0 comment Sunday, November 30, 2014 | admin
Why I am not a Republican
Jerome Corsi writes about his disaffection from the Republican Party, and about his differences with the Jed Babbin, the new editor of Human Events. Babbin, it seems, chided Corsi for his series of articles outlining the North American Union plan. Babbin derided the idea of the NAU as 'black helicopter conspiracy themes.'
Corsi says:
These Human Events articles were widely popular, in some weeks last year constituting as many as two or three of the 10 most read articles published that week on the Human Events website.
Yet, today, Babbin has even removed my name from the list of columnists published on Human Events and I�ve transitioned to becoming a full-time staff reporter at WND.''
So now Corsi is no longer with Human Events, because he wouldn't toe the line and soft-pedal the NAU story? The apologists for the supposedly non-existent -- or benign -- NAU seem to be very determined to stop discussion on the subject, or, failing that, to whitewash the project. Those who write about it or who take a negative view towards the NAU are likely to be assailed by name-callers on the big GOP webforums. I've blogged about this before; supposedly the White House and/or the RNC have assigned operatives to go on the internet and quash any criticism of the NAU. That seems to be overkill if the project is really a figment of some paranoiac's imagination, or if it is merely a benign trade agreement, as claimed.
So Corsi has been a target, as the most visible and vocal journalist raising questions about the plan.
Corsi laments the fact that the Rockefeller Republicans have assumed control of the party, and Human Events, under Babbin's editorship, will become increasingly a mouthpiece for the Republican Party.
I also tried to explain to Babbin my view that right now, the Republican Party is controlled by what used to be called the "Rockefeller Wing."
Like David Rockefeller himself, the Rockefeller Wing involves millionaires and billionaires who run multi-national corporations.
Rockefeller Wing Republicans are already beyond borders in their determination to advance their multinational corporations for unbridled profit, whether or not U.S. sovereignty and the middle class are destroyed in the process.
I have reflected that Howard Phillips was probably right when he urged Ronald Reagan to form his own, new political party.
I�m not sure the moral Christians belong in the same party with the Rockefeller Republicans.
At any rate, George W. Bush in his second term seems determined to destroy the Reagan coalition once and for all.
[...]
We would be better off without a Republican Party if having a Republican Party means we continue compromising U.S. sovereignty under this false banner of one-sided trade agreements that have nothing to do with legitimate "free trade."
If Human Events under Babbin�s editorial direction is to become an apologists� forum for Republican Party true believers, so be it. ''
Corsi mentions the fall-back argument used by Babbin and the others that failing to support the GOP will guarantee a Hillary presidency. That empty argument is all they have, and they think that it will suffice to scare many conservatives into voting GOP, even if it means voting for a globalist, CFR candidate -- which, as Corsi mentions, all of the so-called top tier candidates are.
I am positive that the GOP leadership and their true believer followers are thrilled that Hillary is the likely nominee, because the threat of Hillary in the White House is the only 'argument' they have to convince conservatives to vote for whichever of the pathetic 'top tier' candidates is opposing her.
Sorry, GOP, but I agree with Corsi and with Richard Viguerie that this is not enough. A vote for any of the preferred GOP candidates is a vote for more globalism and a vote against real conservative policies. If that is all the Republican Party is able, or willing, to offer us, then the Republican Party has outlived its usefulness.
A political party is only a means to an end, not an end in itself, and if the GOP no longer stands for conservative ideas and traditional America, then it needs to go, and make way for a real conservative party.
Jerome Corsi writes about his disaffection from the Republican Party, and about his differences with the Jed Babbin, the new editor of Human Events. Babbin, it seems, chided Corsi for his series of articles outlining the North American Union plan. Babbin derided the idea of the NAU as 'black helicopter conspiracy themes.'
Corsi says:
These Human Events articles were widely popular, in some weeks last year constituting as many as two or three of the 10 most read articles published that week on the Human Events website.
Yet, today, Babbin has even removed my name from the list of columnists published on Human Events and I�ve transitioned to becoming a full-time staff reporter at WND.''
So now Corsi is no longer with Human Events, because he wouldn't toe the line and soft-pedal the NAU story? The apologists for the supposedly non-existent -- or benign -- NAU seem to be very determined to stop discussion on the subject, or, failing that, to whitewash the project. Those who write about it or who take a negative view towards the NAU are likely to be assailed by name-callers on the big GOP webforums. I've blogged about this before; supposedly the White House and/or the RNC have assigned operatives to go on the internet and quash any criticism of the NAU. That seems to be overkill if the project is really a figment of some paranoiac's imagination, or if it is merely a benign trade agreement, as claimed.
So Corsi has been a target, as the most visible and vocal journalist raising questions about the plan.
Corsi laments the fact that the Rockefeller Republicans have assumed control of the party, and Human Events, under Babbin's editorship, will become increasingly a mouthpiece for the Republican Party.
I also tried to explain to Babbin my view that right now, the Republican Party is controlled by what used to be called the "Rockefeller Wing."
Like David Rockefeller himself, the Rockefeller Wing involves millionaires and billionaires who run multi-national corporations.
Rockefeller Wing Republicans are already beyond borders in their determination to advance their multinational corporations for unbridled profit, whether or not U.S. sovereignty and the middle class are destroyed in the process.
I have reflected that Howard Phillips was probably right when he urged Ronald Reagan to form his own, new political party.
I�m not sure the moral Christians belong in the same party with the Rockefeller Republicans.
At any rate, George W. Bush in his second term seems determined to destroy the Reagan coalition once and for all.
[...]
We would be better off without a Republican Party if having a Republican Party means we continue compromising U.S. sovereignty under this false banner of one-sided trade agreements that have nothing to do with legitimate "free trade."
If Human Events under Babbin�s editorial direction is to become an apologists� forum for Republican Party true believers, so be it. ''
Corsi mentions the fall-back argument used by Babbin and the others that failing to support the GOP will guarantee a Hillary presidency. That empty argument is all they have, and they think that it will suffice to scare many conservatives into voting GOP, even if it means voting for a globalist, CFR candidate -- which, as Corsi mentions, all of the so-called top tier candidates are.
I am positive that the GOP leadership and their true believer followers are thrilled that Hillary is the likely nominee, because the threat of Hillary in the White House is the only 'argument' they have to convince conservatives to vote for whichever of the pathetic 'top tier' candidates is opposing her.
Sorry, GOP, but I agree with Corsi and with Richard Viguerie that this is not enough. A vote for any of the preferred GOP candidates is a vote for more globalism and a vote against real conservative policies. If that is all the Republican Party is able, or willing, to offer us, then the Republican Party has outlived its usefulness.
A political party is only a means to an end, not an end in itself, and if the GOP no longer stands for conservative ideas and traditional America, then it needs to go, and make way for a real conservative party.
Labels: Globalism, Gop, Nau, Party Politics, Presidential Candidates, Spp, Third Party
0 comment Friday, November 7, 2014 | admin
I've been looking at the coverage of the Constitution Party nomination of Chuck Baldwin, and it's much as I expected.
Surprisingly, though, the Fox News coverage (see the video here) was rather fair and even-handed.
But here, the headline seems biased:
Constitution Party chooses talk-show host over Keyes for presidential nomination
Meeting in Kansas City on Saturday, the Constitution Party tapped talk show host Chuck Baldwin over former ambassador Alan Keyes as its 2008 presidential nominee.
The pick was seen as something of an upset, given Keyes� higher national profile. Known for his fiery stemwinders, Keyes is a two-time GOP presidential candidate who abandoned the Republican Party this month to join the Constitution Party, which stands for limited government and is committed to ending abortion and bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq.
But Baldwin�s roots in the Constitution Party run deeper. He was the party�s 2004 vice-presidential candidate, and party members said his stands were more in line with party thinking.
Still, the two waged a fierce battle in the days leading up to the vote, described as the most contentious in the party�s 16-year history. Baldwin wound up winning easily, 384-126. The Missouri and Kansas delegations basically split their votes between the two.
"They just rejected the most qualified man to be president," said Tom Hoefling of Lohrville, Iowa, who is Keyes� national political director. "Chuck Baldwin will have no impact on this election whatsoever."
And Keyes would have an impact?! Keyes, who has already run twice for president, and who couldn't even make a go of his cable TV show, or talk radio?
I see that the Freepers are reacting to this news with their usual knee-jerk responses. About 25 percent on the thread I read are conservative enough to recognize that Baldwin is the real deal, while another 25 percent seem to think Keyes is by far the better man (Keyes has a small cult among Freepers, some of whom are still looking for their personal black conservative hero), while close to 50 percent on the thread are already sneering and jeering.
The Constitution Party can't win; Baldwin, they say, is an unknown (unlike the household name, Keyes, I take it) and the CP is full of 'fruit loops' and losers.
At least reading the discussion over there, I am reminded once again just why I want nothing more to do with the Republican Party.
The mere fact that so many people in both parties, but especially, it seems, on the ''right'' are so quick to declare all third parties as hopeless causes, and as havens for 'nutjobs' and crazies, explains very well why we now have two dysfunctional parties with a strangehold on our political system.
As long as there are so many diehard party loyalists who think that straying from our two divinely-ordained political parties will result in the end of the world, we will never find our way out of the maze we are in.
At what point will these hard-heads and dimwits realize that the system as it is ain't working -- or at least, if it is working, it is not working for the American people? If our present sorry state of things does not break people of their dependency on the two-party system, nothing will.
We all just witnessed a combination of our malevolent media and obtuse citizens reject the candidacy of a good man, Ron Paul. For many months, since Ron Paul first announced his candidacy, we've heard the news media ridicule and dismiss him, on those rare occasions when they deigned to notice him at all, and we've heard every village idiot in the country proclaim 'no third party can win. You're throwing your vote away if you vote third party.' Or this one: ''if you vote third party you are just helping to elect a Democrat, and it will be your fault when [Hillary/Obama] is in the White House''.
This kind of ''thinking'' is what will guarantee that our situation only goes from bad to worse. This stubborn cluelessness is what has allowed our two monopolistic parties to flout the will of their constituents, and to go rogue. The political classes know that they don't even have to pay attention to the will of the people; they know that there are enough docile, knee-jerk loyalists who think they have 'nowhere else to go' who will vote for them and continue contributing to their candidacies and to the Party, regardless of their defiance of us and their open contempt for us.
Is there a chance that we can learn from the experience with Dr. Paul's candidacy and avoid letting the media and the obstructionists among us marginalize Chuck Baldwin's candidacy too? This may well be our last chance to stand up for traditional American principles before the demographic tidal wave washes away the last real vestiges of our political power. There is a lot at stake in this election, and yet I see a state of torpor among many in this country, or a kind of passivity born of resignation and cynicism. I see too many people who are beaten already, who are convinced that nothing we can do will make a difference, so why even try?
There are so many who have been thoroughly convinced that the two-party system is inevitable and forever; we can't change it, so we are foolish to try.
With such defeatist attitudes, of course these lugubrious predictions become self-fulfilling prophecies. We can't change things precisely because people have been convinced that we can't.
Either we try to rekindle the old American can-do spirit and the spirit of independence of mind, or we just give up and shuffle off the stage of history, leaving it to the invading hordes and their multiculturalist collaborators.
We have another chance now; let's make the most of it.
Surprisingly, though, the Fox News coverage (see the video here) was rather fair and even-handed.
But here, the headline seems biased:
Constitution Party chooses talk-show host over Keyes for presidential nomination
Meeting in Kansas City on Saturday, the Constitution Party tapped talk show host Chuck Baldwin over former ambassador Alan Keyes as its 2008 presidential nominee.
The pick was seen as something of an upset, given Keyes� higher national profile. Known for his fiery stemwinders, Keyes is a two-time GOP presidential candidate who abandoned the Republican Party this month to join the Constitution Party, which stands for limited government and is committed to ending abortion and bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq.
But Baldwin�s roots in the Constitution Party run deeper. He was the party�s 2004 vice-presidential candidate, and party members said his stands were more in line with party thinking.
Still, the two waged a fierce battle in the days leading up to the vote, described as the most contentious in the party�s 16-year history. Baldwin wound up winning easily, 384-126. The Missouri and Kansas delegations basically split their votes between the two.
"They just rejected the most qualified man to be president," said Tom Hoefling of Lohrville, Iowa, who is Keyes� national political director. "Chuck Baldwin will have no impact on this election whatsoever."
And Keyes would have an impact?! Keyes, who has already run twice for president, and who couldn't even make a go of his cable TV show, or talk radio?
I see that the Freepers are reacting to this news with their usual knee-jerk responses. About 25 percent on the thread I read are conservative enough to recognize that Baldwin is the real deal, while another 25 percent seem to think Keyes is by far the better man (Keyes has a small cult among Freepers, some of whom are still looking for their personal black conservative hero), while close to 50 percent on the thread are already sneering and jeering.
The Constitution Party can't win; Baldwin, they say, is an unknown (unlike the household name, Keyes, I take it) and the CP is full of 'fruit loops' and losers.
At least reading the discussion over there, I am reminded once again just why I want nothing more to do with the Republican Party.
The mere fact that so many people in both parties, but especially, it seems, on the ''right'' are so quick to declare all third parties as hopeless causes, and as havens for 'nutjobs' and crazies, explains very well why we now have two dysfunctional parties with a strangehold on our political system.
As long as there are so many diehard party loyalists who think that straying from our two divinely-ordained political parties will result in the end of the world, we will never find our way out of the maze we are in.
At what point will these hard-heads and dimwits realize that the system as it is ain't working -- or at least, if it is working, it is not working for the American people? If our present sorry state of things does not break people of their dependency on the two-party system, nothing will.
We all just witnessed a combination of our malevolent media and obtuse citizens reject the candidacy of a good man, Ron Paul. For many months, since Ron Paul first announced his candidacy, we've heard the news media ridicule and dismiss him, on those rare occasions when they deigned to notice him at all, and we've heard every village idiot in the country proclaim 'no third party can win. You're throwing your vote away if you vote third party.' Or this one: ''if you vote third party you are just helping to elect a Democrat, and it will be your fault when [Hillary/Obama] is in the White House''.
This kind of ''thinking'' is what will guarantee that our situation only goes from bad to worse. This stubborn cluelessness is what has allowed our two monopolistic parties to flout the will of their constituents, and to go rogue. The political classes know that they don't even have to pay attention to the will of the people; they know that there are enough docile, knee-jerk loyalists who think they have 'nowhere else to go' who will vote for them and continue contributing to their candidacies and to the Party, regardless of their defiance of us and their open contempt for us.
Is there a chance that we can learn from the experience with Dr. Paul's candidacy and avoid letting the media and the obstructionists among us marginalize Chuck Baldwin's candidacy too? This may well be our last chance to stand up for traditional American principles before the demographic tidal wave washes away the last real vestiges of our political power. There is a lot at stake in this election, and yet I see a state of torpor among many in this country, or a kind of passivity born of resignation and cynicism. I see too many people who are beaten already, who are convinced that nothing we can do will make a difference, so why even try?
There are so many who have been thoroughly convinced that the two-party system is inevitable and forever; we can't change it, so we are foolish to try.
With such defeatist attitudes, of course these lugubrious predictions become self-fulfilling prophecies. We can't change things precisely because people have been convinced that we can't.
Either we try to rekindle the old American can-do spirit and the spirit of independence of mind, or we just give up and shuffle off the stage of history, leaving it to the invading hordes and their multiculturalist collaborators.
We have another chance now; let's make the most of it.
Labels: Constitution Party, Gop, Party Politics, Presidential Candidates, Third Party
0 comment Thursday, July 3, 2014 | admin
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.
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
0 comment Thursday, May 1, 2014 | admin
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.
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