on.
Not one of the posters, apparently White Republicans, looked at the long list of Republican 'achievements' in the area of 'racial equality' and said, hey, it looks as though our interests are being disregarded in favor of courting blacks, and to no avail. What good has it done? What party represents me and my people and our interests? Not one said that or anything like that. It was all about crowing over how colorblind Republicans are and how racist the Democrats are, and why don't blacks join us in the GOP where they belong?
I collect ephemera, as I've mentioned before, and I've come across old documents and broadsides from the late 19th century and early 20th century when, almost comically, each party is claiming to be the friend of the black race, and pointing the finger at the other party to accuse them of neglecting blacks. On the other hand, there is a tract called The Short Catechism of Negro Equality, in which Republicans point to Democrats as being the chief architects of racial equality, while Democrats were apparently denying it. I suppose it all depended on which group's votes were being courted; each party tried to call the other 'bigoted' when it served them to do so, and later tried to claim the title of the most pro-black, pro-equality party.
Here is part of that undated 'Short Catechism"
Who made the Negro a citizen of the State of Maine? The Democratic Party.
Who enacted a similar law in Massachusetts? The Democratic Party.
Who permitted every colored person owning $250 in New York a voter? A General Assembly, purely Democratic.
Who repealed the laws of Ohio which required Negroes to give bonds and security before settling in that state? The Democratic Party.
Who made mulattoes legal voters in Ohio? A Democratic Supreme Court, of which Reuben Wood was Chief Justice.
[...]
Who, with the above facts, and many others, staring them in the face, are continually whining about 'negro suffrage' and negro equality? The Democratic Party.
All these things were done by Democrats, and yet they deny being in favor of negro equality, and charge it upon the Republicans -- just like the thief who cries ''stop thief" the loudest."
There is also this tract published by the Union Republican Congressional Committee in Washington, D.C. called The Position of the Republican and Democrat Parties: A Dialogue Between a White Republican and a Colored Citizen.
You can see a glimpse of it above. Notice the picture of Lincoln, captioned 'The Martyr For Liberty.'
The pamphlet features a question-and-answer format, and from page 2:
Q. "Who freed the slaves in the South?
A. Abraham Lincoln, the Republican President, by proclamation.
[...]
Q. Who gave us the Civil Rights Bill?
A. The same Republican Congress.
Q. What party gave us the right to vote?
A. The Republican Party.
Q. What has the Democratic, Copperhead, or Conservative Party ever done for the colored people?
A. It has tried to keep them in slavery, and opposed giving them the benefit of the Freedmen's Bureau and Civil Rights bills, and the right to vote.
Q. Why cannot colored men support the Democratic Party?
A. Because that party would disenfranchise them, and if possible, return them to slavery -- and certainly keep them in an inferior position before the law.
Q. With whom do the disloyal white men of the South desire the colored men to vote?
A. With the Democratic Party.
Q. Would not the Democrats take away all negroes' rights?
A. They would.
Q. Then why do they pretend to be the best friends of colored men?
A. Because they contend they are fitted only for slavery, or an inferior position, and are happier in either condition.
Q. How would it suit them to be served in the same manner?
A. They would not endure it. They call themselves a superior race of beings, and claim they are born your rulers.
Q. Why do they not do unto others as they would be done by?
A. Because they are devoid of principle, and destitute of all sense of justice where the colored man is concerned.
[...]
Let me say to you further, that the Democratic Party will use all means to get the colored people to put it in power again, but you must remember what has been its past record, and see to it that you do not trust it in the future.
[...]You want to be so organized that you will act as one man, lest your enemy gain the victory.''
What I take from reading these things is that the two parties, Republican and Democrat have switched places, with the Republicans originally being the party which adopted the most punitive, harsh policies towards the South, specifically Southron whites, after the War Between the States. This is the reason why the older generations down South considered the Republican Party anathema. Reconstruction was a chaotic and violent time, and the radical Republicans were bent on revenge against Southron White men.
Today's Republicans, in the mainstream at least, like to boast about how pro-black the party was during the Civil Rights era, and they like to jeer at people like Democrat Senator Byrd for his past politically incorrect positions on racial 'equality'. But they would do well to remember that the Republicans have taken both positions as it suited them. Both parties seem to be made up of mostly craven opportunists who would go wherever they sensed there was a bonanza of votes to be had. Principles and loyalties be damned.
And the present day is no different. Both parties jockey to be seen as the most politically correct and 'inclusive', and just as the men who wrote the tracts quoted above, they are more than willing to sell their own people and kin for thirty pieces of silver, or for access to more power. Notice the writer of the second tract (who is not identified) speaking to blacks and referring to White Democrats as ''your enemy". Nothing like trying to turn blacks against your own people for political gain.
And it's still going on now. Right now, the [White] Democrats are outdoing themselves to try to throw their own kin overboard in favor of minorities, and guess what, the Republicans are doing it too. But while I think the earlier generations were less blameworthy because their pandering was cynical (in many cases), using blacks to undermine their enemies politically, today's liberals truly don't see what they are doing to their own people or perhaps are not even able to care. They have truly become taken in by their own propaganda, and they have become blind to their own interests and deaf to their own people. They truly know no other tune but the politically correct one.
How else can you explain today's alleged 'conservatives' who are all exercised because they can't gain the approval of black voters? How can you explain the fact that they truly believe that blacks and Whites surely, surely have the same interests and needs, if they but knew it?
When are these 'conservatives' going to awaken to the obvious fact that the minorities have two parties and we have none? Where is the party that stands for us and our interests, or must we submit to being exiled forever from political power in favor of the aggrieved 'victims' and their White advocates?
And when will these same White advocates for the poor victims, like the Clintons, ever see that they are being used and thrown away by the people they championed all these decades? And the Republicans, too, are being used and manipulated, while mewling that they want credit for all their altruism and good deeds?
It's a cynical saying, but probably true in this fallen world: no good deed goes unpunished, and both parties are being punished for all their racial self-sacrifice. Unfortunately the American people, who either opposed the do-gooders or were oblivious, are also being punished along with our sorry politicians.

Labels: American History, Ethnic Division, Ethnic Solidarity, Political Correctness, Political Parties

David Thompson gives us his take, as always interesting, on the recent controversies over 'hate speech,' for example in the Islamic Awareness Week at Tufts University.
Fear and Hate
It should, I think, be unnecessary to point out that claims of being offended don�t, in themselves, entitle one to anything in particular, and certainly not rights of unilateral censorship. But we live in strange times and some repetition may be in order. As I wrote back in May 2005:
In this fashionable rush to condemn those who cause offence, we are in danger of overlooking something important. All grievances are not of equal merit. Nor are they deserving of equal sensitivity or accommodation. Whether or not a person is offended may not depend on what is actually said or written, which may be perfectly coherent, measured in tone and serious in intent. The perceived offence may depend on the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the supposedly aggrieved party... Very civil and inarguable comments can, for instance, cause "offence" to someone who is determined to be offended for political gain and determined to exploit the pretence of being hurt. Indeed, the pantomime of being conspicuously aggrieved can be a form of passive-aggressivism - a way to express hostility or dominance while hiding being the role of victim. This tactic is widely employed by the morally incontinent and by bullies of all kinds.
In light of those comments, the following may be of interest. Mike Adams has developed a similar line of thinking and arrived at an interesting, and quite helpful, definition of "hate speech":
Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener�s inability to offer an intelligent response. Because this inability to offer an intelligent response is due to one of two reasons, there are really two different types of hate speech: (1) Speech that is too dumb to merit an intelligent response, and (2) Speech for which the listener is too dumb to offer an intelligent response.''
Good commentary from both Thompson and Mike Adams.
Thompson says, of Adams' ideas:
If, as Adams suggests, "hate speech" is defined by the listener�s inability to tolerate dissent or formulate an intelligent response, then advantage is given to those who least deserve it. Those who resort to threats and howls of impropriety gain leverage over people who are prepared to listen and rebut with argument and evidence. Thus, moral incontinence, idiocy and bullying prevail.''
All in all, it's an interesting piece. The entire thing should be read, and please do read the discussion thread, which, sadly, illustrates yet another example of neocon/right-liberal political correctness, in which the bogeymen assume the usual guise of 'racists and bigots.' The Klan are invoked, and poor old James Watson is again given a drubbing for his comments. I notice however that as usual nobody has a cogent argument with which to refute anything Watson has said, but I guess you don't need one if you have noble motives such as defending the downtrodden victims.
Is there any hope of disabusing the 'conservative' apostles of political correctness? They seem quite convinced that they are the epitome of 'conservative' righteousness. They seem to have no inkling that they are following along two steps behind their left counterparts, as regards their adherence to PC.
Somebody coined the term 'the righteous Right' to describe conservative Christians, but I am inclined to use that term for the PC adherents on the 'right' who get the vapors when somebody says something politically incorrect. Get the smelling salts. Maybe they are the 'self-righteous right.' Or maybe some of the commenters are actually liberals of the garden variety. It's getting so hard to tell these days.

Labels: Conservatives, First Amendment, Free Speech, Hate Speech, Political Parties

Linda Chavez's opinion piece on immigration is hardly a surprise. Despite her claims to being a conservative, she has consistently been on the side of illegal immigrants, and in fact at one point, was denied a cabinet post in the first Bush adminstration because of the fact that she had harbored an illegal immigrant in her home as a domestic.
Linda's piece is full of name-calling and race-baiting, all of which confirms my impression that she is no conservative, but a neocon right-liberal. The neocons are as fond of using the race card as any of the liberals are. And although Linda Chavez accuses 'nativists' of not having any logic or facts on their side, she presents none herself. She simply states that the xenophobes believe all sorts of negative stereotypes of Mexicans, and it's obvious she takes offense at this fact, although she herself, being an American, should have no reason to take offense. There's the rub: obviously she identifies with the Mexican illegals more than with Anglos or other Americans. She has shown us clearly where her allegiances are, and they are not with conservatism, and most certainly not with traditional America. Blood trumps culture, as I have said before. Linda is born and bred an American. She is culturally American. She probably speaks Spanish with an American accent. But she has as much as admitted that her heart is with her illegal distant cousins, not with her fellow Americans, not with me. and not likely with you, my readers.
So again, as with Ruben Navarrette, her ethnic kinsman who writes pro-illegal articles gloating about the "re"conquest of America by Mexicans, Linda has shown us where her allegiances are. She is siding against fellow Americans in favor of illegal Mexicans, just as Navarrette and Mel Martinez and Luis Gutierrez and so many others are doing.
I'm not even going to protest at her labeling people like me and other immigration restrictionists as racist or xenophobic. I have no interest in playing that game; liberals of both right and left love to race-bait, and they love to see the target wriggle and squirm and protest and sputter their innocence. I won't dignify the race-baiting by any rebuttal; one can't refute a charge of racism anyway, and the race-baiter is not interested in hearing any defense. They simply want to silence and discredit people. And they are in the wrong for trying to do so. Plain and simple. I won't get caught up in their game.
Am I a 'nativist'? Probably. Is that bad? Not in my book or my ancestors' book either; it's just the natural state of being. We are all born with an inclination to side with our own and to put our own people first. Linda proves that, but her people are the Mexican people, evidently. So Linda is just as nativist or ethnocentric, but merely in favor of Latinos.
Some people insist, in the absence of any real evidence, that people of Hispanic descent who were born in this country are opposed to illegal immigration. I'm a skeptic on that point; I say show me. Prove it. Anecdotes don't count, such as 'I have a friend (neighbor, co-worker, colleague) who is Hispanic and he/she doesn't like illegal immigration.'
Fine; show me your friend/neighbor/coworker who opposes illegal immigration and I'll show you quite a few more Hispanic legislators, congressmen and congresswomen, Senators, local officials, journalists and 'pundits' (like Ms. Chavez) who are avid proponents of amnesty, and who identify as Hispanic first, American being a distant second.
When push comes to shove, I think blood trumps all, and as Lionel Sosa says today in the Los Angeles Times, quoted here at the VDare blog, 'blood runs thicker than politics.' Sosa, apparently a Republican, has decided to work for self-proclaimed Latino Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson Lopez (Bill Richardson as was; but he wants to go all Hispanic on us all of a sudden. He's another exhibit in my case here.) So Lionel Sosa says right out that 'blood runs thicker than politics' and it looks as though it certainly is for Linda Chavez, as she sacrifices whatever tatters of conservative principles she may have had in favor of sticking up for her race, her people. Shouldn't her people be Americans? I have read that her Mexican ancestors came here many generations ago, and she is, after all, half Anglo-American. Sosa, at least, is all Hispanic as far as I have been able to determine.
What is it with people like Chavez, Richardson (Lopez), and Geraldo Rivera, who have only half Hispanic ancestry, but who suppress their allegiance to the non-Hispanic side in favor of the Hispanic ancestry? It is almost always that way with people of mixed parentage: the European ancestry is shunned while the non-European is emphatically embraced. I suppose that simply reflects how our society has devalued European heritage as inferior or 'boring' or dull, or guilty, while non-European ancestry is exciting and 'vibrant'. And then one has the heady experience as a 'minority' of being a self-righteous victim. There are a lot of benefits and power that go along with being a member of a 'victim' group these days. It must go to one's head; it must feel empowering and morally superior.
I would bet that, as the Latino presence becomes more dominant here, and as our collaborationist government sides with the Latinos consistently, those in our country of Hispanic descent will start to identify more strongly with their Latino roots. Many American-born Hispanics will probably take up Spanish more avidly and speak it more often with their Mexican-born friends and neighbors. They will likely become less Americanized, especially in border states and other areas with a large Mexican/Central American colony. The same process has happened in some European countries with their Moslem populations; the more assimilated ones began to become more radicalized and more Islamic in culture and religious practice with the growing presence of Moslem immigrants in European countries. Some of the third-generation descendants of immigrants began to be more Moslem than their parents. The same will likely happen in America. We will see a lot of triumphalism and gloating among the Latinos as they see our worthless politicians truckling to them and taking their side.
Just as lots of people in the West comfort themselves by believing strongly in the 'moderate Moslem majority', the same people, liberals and neocons, believe with little evidence that Hispanics are mostly opposed to illegal immigration, and moreover, that they are conservative, well-assimilated, and on our side. No doubt some are, but we will shortly find out how many, as Hispanics will start to choose whether they are on the side of Americans or on the side of their kin from South of the border. As the country becomes polarized, the 'Hispanic community' will choose one way or the other, and if human nature holds true, blood will be the stronger tie.
So we will see more Hispanics in public life openly siding with their own over the rest of us.
I would like to think I am wrong; I would be happy to be proven wrong by events, but I am calling it as I see it at this moment, based on what people like Linda Chavez, Geraldo Rivera, and Ruben Navarrette are telling us.

Labels: Amnesty, Conservatism, Illegal Immigration, Political Parties

Well, the first cloture vote is over, and from the perspective of what's best for Americans, it did not go well.
FAIR, The Federation for American Immigration Reform, in their statement, uses the term 'tragedy' in referring to the amnesty bill.
This proposal -- if enacted -- will totally and utterly destroy the integrity of US immigration system for a generation. It will alter irrevocably what it means for our children and grandchildren to live in America. It reflects a total disconnect between the immigration enthusiasts in Congress and its impact on the average American community.''
The one comfort we have is that there is another cloture vote coming up on Thursday, and 60 votes are needed to pass it. So if five Senators change their votes, that would make the difference. (The vote was 64-35 today). So it ain't over till it's over. Still, the discouraging news is that some who voted 'yes' today had previously voted no.
In another encouraging sign, House GOP rebukes Senate bill:
House Republicans yesterday unveiled a resolution expressing their disapproval of the Senate immigration bill. It was offered by Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), and simply read: "resolved the House GOP Conference disapproves of the Senate immigration bill."
The move puts the House Republican Conference at odds with President Bush, who has endorsed the Senate bill. Hoekstra said that while he preferred not to break with the president, the language and content of the Senate bill compelled him to vocalize his opposition.'
[...]
"There�s growing momentum on the House side to have our voices registered on the Senate immigration bill," Hoekstra said during a press conference yesterday.
Hoekstra said the amnesty provision, no matter how strict the language, was a deal-breaker for most House Republicans.
"That�s why the fundamental bill has no credibility, and basically what we are saying today is it is dead on arrival in the House, we can�t have secret deals, this has to go through committee, it has to go in pieces," echoed Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.). "A comprehensive bill will not pass the House."
Over at NRO's The Corner, Stanley Kurtz speaks of the Bad Vibe:
Something about this immigration battle doesn�t sit well. For all the bitterness of our political battles, there�s at least the sense that the government responds to the drift of public opinion. The Republicans in Congress turned into big spenders and the war in Iraq went poorly. As a result the Democrats prospered in 2006, if narrowly. That�s how democracy works. Our politics are often angry and ugly (and that�s a problem), but this is because the public is deeply divided on issues of great importance. Deep down, we understand that our political problems reflect our own divisions.
Somehow this immigration battle feels different. The bill is wildly unpopular, yet it�s close to passing. The contrast with the high-school textbook version of democracy is not only glaring and maddening, it�s downright embarrassing. Usually, even when we�re at each others� throats, there�s still an underlying pride in the democratic process. This immigration battle strips us of even that pride.
[...]
Supporters of this bill sell it as a compromise that will heal America�s divisions. I fear it�s quite the reverse. This bill is infuriating the public and undermining faith in government itself. You can see it in the polling on confidence in Congress and the President. If this bill passes, it�s going to aggravate and embitter politics for years to come. Passing a measure over such overwhelming opposition is like slapping the public in the face.''
I second what Kurtz says. The bill may pass the Senate, and then die in the House, at least if the House is truly more responsive to the will of the majority than the elitists and sellouts in the Senate. But regardless of what the ultimate outcome of this particular bill is, I am troubled by what it is telling us about our system and about the prospects for our Republic.
Thomas Jefferson, in his first Inaugural address in 1801, said
Absolute acquiescence in the decision of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism, I deem [one of] the principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."
At Conservative Heritage Times, Michael Hill says
...But our classroom civics books did not tell us that majority rule only works where there is already a consensus of sorts on the fundamental issues within a particular society. For instance, in a Christian nation that enjoys a high degree of homogeneity in its racial and ethnic make-up, language, institutions, and inherited culture, most matters up for a vote are largely superficial policy issues. They don�t tamper with the agreed-upon foundations of the society. However, in a multicultural and multiracial polyglot Empire such as ours is today, the concept of majority rule is often fraught with dire (and even deadly) consequences for the losers, especially if the winners bear a grudge.
As I write, the U. S. Senate has just voted 64-35 (with 60 votes needed) to move ahead with Senate Bill 1639, the infamous Amnesty Bill. If the bill becomes law, which many of its supports now think is inevitable, it will grant legal status to between 12-20 million illegal aliens already in the country. This will literally open the floodgates to tens of millions more Third World immigrants over the next few decades. It will mean the end of society as we know it.
Who stands to lose by this devil�s bargain? The descendants of America�s founding stock will be the losers. Our ancestors bequeathed us a republican society based on Christian moral principles, the English language, racial (and some degree of ethnic) homogeneity, and British legal and political institutions. All this will be gone with the wind when we throw open the golden door to unlimited immigration.
Only the South, as reflected in the votes of most of its Senators, opposed this radical transformation. Some 80% of Southerners oppose amnesty. It is not surprising, then, that of the 35 "no" votes, 17 came from the South. That�s almost half of the total opposition to S. 1639. Only 11 Southern Senators (including Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Trent "NAACP" Lott of Mississippi) voted for the Amnesty Bill.
Perhaps Americans in other regions outside the South are quite happy with the idea of giving the country away to Third World illegals. But if the rest of the country is determined to go straight to hell, is the South obliged to go along for the ride just so "democracy" can be upheld?
[...]
If, in the cause of furthering America�s democratic institutions, you place your future in the hands of those who have already betrayed you, then you and your children will ultimately be dispossessed of life, liberty, and property in the name of democracy (and other dubious ideologies). You will have meekly acquiesced to the whim of a temporary majority because you did not have the nerve to walk away from the holy ground upon which you were commanded to kneel and worship the idol.''
Hill's conclusion is that secession may ultimately be necessary for those who can't or won't go where our elites are forcibly taking us. Some will call me unrealistic or extreme, but I agree with him. Maybe the fact that my forefathers chose secession once before makes it more thinkable to me.
We can only hope that the amnesty does not become law, but I am sorry to say that even if it does not, even if it goes down in flames in the House if not the Senate, it is not needed in order to utterly transform this country. The status quo, with unprecedented numbers of legal immigrants and refugees placed here at the whim of the United Nations, plus uncontrolled borders, will be enough to drive a stake through the heart of traditional America. The status quo is all that is needed for Bush and the rest of the Open Borders fanatics to have their wish of an America which is a multicultural banana republic. So, if we can trust our few honest Senators and Congressmen to do what is right, and to carry out the will of the people, yet we fail to close our borders and curb our promiscuous immigration policies, the result will be the same as if we had passed the amnesty; it might simply happen a little more slowly.
And again, the immigration issue is an ominous one not only for the transformation it portends, but it shows us clearly that our political classes are no longer responsive to us.
The status quo is unacceptable. Any politician who represents the status quo, or who won't actively oppose the status quo is unacceptable. The present crop of presidential candidates, with a few exceptions, notably Hunter, Paul, and Tancredo, represent the failed status quo, and are unacceptable.
I will go further: anybody who claims to care about the future of America, especially anyone who claims to oppose open borders and multiculturalism, yet who supports any of the mainstream candidates, is not being honest with us or perhaps with himself.
No doubt there is a streak in human beings that wishes not to rock the boat, to keep things as they are. Many people naturally distrust change, and that, in the right circumstances, is a good, honest, conservative trait, which serves society well. But in a situation like the present one, in which our elected officials are actively working against us, and essentially striking at the very foundations of our Republic, there is not much left of our country to preserve, so change is imperative. There are times when a change of course is absolutely required, as when we are in a vehicle with no brakes heading for a cliff. Sometimes we have to put the thing in reverse.
We have to face the unpleasant fact that these are the times our Founding Fathers alluded to, as in this passage from Thomas Jefferson:
Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers (adminstrators) too plainly proves a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery."
There is a systematic plan evident, and a series of oppresssions. Folks, this time it's not just a matter of electing the other party. Both parties are complicit in this; neither party is properly responsive to the will of the people. There are a few individual exceptions but for the most part, both parties are culpable and a real housecleaning is in order.

Labels: Amnesty, Immigration Reform, Political Parties, Presidential Candidates, S1639, Senate

I don't know how many of you have seen this. It looks promising, but the website is very short on details. It looks to be very much under construction.
The look of the site, the logo, and the name itself indicate that it is patterned after the BNP, but evidently there is no direct connection.
Nor does the site provide information on who precisely is behind this party, where the funding comes from, and so on.
I would love to see a political party which would be a nationalist party, advocating for our interests, that is, the interests of native-born, White Americans. I realize that to be explicit in these things leaves a group vulnerable to the usual accusations from the usual PC minions, but our interests are at least as legitimate and honorable as those of any other racial/ethnic group in this country, in fact, even more so because this is our country by inheritance, and was intended by our fathers to be our country. Now we are taught to believe that we have no legitimacy when it comes to organizing ourselves politically or in any other way.
Every now and then on blogs or forums like this one, somebody demands to know what we are 'doing', and why we aren't organizing politically or forming an activist group or party. While I understand the desire for concrete action in the 'real world', I think those things have to happen in their time, and I don't think the cart can be put before the horse. There is a popular tendency to denigrate blogs and other such efforts as being the province of 'cowards' or ineffectual keyboard warriors, but words and ideas are powerful in their own way. In one sense, I think that we are not yet at the point, really, of organizing politically. It may be that the Republican Party must be more thoroughly and completely discredited before alternatives (including an American national party) can really gain momentum, and despite all the failures and missteps of the GOP, some still resolutely cling to that party as some kind of hope for the future. Things may have to change considerably before a new party has a chance.
If, however, some are champing at the bit for a political party or other such activism, I say go to it; be the leader you are looking for. It's easy to chide others for not being 'leaders', but are you yourself trying to organize or lead, while criticizing others for not doing so? If not, why not?
In the meantime, I think it's misguided to disparage the role of blogs, forums, and other such efforts. To everything there is a season.
Do any of you have any information on the ANP? If so, please share it with the rest of us here.
I would like to think that there is a party which represents us, but more information is needed before I throw my support behind it.

Labels: Ethnoconservatism, Ethnonationalism, Nationalism, Nativism, Political Parties, Politics, Third Party

I could find surprisingly little about the rally on the blogs I read. Free Republic, predictably, was a cheering section for Beck, 'colorblind conservatism' (did you know MLK was really a Republican, and his 'dream' speech was Republican? I learn something new every day at FR) and all thing PC.
However, Countenance Blog has a piece about the rally.
* Does Glenn Beck not realize that real freedom and Martin Luther King�s vision on that very soil of 47 years ago are diametric opposites? We lost a whole lot of freedom pursuing MLK�s Dream. Ironically, one of the major bloggers associated with this event today advised people to go nowhere near D.C. neighborhoods and public transit stops that are associated with the people who we just had to extend civil rights to in the last generation. Oh yeah, pander to blacks, but just don�t travel anywhere near them.
* Beck implied that MLK/CRM were entirely on the side of the angels, while the opponents were nothing more than moronic knuckle-dragging bigots. I regret to inform you, Mr. Beck, but there was a lot of resistance to the CRM in the 1950s and 60s on the intellectual and cerebral level. As loath as this publication would be to admit it today, half the anti-CRA intellectuals of those years worked for National Review. At least two states in the South declared a certain day on the calendar to be "Race and Reason Day," titled after Carleton Putnam�s book.''
Also, please see Old Atlantic's piece, if you haven't yet read it.
Everytime Diversity is honored at White events its a moment of shame for Whites. This is its meaning even to those who organize it and experience it. The Diversity is not honored for anything other than as a symbol of White Guilt and White Shame. The Diversity Token is not there for themselves, they are therefore to symbolize White Guilt, White Shame and White dispossession.
The Diversity Tokens symbolize that Whites give up their right to be a nation and a people. Diversity Tokens symbolize that Whites give up their own Whiteness as having meaning and identity. Diversity Tokens are a funeral decoration not a life affirming celebration.'' If I understand OA's words correctly, I agree that the presence of 'diversity, especially when it is put front and center, as at these events, seems to symbolize guilt and 'repentance'; yes, we know we are congenitally guilty because of things our forefathers did or did not do, and we renounce our former evil ways. So please, please, don't call us the r-word. As long as we feel the need to act out this apparent 'cleansing' ritual or symbolic confession of guilt, then the idea of 'colorblindness' is nothing but a bitter joke.
Old Atlantic's piece quotes many comments posted on MSM sites. The comments are as vitriolic and ugly as we've grown to expect from leftists. It is still somewhat wryly funny that the name-calling from the usual suspects is not the least bit mitigated by Beck and company pandering themselves silly, and bowing at the diversity altar. When will people learn it does not pay?

Labels: Pandering, Pc Conservatives, Political Parties, Respectable Right, White Guilt

...let it begin here.'
The words, which you see on the Minuteman monument, are those of Captain John Parker at Lexington, before the battle there.
For some reason, those words came to mind today as I was reading some of the day's news regarding the amnesty bill.
It seems that some of our Senators have declared war on us, as witness these words of Pennsylvania's Sen. Arlen Specter.
We are in trench warfare and it's going to be rough,'' said Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter, a chief sponsor of the legislation. ``But we are going to see the will of the Senate work one way or another.''
The quote is here, in this article.
I mean, how much more clear can it be, from Specter's words?
The first part of the statement, where Specter says they are in 'trench warfare' is bad enough; who are the enemies they are fighting? Us, seemingly. Who else? But please read the second part of the quote, wherein Specter says 'we are going to see the will of the Senate work one way or another.'
What's wrong with this picture? They, our Senators and Congressmen are supposed to represent us and to serve us, in accordance with the Constitution. They are not there to work their own will, or the President's will, or Wall Street's will, or the World Council of Churches' will, or La Raza's will, or anybody's will but ours. We, the people, (remember us, Senator Specter?) are the repositories of any legitimate power you have, and you hold it only at our pleasure. We lend you any power that you have, we, the people, as the rightful possessors of it. To the extent that you represent something other than the majority will of your constituents, you have no legitimacy. You are a rogue politician, you and all of your treasonous colleagues in the Senate.
And if my readers aren't properly incensed over the arrogance and ignorance expressed by Specter and his ilk, I offer this brazen piece from (where else?) that other seat of arrogant elitism, the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Our moral betters at the WSJ are lecturing us that we had better get with the program in order to save the future of the Grand Old Party. And the future is Hispanic, whether we like it or not, according to the WSJ.
Immigration and the GOP
Immigration reform stayed alive in the Senate yesterday, albeit not without continuing rancor among Republicans. Restrictionists seem to believe the issue will harm the GOP if it succeeds, but we think the political reality is closer to the opposite: The greater danger for Republicans is if it fails.
We've written often about the merits of immigration reform, and we have our own problems with parts of the Senate bill. But it's worth spending some time on the larger politics of the issue, especially for Republicans. They're caught between a passionate minority of their party--who oppose any reform that allows illegals a path to citizenship--and the larger electorate, which is more moderate and wants to solve the problem. Like Democrats on national security, this is a classic case in which pandering to the base will harm the GOP overall.
That's true most immediately for Presidential hopefuls like Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, who continue to assail the bill as "amnesty." No doubt this gets applause in some Republican precincts. But in the near term, meaning through 2008, Republicans would be far better off helping President Bush and John McCain pass something that takes immigration off the table. If the issue remains central to the 2008 debate, it will divide the GOP and the media will play up the split. Given the passions that immigration evokes on the right in particular, the issue could easily drown out other domestic policy messages the candidates would prefer to run on.
The longer term danger is that the GOP is sending a message to Latinos that it doesn't want them in the party. And if that message sticks, Republicans could put themselves back in minority party status for a generation or more. Hispanics are the largest ethnic minority in the country, and their voting numbers continue to grow. Hispanics were estimated to be 8% of the electorate in 2006, compared with 6% in 2004 and 5.5% in 2000. Census data show that the number of Latino voters could rise to 10% or more by 2008. The demographic reality is that the GOP can't be a majority party with Anglo-Saxon votes alone.
[...]
By the way, the growth in the Hispanic population will continue regardless of what happens with immigration from now on. The number of Hispanics who already hold green cards guarantees that their share of the electorate will increase over time even if Congress could seal the Southern border tomorrow. The GOP should be competing for these voters rather than driving them away with a barely concealed message of "Mexicans, go home."
Notwithstanding the small but loud segment of the GOP base preoccupied with the issue, hostility to immigration has never been a political winner. Like trade protection, people protectionism always polls better in telephone surveys than on Election Day. For a Presidential candidate especially, it sends a negative message rather than one of optimistic leadership. If GOP candidates can't support Mr. Bush and Senator Jon Kyl on immigration, they should at least avoid the kind of demagoguery that will hurt their party for years to come.''
Just how out-of-touch are those guys at the WSJ? Do they suppose that we out here in the hinterlands really care most about a political party or somebody's profit margins, or do we care more about the Republic? I hope the answer is the latter, but we will shortly find out. We will find out, as our backs are to the wall, how many real friends this Republic has. But we can be sure our political classes and the media, especially the WSJ, are not among them.
First, the WSJ op-ed writers disingenuously state that restrictionists are merely a loud minority, much as Linda Chavez, Hispanic loyalist extraordinaire, says, and further, they say that the majority of American citizens are in favor of a 'path to citizenship'.
This is false, and any polls which indicate such preferences are deceptively and manipulatively crafted to show a desired result. The majority does not favor amnesty, no matter which smarmy euphemism the elites attach to it.
And secondly, ask me, WSJ, if I care whether the GOP becomes a 'minority party.' The sun neither rises nor sets on the Republican Party. If the party no longer represents the citizenry of this country, it deserves to die the death. If the party is willing to sell us out and to purposely transform this country with a new citizenry, they are no party of mine. This Republic will not stand or fall based on any political party.
For too long, many sincerely patriotic people have linked the fate of this country to the fate of the GOP, thinking that the GOP must be the savior of traditional America. However, it is only the sheer awfulness of the Democrat party that has given the Republicans an unearned reputation as the 'patriotic' party. It is only the extreme leftist tilt of the Democrat Party that has made the Republicans appear 'right-wing.' It's all an optical illusion.
What more evidence do we need, after reading the words of Senator Specter, and after seeing the machinations of Senators of both parties, that the GOP is not acting in our interests, that too many of the party, with a few individual exceptions, are interested only in their own self-aggrandizement and power, and that they no longer honor the principles on which our Republic was founded?
Enough is enough. Time to repudiate those who have repudiated us.
And as for the WSJ's arrogant assertion that
the growth in the Hispanic population will continue regardless of what happens with immigration from now on. The number of Hispanics who already hold green cards guarantees that their share of the electorate will increase over time even if Congress could seal the Southern border tomorrow. ''
I am afraid that they may be right. I am not sure where that leaves those of us who do not want to live in a Spanish-speaking banana republic, but I see little to inspire loyalty in the country the WSJ and the Senate elitists are preparing for us.
And it looks like they have declared war on us, by their own words and actions.

Labels: Amnesty, Borders, Gop, Media Bias, Open Borders, Political Parties, Republicans, S1639, Senate

Lately we've heard the term 'balkanization' tossed around a lot, and it seems our America is in the process of being Balkanized. Well, over at Matthew White's website (which has been up since the 90s) he has a series of interesting maps and historical speculations, under the heading 'Surreal Histories.'
Among the maps there are his map of a 'Balkanized North America.' He poses the question
'What would America have looked like if every separatist movement in U.S. and Canadian history had succeeded?'' See the map here to find out, according to his speculations.
It is interesting to contemplate how things would have turned out had these movements been successful.
Another interesting link on the page is 'Perotista Revolution!' -- asking 'What if the anti-government forces of the 1990s had risen...?''
First, I am not sure that the Perot supporters he seems to conflate with the ''extreme right'' are who he believes them to have been. I was actually a Perot supporter at that time, and I was still quite a leftist in many ways. I met with many Perot supporters and they were quite a cross-section of people, most of them quite ordinary Americans, not a bunch of survivalists or militia members as he seems to believe. There were a few of those, but there were more ticked-off 'average Americans' from both parties and some who had always been independents. I worked with several people who voted for Perot and the majority of them were Democrats who were disgusted with Clinton as the candidate.
So I am not convinced that the Perotistas, as he calls them, were necessarily radical revolutionaries.
However his speculations are interesting; by all means read them.
I found it interesting to see the percentage of Perot voters broken down by state. I had not been aware of the strength of Perot's support in places like Maine, but then despite my New England ancestry it's the part of the country I have the least experience of. But in Maine, Perot snagged 30 percent of the vote, and 28 percent in Alaska. I find it interesting that the South did not go for Perot in a big way; he got 22 percent of the vote in his own state of Texas but apparently didn't make much of a showing in the rest of the South.
All this is interesting to me mainly for the parallels I see between the mood of the electorate (as I read it) in this election cycle and the mood of the country in 1992 and 1996. I was active in political matters then (I'm embarrassed to admit, in the Democrat Party) and I know how people were feeling. There was a great deal of disaffection, and constant talk of the need for 'change.' Many people were not happy with the choice of George H.W. Bush on the GOP side and Bill Clinton on the Democrat side. The big theme of the debates in 1992 was 'change', and all the candidates, including Bill Clinton, promised change, and change away from 'business as usual' in D.C.
People were restless and fed up.
Somehow the major parties succeeded in persuading the gullible or the easily-led that they, the major parties, were going to set a new tone in D.C., and that the old D.C. insiders would no longer reign. It didn't happen; they lied.
Now, after years of failed policies, the two parties are more unresponsive to ordinary Americans, majority Americans, than ever. So we have the potential for another third-party candidacy, if the two major parties continue to be as oblivious as they are. And I don't see any reason to expect any change.
My perceptions, based on what I see and hear, may be incorrect but I sense even more disillusionment and disgust now than I did in the 90s. People are looking for leadership, and some people, for whatever reason, think they see the leader we need in Rudy or Mitt or Fred, but I think that few people are very enthusiastic about voting for any of them. I think people are grasping at straws, or are in denial, or they are scared stiff of not voting for the party they've always voted for. And the media tell them that only Rudy, Mitt, or Hillary or Obama are 'electable.' So they obediently pick one of the approved candidates, fearing that if the other 'evil' party is elected, the sky will surely fall.
I think one of the problems we have in trying to effect needed change is the attitude that what is, must be. The two parties have 'always' existed, and no third party candidate has ever been elected, so no such candidate can ever be elected. Obviously this is fallacious. There is, as the old saying tells us, the first time for everything. And the Republican Party was at one time a third party. Things change; change is the one certainty in this world, and it's wise to try to steer the change in the right direction when we see that we are as lost as we are in this country right now.
So Matthew White's alternate histories serve as an exercise, to cause us to attend to the possibility that things could easily have taken a different turn along the way, and that the aggregate actions of a relatively small number of individuals made the difference between two outcomes.

Labels: American History, Elections, History, Maps, Political Parties, Third Party