Which was oddly a Thursday. I think of most weddings being on Saturday.
At least they are now.
The wedding was in Denver, where they had met and where my grandfather was working. They'd live there until 1937, when they'd move to Scottsbluff. In that time they had all of their children save for one, who would be born in Scottsbluff, the first one being born in 1926 and my father being born in 1929.
They were both 23 years old. He had been on his own since age 13. She was living with her parents in Denver, where they had moved after her father had closed his store in Leadville. Her parents were of 100% Irish extraction, with her mother being from Cork. His parents were of 100% Westphalian extraction. They were both Catholic, although I don't know what church they were married in. Likey one of the Catholic churches downtown.
The American Automobile Association of State Highway Officials approved a resolution recommending that states agree to a consistent system of numbered highways.
Still, with the constant influx of news, we thought it was time for a new edition and to retire the last one.
October 24, 2024
You have no idea what I did in the White House. I stopped wars with France.
Trump at a recent rally.
Eh?
October 25, 2024
Russia spread disinformation about the recent hurricanes in the US in order to attempt to influence the upcoming U.S. election.
Guess we know for sure who Putin wants in office.
No surprise there.
Trump indicated he'd fire special prosecutor Jack Smith as soon as he was in office, if he returns to office.
No surprise there.
Unfortunately, you got a lot of American leaders who like to beat their chest and say; this [Ukraine] is the good guy and this [Russia] is the bad guy.
J. D. Vance.
Well, J. D., that's because Ukraine is the good guy and Russia is the bad guy.
Tucker Carlson compared the United States to a "15 year old" girl, who needs a spanking.
Eh?
I have a daughter and I don't think I ever spanked her. I sure didn't at 15, which is a downright creepy thing to say.
Trump's going to deliver the spanking of the nation, according to Carlson.
cont:
The Washington Post returns to its position of not endorsing Presidential candidates:
Russian actors were behind a widely circulated video falsely depicting mail-in ballots for Donald Trump being destroyed in Pennsylvania, U.S. officials confirmed Friday.
Associated Press.
Locally we have a school board race that the Freedom Caucus, in the form of Mom's For Liberty or people aligned with their thinking are in. The folks below are those who are not part of that group.
These seem to be the populist ones:
Frankly, while I probably ought to post it elsewhere, I think there's a crisis in American education, but its not the one that commonly comes up. There's probably a series of crises actually.
Locally, we've always had excellent public schools. One thing that we can really tank our community ancestors for is appreciating the value of education. School boards for many years have had people who took the task on with a sense of public duty. People like to complain about the schools nonetheless, but that's in no small part because education is a spectator sport, like agriculture. I've heard so many things about how to raise sheep, for example, from people whose family have not had a connection with sheep since Roman times, it's not funny.
The problem that seems to have developed recently is that education has been impacted, like politics in general in Wyoming, by an influx of people who were raised and educated well outside of the region, and brought a lot of regional ideas with them. This reflected itself at first with a notable homeschooling movement which included quite a few people who were convinced that schools were teaching children "left wing" ideas, which they weren't and never have been. In some instances the concerns of those parents included a strongly anti scientific background.
Now its spilled into the schools in general. While she didn't run for the school board, in a way this is reflected by the one term now defeated House member Jeanette Ward. Looking into her background it seems that a big part of her problems with Illinois' politics, where she came from, had to do with schools. She was upset, for instance, that a class noted that Muslims pray to the same God that Christians do. And she was upset with school mask mandates, which ironically Wyoming also had.
This has spilled over into the war over library books, which actually doesn't have much to do with actual school libraries.
At any rate, it's a sad fact of American life that a lot of primary education in the United States is really lacking. This reflects itself in politics right now, which finds actual debates over topics that simply are decided on the basis of the evidence. The ability of highly monied people to lead others around reflects it as well. Education in the US has always been uneven. There's a scary chance that the excellent education that the Upper Plains and Rocky Mountain regions have always had, may be impacted by the populist flood.
cont:
Trump continues to make statements that in any other era would be regarded as dumb:
There will be no hydrogen. They tend to blow up and once they blow up you are not recognizable anymore. No, they say that's the hottest new thing. Hydrogen does. Anybody in the, they say it's so hot. The problem is when it's not, when it's not hot, it's bad. It's bad. So, I don't want to do that. They say for the most part here is for the most part it's really wonderful. But when it goes bad it's over, you're not recognizable. They call the wife. Please come and inspect to see whether or not this is your husband. He's lying against a tree and the tree has a lot of red on it... Is that ok for everybody?
Indeed, one of the things that really scares me about Trump is his supporters claim he says things that they're thinking. If that's the case, we've got a massive lack of intellect in this country. Are we this dumb?
October 28, 2024
Given the story on Russia above, this is of interest:
Apparently Trump's rally last night at Madison Square Garden was packed with racist comments and off color remarks by the various speakers.
On other matters, there appears to be a very strong chance that independent candidate Dan Osborn may beat Trump Senate lackey Deb Fisher in Nebraska.
October 30, 2024
It's becoming increasingly clear Trumpites are mobilizing and planning to steal the 2024 election if Trump does not win it. They'll use lawsuits, ballot challenges and fake electors in a more planned effort this time.
cont:
October 31, 2024
Elon Musk, who supporters fellow billionaire Trump, has been chatting with Putin.
Trump proposes to put Robert Kennedy, whose health ideas are wackadoodle, in charge of some sort of health thing.
November 1, 2024
Real Clear Politics electoral map predictors show Trump winning the election decisively.
November 2, 2024
At a rally in Milwaukee Donald Trump simulated oral sex, albeit briefly, on stage.
Is this really whom Republicans want to be President?
And is this truly the man some Evangelicas see as a neo Cyrus the Great?
Today In Wyoming's History: August 9, 1974. President Nixon resigns and the 60s end.
Today In Wyoming's History: August 9: 1974 Gerald R. Ford was sworn in as the 38th president of the United States following the resignation of Richard M. Nixon. Ford has a connection with Wyoming in that his father was part of a family that had shipping and commercial interest in Wyoming and Nebraska. Ford was born on Omaha Nebraska as Leslie Lynch King, and his parents divorced almost immediately after his birth.
Nixon departing the White House on August 9, 1974.
Just the other day I posted an entry here titled Growing Up in the 1960s. In that I defined the 60s as ending on this date (which I was a day off on, for some reason), when I stated:
So I was in school in the last three years of the decadal 1960s, but in reality I was in school for most of the 1960s, as the 1960s really ran from our commitment of ground forces to Vietnam until Nixon's resignation on August 8, 1974
For whatever reason, that we were near the 45th anniversary of that date, didn't occur to me at the time (the original linked in post here was obviously from five years ago, now we're at the 50th).
Under the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling on Presidential Immunity, I frankly think Nixon could have stayed in office. Of course, the Court at that time wouldn't have reached that horrific result.
Argentinian police and ranchers killed 400 indigenous people of the Toba and Mocoví native groups following heighted tensions between the native groups and ranchers which had lead to livestock killing.
Democratic Senator Burton K. Wheeler was chosen as the VP candidate for the Progressive Party.
Stan Hathaway, Governor of Wyoming from 1967 to 1975,and briefly Secretary of the Interior, was born in Osceola, Nebraska.
Hathaway, whom I saw argue in front of the Wyoming Supreme Court many years ago, was the fifth of six children born to Lily (Koehler) and Robert C. Knapp. He was raised and adopted by a cousin and her husband, Velma and Frank Hathaway, following his mother's death, on their farm near Huntley Wyoming. He served on a B-17 in World War Two as a radioman, and was shot down over occupied France where he avoided capture with the crew through the assistance of the French Resistance. He term of Governor was marked by the passage of environmental laws and the enactment of the first mineral severance tax in Wyoming and the creation of the Trust Fund from the same.
He was a great Governor who would no doubt be constantly attacked as being a RINO by populist who think they're Republicans today.
Hathaway was an Episcopalian for most of his life, but late in life, converted to Catholicism.
The Grand Order of the Aleph Zadik Aleph (AZA or אצא), an international fraternity for Jewish teenagers, was founded in Omaha, Nebraska.
It would go on to found the B'nai B'rith Youth Organization a year later.
The SS Catalina, which would be in service for 51 years ferrying passengers between Los Angeles and Santa Catalina Island, was launched.
German police raided the Soviet Trade Delegation
Zinaida Kokorina, against the odds and through the intervention of the Soviet head of state, became the first female military pilot on this day in 1924.
She wanted to become a fighter pilot, but was persuaded to remain a flight instructor, which she did through World War Two. She later became headmistress of a village school at Cholpon-Ata in Kyrgyzstan before retiring to Moscow.
U.S. Navy recognition depiction of Japanese Aoba-class heavy cruisers
Three Japanese cruisers broke out for the Indian Ocean Raid. It was the last action by Axis surface raiders during World War Two, and hence the last such example, something that dated back to the age of sail, in history. That the Japanese would engage in it frankly showed how far their fortunes had fallen.
There will never be another surface raid again. This concludes something that dates back to antiquity.
Like much associated with the Japanese in World War Two, it would be marked by mindless atrocity.
The Kingisepp-Gdov Offensive concluded in a Soviet victory.
The Huon Peninsula Campaign concluded in an Allied victory. As part of that, the Battle of Sio on New Guinea also ended in an allied victory.
A huge strike broke out in the Italian Social Republic against the government.
Hitler received the leaders of the Independent State of Croatia to discuss then current political issues, which is frankly rater surreal.
There was a major POW camp in Wyoming, housing Italian and German POWs, in Douglas. Ft. F.E. Warren also housed POWs during the war.
Nebraska also had six, including one at Scotsbluff and one at Camp Robinson.
German POWs, it might be noted, were particularly problematic, in part because US Army authorities in the US were sort of second stringers. Often the Nazi elements in the camps were able to co-opt the system and even hold court-martials of German POWs within them in order to enforce the ideology of the regime.
Italian POWs, it's often noted, were glad to be out of the war, something that speaks highly for the intelligence of the average Italian. Often criticized for not showing the fighting spirit the Germans did, the Italians actually served the interest of their country and people to a much greater extent than the Germans in uniform did.
On Italy, for the second time in the war, the Vatican was bombed accidentally by a plan of the RAF, killing one, and injuring another.
The U-358, U-630 and &-709 were sunk by the Allies in the Atlantic.
The United States Supreme Court decided in Meyer v. Nebraska that school could be conducted in languages other than the English, striking down a Nebraska law. In so doing, it stated:
262 U.S. 390
43 S.Ct. 625
67 L.Ed. 1042
MEYER
v.
STATE OF NEBRASKA.
No. 325.
Argued Feb. 23, 1923.
Decided June 4, 1923.
Messrs. A. F. Mullen, of Omaha, Neb., C. E. Sandall, of York, Neb., and I. L. Albert, of Columbus, Neb., for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 391-393 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Mason Wheeler, of Lincoln, Neb., and O. S. Spillman, of Pierce, Neb., for the State of Nebraska.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 393-395 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Plaintiff in error was tried and convicted in the district court for Hamilton county, Nebraska, under an information which charged that on May 25, 1920, while an instructor in Zion Parochial School he unlawfully taught the subject of reading in the German language to Raymond Parpart, a child of 10 years, who had no attained and successfully passed the eighth grade. The information is based upon 'An act relating to the teaching of foreign languages in the state of Nebraska,' approved April 9, 1919 (Laws 1919, c. 249), which follows:
'Section 1. No person, individually or as a teacher, shall, in any private, denominational, parochial or public school, teach any subject to any person in any language than the English language.
'Sec. 2. Languages, other than the English language, may be taught as languages only after a pupil shall have attained and successfully passed the eighth grade as evidenced by a certificate of graduation issued by the county superintendent of the county in which the child resides.
'Sec. 3. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be subject to a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars ($25), nor more than one hundred dollars ($100), or be confined in the county jail for any period not exceeding thirty days for each offense.
'Sec. 4. Whereas, an emergency exists, this act shall be in force from and after its passage and approval.'
The Supreme Court of the state affirmed the judgment of conviction. 107 Neb. 657, 187 N. W. 100. It declared the offense charged and established was 'the direct and intentional teaching of the German language as a distinct subject to a child who had not passed the eighth grade,' in the parochial school maintained by Zion Evangelical Lutheran Congre ation, a collection of Biblical stories being used therefore. And it held that the statute forbidding this did not conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment, but was a valid exercise of the police power. The following excerpts from the opinion sufficiently indicate the reasons advanced to support the conclusion:
'The salutary purpose of the statute is clear. The Legislature had seen the baneful effects of permitting for eigners, who had taken residence in this country, to rear and educate their children in the language of their native land. The result of that condition was found to be inimical to our own safety. To allow the children of foreigners, who had emigrated here, to be taught from early childhood the language of the country of their parents was to rear them with that language as their mother tongue. It was to educate them so that they must always think in that language, and, as a consequence, naturally inculcate in them the ideas and sentiments foreign to the best interests of this country. The statute, therefore, was intended not only to require that the education of all children be conducted in the English language, but that, until they had grown into that language and until it had become a part of them, they should not in the schools be taught any other language. The obvious purpose of this statute was that the English language should be and become the mother tongue of all children reared in this state. The enactment of such a statute comes reasonably within the police power of the state. Pohl v. State, 102 Ohio St. 474, 132 N. E. 20; State v. Bartels, 191 Iowa, 1060, 181 N. W. 508.
'It is suggested that the law is an unwarranted restriction, in that it applies to all citizens of the state and arbitrarily interferes with the rights of citizens who are not of foreign ancestry, and prevents them, without reason, from having their children taught foreign languages in school. That argument is not well taken, for it assumes that every citizen finds himself restrained by the statute. The hours which a child is able to devote to study in the confinement of school are limited. It must have ample time for exercise or play. Its daily capacity for learning is comparatively small. A selection of subjects for its education, therefore, from among the many that might be taught, is obviously necessary. The Legislature no doubt had in mind the practical operation of the law. The law affects few citizens, except those of foreign lineage.
Other citizens, in their selection of studies, except perhaps in rare instances, have never deemed it of importance to teach their children foreign languages before such children have reached the eighth grade. In the legislative mind, the salutary effect of the statute no doubt outweighed the restriction upon the citizens generally, which, it appears, was a restriction of no real consequence.'
The problem for our determination is whether the statute as construed and applied unreasonably infringes the liberty guaranteed to the plaintiff in error by the Fourteenth Amendment:
'No state * * * shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.'
While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 21 L. Ed. 394; Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U. S. 746, 4 Sup. Ct. 652, 28 L. Ed. 585; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 6 Sup. Ct. 1064, 30 L. Ed. 220; Minnesota v. Bar er, 136 U. S. 313, 10 Sup. Ct. 862, 34 L. Ed. 455; Allegeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578, 17 Sup. Ct. 427, 41 L. Ed. 832; Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 25 Sup. Ct. 539, 49 L. Ed. 937, 3 Ann. Cas. 1133; Twining v. New Jersey 211 U. S. 78, 29 Sup. Ct. 14, 53 L. Ed. 97; Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. v. McGuire, 219 U. S. 549, 31 Sup. Ct. 259, 55 L. Ed. 328; Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 36 Sup. Ct. 7, 60 L. Ed. 131, L. R. A. 1916D, 545, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 283; Adams v. Tanner, 224 U. S. 590, 37 Sup. Ct. 662, 61 L. Ed. 1336, L. R. A. 1917F, 1163, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 973; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Dodge, 246 U. S. 357, 38 Sup. Ct. 337, 62 L. Ed. 772, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 593; Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U. S. 312, 42 Sup. Ct. 124, 66 L. Ed. 254; Adkins v. Children's Hospital (April 9, 1923), 261 U. S. 525, 43 Sup. Ct. 394, 67 L. Ed. ——; Wyeth v. Cambridge Board of Health, 200 Mass. 474, 86 N. E. 925, 128 Am. St. Rep. 439, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 147. The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with, under the guise of protecting the public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state to effect. Determination by the Legislature of what constitutes proper exercise of police power is not final or conclusive but is subject to supervision by the courts. Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133, 137, 14 Sup. Ct. 499, 38 L. Ed. 385.
The American people have always regarded education and acquisition of knowledge as matters of supreme importance which should be diligently promoted. The Ordinance of 1787 declares:
'Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.'
Corresponding to the right of control, it is the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life; and nearly all the states, including Nebraska, enforce this obligation by compulsory laws.
Practically, education of the young is only possible in schools conducted by especially qualified persons who devote themselves thereto. The calling always has been regarded as useful and honorable, essential, indeed, to the public welfare. Mere knowledge of the German language cannot reasonably be regarded as harmful. Heretofore it has been commonly looked upon as helpful and desirable. Plaintiff in error taught this language in school as part of his occupation. His right thus to teach and the right of parents to engage him so to instruct their children, we think, are within the liberty of the amendment.
The challenged statute forbids the teaching in school of any subject except in English; also the teaching of any other language until the pupil has attained and successfully passed the eighth grade, which is not usually accomplished before the age of twelve. The Supreme Court of the state has held that 'the so-called ancient or dead languages' are not 'within the spirit or the purpose of the act.' Nebraska District of Evangelical Lutheran Synod, etc., v. McKelvie et al. (Neb.) 187 N. W. 927 (April 19, 1922). Latin, Greek, Hebrew are not proscribed; but German, French, Spanish, Italian, and every other alien speech are within the ban. Evidently the Legislature has attempted materially to interfere with the calling of modern language teachers, with the opportunities of pupils to acquire knowledge, and with the power of parents to control the education of their own.
It is said the purpose of the legislation was to promote civic development by inhibiting training and education of the immature in foreign tongues and ideals before they could learn English and acquire American ideals, and 'that the English language should be and become the mother tongue of all children reared in this state.' It is also affirmed that the foreign born population is very large, that certain communities commonly use foreign words, follow foreign leaders, move in a foreign atmosphere, and that the children are thereb hindered from becoming citizens of the most useful type and the public safety is imperiled.
That the state may do much, go very far, indeed, in order to imporve the quality of its citizens, physically, mentally and morally, is clear; but the individual has certain fundamental rights which must be respected. The protection of the Constitution extends to all, to those who speak other languages as well as to those born with English on the tongue. Perhaps it would be highly advantageous if all had ready understanding of our ordinary speech, but this cannot be coerced by methods which conflict with the Constitution—a desirable and cannot be promoted by prohibited means.
For the welfare of his Ideal Commonwealth, Plato suggested a law which should provide:
'That the wives of our guardians are to be common, and their children are to be common, and no parent is to know his own child, nor any child his parent. * * * The proper officers will take the offspring of the good parents to the pen or fold, and there they will deposit them with certain nurses who dwell in a separate quarter; but the offspring of the inferior, or of the better when they chance to be deformed, will be put away in some mysterious, unknown place, as they should be.'
In order to submerge the individual and develop ideal citizens, Sparta assembled the males at seven into barracks and intrusted their subsequent education and training to official guardians. Although such measures have been deliberately approved by men of great genius their ideas touching the relation between individual and state were wholly different from those upon which our institutions rest; and it hardly will be affirmed that any Legislature could impose such restrictions upon the people of a state without doing violence to both letter and spirit of the Constitution.
The desire of the Legislature to foster a homogeneous people with American ideals prepared readily to understand current discussions of civic matters is easy to appreciate. Unfortunate experiences during the late war and aversion toward every character of truculent adversaries were certainly enough to quicken that aspiration. But the means adopted, we think, exceed the limitations upon the power of the state and conflict with rights assured to plaintiff in error. The interference is plain enough and no adequate reason therefor in time of peace and domestic tranquility has been shown.
The power of the state to compel attendance at some school and to make reasonable regulations for all schools, including a requirement that they shall give instructions in English, is not questioned. Nor has challenge been made of the state's power to prescribe a curriculum for institutions which it supports. Those matters are not within the present controversy. Our concern is with the prohibition approved by the Supreme Court. Adams v. Tanner, 244 U. S. 594, 37 Sup. Ct. 662, 61 L. Ed. 1336, L. R. A. 1917F, 1163, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 973, pointed out that mere abuse incident to an occupation ordinarily useful is not enough to justify its abolition, although regulation may be entirely proper. No emergency has arisen which renders knowledge by a child of some language other than English so clearly harmful as to justify its inhibition with the consequent infringement of rights long freely enjoyed. We are constrained to conclude that the statute as applied is arbitrary and without reasonable relation to any end within the competency of the state.
As the statute undertakes to interfere only with teaching which involves a modern language, leaving complete freedom as to other matters, there seems no adequate foundation for the suggestion that the purpose was to protect the child's health by limiting his mental activities. It is well known that proficiency in a foreign language seldom comes to one not instructed at an early age, and experience shows that this is not injurious to the health, morals or understanding of the ordinary child.
The judgment of the court belo must be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Holmes and Mr. Justice Sutherland, dissent.
The US decided to ignore foreign protests on booze rules.
The now ineffective Zero Milestone in Washington D.C., intended to be the starting point for all U.S. highways, was dedicated.
Horse trainer Frank Hayes, serving as a jockey on Sweet Kiss, died during the race which the horse won. A very lightweight individual to start with, he'd lost twelve pounds for the race and perhaps accordingly imperiled his health.
The Germans began the mass murder of the Jewish population of Zborow, Ukraine, shooting 2,300 on this day, which was only the start.
We've mentioned it before, but as German fortunes began to decline, the murders of the Jews amplified enormously, not that they were insignificant before.
Pvt. Robert D. Booker of Nebraska.
Pvt. Robert D. Booker of the U.S. Army would engage in actions which would result in his posthumous award of the Medal of Honor. His citation reads:
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at risk of life above and beyond the call of duty in action. On 9 April 1943 in the vicinity of Fondouk, Tunisia, Pvt. Booker, while engaged in action against the enemy, carried a light machinegun and a box of ammunition over 200 yards of open ground. He continued to advance despite the fact that 2 enemy machineguns and several mortars were using him as an individual target. Although enemy artillery also began to register on him, upon reaching his objective he immediately commenced firing. After being wounded he silenced 1 enemy machinegun and was beginning to fire at the other when he received a second mortal wound. With his last remaining strength he encouraged the members of his squad and directed their fire. Pvt. Booker acted without regard for his own safety. His initiative and courage against insurmountable odds are an example of the highest standard of self-sacrifice and fidelity to duty.
Sarah Sundin, on her blog, notes:
Today in World War II History—April 9, 1943: US II Corps and British First Army take Fondouk Pass in Tunisia with heavy casualties. US Navy reestablishes rank of Commodore.
Omaha, Nebraska endured a significant snowstorm, receiving 13" of snow. That doesn't seem like a lot, but its still recorded as one of Omaha's biggest snowstorms.
Germany offered France and Belgium 20 billion gold marks to go home.
1863 Daniel Freeman files the first homestead under the newly passed Homestead Act. The homestead was filed in Nebraska.
While the original Homestead Act provided an unsuitably small portion of land for those wishing to homestead in Wyoming, it was used here, and homesteading can be argued to be responsible for defining the modern character of the State.
Elsa Einstein, Albert Einstein, and President Harding. Elsa and Albert Einstein were fairly newly married at this time, having been married in 1919 following Albert's divorce from his first wife. They were not only related by marriage, but by blood, as their mothers were sisters and their father's first cousins, a circumstances that would have prohibited their marriage in most, if not all, US states.
On this day in 1921, Albert Einstein and his wife Elsa visited President Harding. Einstein was suddenly famous following the fairly recent eclipse which went to support his general theory of relativity.
The Japanese government voted against a resolution to allow women to participate in political parties.
Communist in Fiume staged a coup after losing an election there.
The Allied Reparations Commission demanded that Germany pay 1,000,000 Marks in gold to France by April 30.
Nebraska prohibited anyone who was not a U.S. citizen or resident alien from owning property in the state.
You are welcome to censure me again. But let's be clear about why this is happening. It's because I still believe, as you used to, that politics isn't about the weird worship of one dude.
Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse.
And is an open question where it will go, or if it will become two parties.
Or, quite frankly just go right over a cliff and not survive at all, leaving a decade or more for a new conservative party, or parties, to be formed. There's a pretty decent chance that might occur.
And it is also an open question of what this will all mean for Wyoming.
This is a true disaster in the making. Make no mistake about it.
This past week Mitch McConnell, the de facto head of the the traditional Republican Party, came out in support of Liz Cheney, also a member of the traditional Republican Party, and against Marjorie Taylor Greene, a radical member of the Populist Trumpite Party that has been so influential in the GOP over the past four years.
Let's stop and consider this for a second.
Liz Cheney was under attack for one reason, and one reason only. She'd voted to impeach Donald Trump, while he was still in office, as her conscience lead her to that.
Cheney is as conservative as they come. Her voting record aligns more closely to Trump's positions than those of Florida pretty boy Matt Gaetz, whom normally Wyomingites wouldn't given the time of day. None the less, Cheney has now been censured by about half of the Wyoming county organizations. and the state official GOP organization.
And Ben Sasse, who voted his conscience as well, and who wouldn't go along with the effort to disenfranchise voters that Ted Cruz lead as part of a self serving Ted Cruz effort to bolster his sinking political fortunes is up to be censured in Nebraska, "again".*
Sasse and Cheney continue to have the courage of their confictions. Sasse just gave the Nebraska GOP the middle finger salute, which they deserve, but in an articulate way. Let's consider what he said once again.
You are welcome to censure me again. But let's be clear about why this is happening. It's because I still believe, as you used to, that politics isn't about the weird worship of one dude.
Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse.
And you should really listen to his entire speech.
Cheney, for her part, refused to back down and chastised her party for believing in lies. She even doubled down a bit on the bad acts of the President that resulted in her vote. She not only has the courage of her convictions, but she's basically laid down the gauntlet to those who are accusing her of disloyalty.
Greene, for her part, is rapidly becoming the symbol of the alt right in some odd way. Congress has a long history of marginalizing its members who aren't regarded as fit for office, but that's not what happened here. Elected this past fall from Georgia, Greene has at least recently continued to wear "Stop the Steal" facemasks and is brazenly pro Trump in the conspiratorial sense. Examination of her public comments shows that she has questioned the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, and espoused a theory that Jewish space lasers started forest fires in California some years ago.
Let's stop to let that one sink in.
Giant Jewish space lasers.
Gee, with all the things Israel has to worry about it's starting forest fires in California rather than zapping Tehran. . . .
In other words, Greene is a complete nut.
But that level of nuttery is what the GOP is contending with given the miles wide fissures that have developed in the party over the last few years.
And this also gives the GOP an opportunity, if it will take it. Right now, it hasn't, and hasn't even come close to doing so. Indeed, it all but retreated into one of the stupidest arguments that people ever make, that being the "well, I don't agree, but everyone has a right to speak", which is closely followed by "well, I don't agree, but the people of the district voted for her so. . . "
The people of Germany in 1932 voted for Adolph Hitler. That argument is made for that. If a person advocated for destroying a building, they'd be arrested. We really don't have to simply shrug our shoulders, nor does Congress, over the really extreme.
As noted, an opportunity exists here, if it will be taken. And its an opportunity the party in Wyoming is likely to sit out and end up on the wrong side of.
A vast danger exists here as well.
Whose in the tent?
We've gone over and over how this came about, and we're not going to do that again. Instead, we're just going to write about where we right now.
The pillars of American conservatism, William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan.
On one hand, you have the traditional Republican Party. It's a center right conservative party that looks back to Ronald Reagan as its intellectual standard, and Reagan basically looked to William F. Buckley, the father of modern conservatism. Buckley was a true intellectual and he defined American conservatism in a way it had never been before, and when it badly needed defining. It's defined, or at least was, by the following:
a. It's politically conservative
b. It's socially conservative
c. It's very pro business.
d. It's "small government" but it believes in the government.
e. It's pro defense, and tends to be a bit interventionist overseas.
f. It has a strong adherence to law and order and the rule of law. It's not revolutionary, and it puts the constitution and the law ahead of its own goals.
Conservatism also, frankly, doesn't mind be a bit eliteist or at least it traditionally didn't. Buckley and his acolytes hoped to see conservatives in power, but they were used to being out of power, and were accordingly used to the idea that they could serve being voices crying in the wilderness, albeit vocies that would be heard. One biographer of Buckley noted that he'd grown up partially in England and as a sincere Catholic in England, he was by definition part of a "fighting faith", but a highly intelligent fighting faith.
Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich. Gingrich can really be viewed as the founder of what became the Tea Party. He ran for President as recently as 2012.
Then you have the Trumpite populist wing of the party.
While he'd disavow it, the Trumpite wing of the party has its roots in the politics of Newt Gingrich, who lead an insurgent, take no prisoners, give no quarter, libertarian movement within the GOP during his time in the House from 1979 to 1999.*** He's notably from the same state that Green is from. Indeed, but for a personal evolution, Gingrich might well have followed the role in a Trump White House that Buckley did in Reagan's, although by 2016 Gingrich had evolved considerably far away from the movement he'd started in the 1990s.
The Trumpite wing, or evolved Gingrich wing if you will, is much more difficult to define in part because its members fit a sliding scale and always have. There are those who are actually more in the traditional party than the Trumpite wing, but have flown the Trump flag for convenience. And indeed, there's a lot of cross over. If we were to define it, however, it is defined by:
a. It's strongly nationalistic, with its nationalism grounded in the founding demographic of the country.
b. It's Protestant and "Christian Nationalist"
c. It's libertarian in terms of economics, but not in anything else.
d. It values cultural "values" of a conservative sort over the rule of law and adheres to the theory that they should be the law or implicitly are the law.
e. It's isolationist.
f. It's basically anti government and a proponent of "state's rights".
These two sets of views are sufficiently divergent that they really can't be housed in one body. Part of the GOP's problem is that its tried to do so for almost 40s years.**** The traditional Republican Party is more like the Canadian and British Conservative parties. The Trumpite party is more like a host of 20th Century European conservative parties. The traditional Republican Party had managed to keep a lid on the populist Gingrich branch for decades, using it when it could, and suppressing it when it needed to. Now, however, with the Trump presidency having dramatically impacted the GOP at its base roots, its unclear if it can do so, and this too is something that happened before, both inside the US and out of it.
As the past is indeed the prologue to the future, and as this is set to have dramatic impacts on the US without a doubt, we should look at this.
The Trumpite wing of the party
The Trump wing of the party strongly resembles a host of European political parties (and I'm including a Canadian political party in that definition) which valued ideology over democracy and let that define their approach to candidates. In each instance, that lead to their downfall.
Now, let me note immediately, I'm not writing that those who are diehard Trump supporters are fascists. I'm also not claiming that everyone who voted for Trump, is in the Trumpite wing of the party. Indeed, I'm pretty sure that Cheney voted for Trump, even if Sasse didn't (which he has been open about). This too, I'll note, is part of the history of these parties. They were sometime successful on their own, but they often existed in environments in which they traveled with other conservative parties. Indeed, in the U.S. system, which is a two party system, this tends to cause their to be more than one party inside of a party, as republican systems such as ours tend to default to two parties almost always, but that's always the weakness of such parties at the same time. They house multiple parties by default, most of the time.
Anyhow, what I am saying is that all of the aforementioned political parties operated or still operate in democratic environments in which they place certain political values ahead of democratic ones. As they very strongly identify with their ideals, they essentially hold that in order for a political view to be legitimate, it had to comport to that ideal, and if it doesn't, it's illegitimate and doesn't count.
The country saw some of this in the recent insurrection. Most of the people who were at the protest were likely simply those who believed that the election had been stolen, and therefore they were were trying to save the election. But running through that were t hose who believed that the election must have been stolen, as Trump didn't win. Next to that were people who believe that Trump must have won, as votes for Biden were illegitimate by their nature, and don't count. And finally you have those who believe that there's a giant conspiracy afoot controlled by some pedophiles in the Democratic Party. If you look at that, you essentially have the gamut of the German right wing parties in the 1920s, leading up to 1932, which we will deal with below.
Al Smith, conservative, who would have recognized what Cheney did as comporting to his principles.
It really becomes apparent when you take this back to Wyoming look at the drama surrounding Liz Cheney's vote to impeach Donald Trump. Her action is classic traditional Republican. It put the rule of law above the party, and hence is admirable. It's much like Al Smith's express rejection of votes that were on religious grounds in the 1930s, or Richard Nixon's concession of the election in 1960. Cynthia Lummis' action doesn't really fit in here, as hers is pure political self interest, irrespective of her excuse.***** An anti Trumper in 2016, she was seeing Ted Cruz as the Trump heir apparent in 2024, and was doing anything possible to kiss his ring and secure a position in a future Cruz administration.
Cruz for his part is probably actually really a traditional Republican, but he knows that he's going down in inevitable defeat in 2024 to Beto O'Roarke and he has to clear out while the getting is good. And therefore he's angling to kiss up to the Trump wing of the party as he figures it's strong, and that Trump is a fading figure. He planned on emerging as Trump's heir apparent for a 2024 run, figuring that by that time four years of panic over a future Kamala Harris administration, assuming that we're not already in a Kamala Harris administration by that time, will propel him to victory. Of course, he pretty much shot his bolt on that and peaked a bit too soon, and in the wrong venue. Indeed, Lummis nailed the coffin shut on her career as well, although she'll no doubt be able to keep on keeping on as Wyoming's Senator as we haven't booted one since Gale McGee's last run/non run.
Anyhow, looking locally, ten out of 23 counties have censured Cheney and now the state organization has as well. Why? Well, she didn't vote "right" in their view, and that puts us back on the Trumpite populist scale. She should have, in their view, voted against impeachment as that would be loyal to Trump, which means being loyal to their values, or more properly Weltanschauung,^ which puts the party's positions, or the Trumpite ones, ahead of democracy. Some of them are flat out okay with that, some haven't though it out, some believe the election was stolen, and some of them simply don' believe that any other action is legitimate for the reasons we set out above. Their Weltanschauung is all defining in this context, trumps concerns about democracy in some, and defines the legitimacy or illegitimacy of opposing views. Indeed, the intellectuals in the movement, and there are intellectuals in the movement, are quite open about this.
All of which means that this is a scary position for the country to be in, and a scary place for the GOP to be in, and which means that the GOP and the conservative movement may be headed for a train wreck.
A lesson from history.
We keep hearing that the United States has never been here before. Actually it has to an extent. Probably twice.
We didn't mention American political parties of the past in this tread up until now, but we will here at this point.
The first time we were here was from the mid 1830s through the mid 1860s.
By the mid 1830s it was clear that a growing divide in the country over the issue of slavery was creating a rift that threatened civil war. After the US annexed Texas, that war became nearly inevitable. Hardcore slavery proponents in the South couldn't reconcile the concept of a nation with slavery being limited. That's important, it has to be noted, to realize. It wasn't the threat of slavery being immediately limited that they regarded as irreconcilable with their beliefs, it was the limitation of its expansion. Of course, everyone was savvy to the reality that limiting the expansion of slavery ultimately would mean its elimination. This came to a head with the election of Lincoln and the South took the country into civil war.
Before we move on from here, we have to first consider the pre Civil War in context. Now the thought of slavery is so abhorrent that those who admire the Southern cause nearly always separate it from slavery if they can. But at the time, they did not. The North and the South both had conservatives. The South did not have what we'd call "liberals" in any numbers, however. Some Southern conservatives sided with democracy and sided with the Union, if only in individual allegiance. Some even had arrived at anti slavery positions before the war, which is essentially siding with democracy. But most of the Southern political class couldn't bring itself to that point and was willing to lead the country into war over something that some deeply believed in. Others simply couldn't see past their own financial interest. Quite a few mixed the two with various degrees of acknowledgement of that.
Father Charles Coughlin in the 1930s. In Coughlin's views, which were shared by many, we can see some of the same type of thinking we're also seeing today in some quarters, although certainly in a much different context.
It also happened again in the 1920s and 30s, with the rise of political extremism. Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party struggled with growing extremisms, much like they are right now. On the right there were groups like that formed by Fr. Coughlin, on the left there were serious Socialists and Communist parties, and pretty significant heavy left infiltration into the Democratic Party.
Whitaker Chambers, who had been a Soviet spy in the 1930s after becoming a Communist in the 1920s, before having a profound conversion and leaving the Communist Party.
We know what happened in the first instance. The Civil War, followed by Reconstruction, followed by the betrayal of Reconstruction. We can't say that the hard right, if you will, prevailed in the Democratic Party of the era, but we can say that a disaster truly occurred. Long term, and it was long, the hard right of the Democratic Party collapsed, featuring two 20th Century attempts at forming a new southern Democratic Party, both of which quickly failed.
The Dixiecrats
Strom Thurmond, who was so opposed to desegregation in the 1940s that he ran for President in a party dedicated. Thurmond, it might be noted, was openly opposed to integration, but not so much that he avoided African Americans altogether. He fathered a child by a black long term household employee in 1925, who was still working for him in 1948.
Not without being disruptive, however. Strom Thurmond, seeing integration coming on strong, ran as a Dixiecrat (States Right Democratic Party) in the 1948 election, taking the electoral votes of four states. Truman swept the nation that year, so it didn't matter. So what was the net result?
Well, the Dixiecrats failed to achieve anything and its members ended up rejoining the Democratic Party. They weren't completely done, so to speak, but they were frankly much diminished. A Democratic candidate had won in 1948 in spite of them and they had proven to not really matter much, at least in 48, to the party. Integration of the military went ahead in the 1940s and 50s, and it entered civil society in the early 1950s. The Democratic Party itself, moreover, started to ignore its conservative wing.
Which wasn't enough for it to make one last try.
The American Independent Party
In 1968 George Wallace, running for the far right American Independent Party, took five southern states in an election that otherwise saw Richard Nixon elected to office. He was basically a Dixiecrat.
Wallace was regarded as an actual potential prospect in 68, but that proved to be very much in error. He returned to the Democratic Party, survived an assassination attempt, and changed his mind on segregation prior to his death. For a lot of people today, he's only known as the mysterious reference in Lynard Skynard's Sweet Home Alabama as the Governor who gets the boos. The party itself ran another hard righter in 1972's Presidential election, but ultimately split into two. It still exist as a near non entity except oddly in California, for an odd reason. It pretty much just nominates candidates from other parties now, who are already running, such as its 2016 nomination of Donald Trump. In 2020 it nominated the gadfly ticket of Rocky De La Fuente and Kanye West.^^
Oh, California?
Well those who have studied it suspect that those who register as part of it in California actually mean to note that they are Independents, not actual members of the party.
Both Wallace and Thurmond were really Democrats, but conservative Democrats deeply dedicated to segregation. Both got over it towards the end of their careers, but that's not the point. The point is that the Democrats had an extremely strong conservative element from 1865 until 1968, and it really only had a liberal branch starting in 1912. The liberal branch had a companion center left/right branch, yielding to a center left branch alone in the 2000s.
That hard right fringe, which is what it was, is completely dead in the Democratic Party. Dead. And both of these insurgent Democratic bodies are, well, irrelevant now.
The lesson? Well, in Birmingham they may love the Governor, but choosing positions that weren't viable with the country at large and whose day was done may have won votes temporarily in the South, but in the long run it killed conservatism in the Democratic Party.
The application? Well, taking hard right positions of the type we're seeing right now which place party above the democratic process may win accolades from inside the party room right now, but outside, it's pretty cold and this may alter the GOP forever without a populist wing.
So let's look at the other movements and see if that's just an American fluke.
The Union Nationale
Long serving, and two time, Premier of Quebec, Maurice Duplessis.
Quebec's government was run by the Union Nationale from the mid 1930s, when it was first formed, until the late 1950s.
In that time, Quebec was similar in some ways (and very much not in others) to some of the regions where the Trump wing of the GOP is popular today. It was heavily rural, at least in so far as the French speaking population was concerned, with islands, if you will, of big cities. And it had a culture that was distinct from the WASPish culture that ran Canada. It was, in that fashion, sort of like Wyoming, in that it had a rural population that felt oppressed, different and besieged by the national culture, whether it was to the extent it imagined or not.
The party, lead by Maurice Duplessis, was extremely conservative and extremely French nationalistic. It pursued a form of isolationism within Canada from the rest of Canada itself. It's economic policy, at the time, might be regarded as agrarian distributism. Like a lot of the Trumpite wing of the GOP, it was Christian Nationalist, but not in a protestant fashion, but a Catholic one.
The Union isn't a wholly unadmirable party by any means. It did a good job of guiding Quebec through the Great Depression, which brought it to power. But it was nearly an anachronism at the time it was formed, something that Trumpites should take counsel from.
The Union was French Quebecois to the core and rightly realized that the Quebecois had preserved their identity due to their religion more than anything else. Following the French defeat in the Seven Years War the Quebecois were allowed to retain their religion, and the church had realized that the only way that the Quebecois were going to survive was through a type of self isolation. The Quebecois largely eschewed commerce and industry, as well as governance, and kept to themselves as a separate French speaking, Catholic, body in an overwhelmingly English speaking, Protestant, North America. The Church kept the Quebecois in existence.
But following the Boer War the English Empire was rapidly changing. The UK itself recognized that the days of old fashioned colonialism were drawing to a close and sought more and more to develop what had been an empire into a family of English speaking sister states, with England as their mother. In this world, Canada was drawing more and more into being fully and culturally separate from the United Kingdom, although it would take World War One and World War Two to really make that true.
As Canada's politics developed into their own, the Union Nationale stepped into the culture of the province that had defined its path, and with a vengeance. The party was singularly nationalistic in a Quebecois fashion. Realizing the history of the Church in preserving the provinces identity, it operated more and more to try to institutionalize that history into a quasi governmental role, much like Fianna Fáil did in Ireland following Irish independence. As with the Irish example, the party operated to see that education and social services were nearly wholly run by the Church, which at first accepted that role due to it traditionally occupying it.
The party lost power in Quebec during World War Two which in part reflected that it had developed fascist sympathies by the late 1930s. It returned to power following the war, but by then Canada was rapidly evolving into its modern self. By the 1950s the Church was begging the Union Nationale to take over the normal social roles that were occupied by the government in other Canadian provinces, but the Union refused to accept the reality that the Church saw coming. Instead it ran its old policies into the ground and by the late 1950s it was subject to what amounted to a political revolution with a cultural reaction, much as the same started happening in Ireland in the 2010s and which is still occurring. In both instances, interestingly enough, the institutions that it sought to keep in a traditional role sought to be relieved of it, being more savvy to the the nature of a modern state than the party.
To conclude the party's fate, the party was essentially defined by and lashed to the identity of Duplessis himself. He died in 1959 and his immediate successor, seeing the tidal wave coming, attempted to initiate a "100 days of change", but died before that was over. His successor called an election, and the liberals won. The Quiet Revolution, and all the ills it brought, and it did bring ills, came about. Reform came, but all at once and in a disastrous way.
Much of that blame can be laid right at the feet of the Union Nationale. It should have seen what was coming as early as 1945/46, and it should have listed to one of the organizations it was attempting to boost, the Church. It didn't.
The party dissolved in 1989. There are a couple of parties that claim it as their intellectual ancestor, but they amount to nothing.
The lesson here? The party stood for something, and something real, early in its history, but even then was backwards looking, something it failed to appreciate because of the economic situation Quebec was in. It was unable to adjust, at all, to the sweeping changes that came into Canada as soon as World War Two ended and went down in defeat, forever, for its failure to adjust to them. In a lot of ways, if you insert the story of the "Tea Party" or "Alt Right" wing of Wyoming's GOP in here, it reads much the same. If so, it's probably in the 1955-56 period on the Union Nationale timeline.
The Union Nationale still has parties that assert its heritage. They have no real role in Quebec politics today. Looked at that way, the hard Trump wing of the GOP, or at least Wyoming's, should consider where the Union Nationale was in 1950. . . and then in 1960. . .and now.
Let's look at another French example.
The Revolution Nationale
"Work, the Country, Family". The personal standard of Marshall Petain, but one which was adopted informally for the Vichy regime itself.
The Revolution Nationale was a movement, not a party, but none the less its instructive as Trumpism is a movement, not yet a party.
The Rrevolution Nationale was the movement put together by the defeated French right wing following France's surrender to the Germans in 1940. Contrary to the way its sometimes imagined, the French government didn't cease to exist in 1940 in any fashion. It's surrender was legally legitimate, and for that reason members of the "Free French" forces were de facto rebels. The Free French themselves reflected a variety of backgrounds, De Gaulle was a monarchist, but the French left went largly out of office when France surrendered and into opposition, if not into outright exile.
Phillippe Petain in 1941.
Vichy, while remaining a legitimate government, knew its limitations and it accordingly turned in on itself, with Phillippe Petain, the hero of World War One at its head. Petain was, as is well known, a great hero of World War One. As a career military man, he could be expected to hold the views of the military class, in regard to politics, but he doesn't actually seem to have. Somehow, however, he acquired these with the fall of France.
French politics were extremely odd up until recently, and a bit difficult to follow, with factions that arose in the French Revolution continually fighting it out over the decades. As part of this, at some point the French officer class began to contain a significant number of traditionalist monarchists, something that is foreign to the US, but which is instructive in what we're going through now. Emphasizing French tradition over liberal reform, the French monarchist saw the figure of the monarch as the standard bearer of conservatism. Its truly odd in that the last really fully legitimate French monarch was on the thrown last arguably in 1792, or maybe in 1848. . . or maybe in 1870, but no monarch had been on the thrown of any kind since 1870, which was a long time before 1940. None the less, monarchist remained and a lot of them were in the Army.
How the Revolution Nationale conceived of itself in comparison with the pre war regime.
They weren't solely in the Army by any means, and over time a line of hard right monarchist philosophy came about due to such thinkers as Charles Maurras, founder of Action Frances. They identified themselves with all things traditionally French and based in their thinking on the concepts in Integralism. Integralism held that all things had to be oriented towards the Church, but in their application of this they went far beyond these principals and into a sort of unique French traditional cultural orientation.
Once in power, Petain gravitated towards this view and it became the ethos of the government. It had, quite frankly, the virtue of standing both for and against something simultaneously. It remained distinctly French in this fashion until the second half of the German occupation of France during which time the Germans came to more and more dominate Vichy and Vichy slid into collaboration, and hence less French, but its politicians still striving to retain their highly conservative and insular views. Originally conceiving of it self as a means of protecting the real France against what it regarded as threats to France, including the French left, it ultimately decayed into simply collaborating with the Germans in France as a practical matter.
Poster depicting France as imagined by the Revolution Nationale.
Vichy of course fell with the Allied landings in 1944. What's significant here, however, in this story is this. The French right, including the traditionalist right, had been a factor in French politics since the early 1800s. But with the cooperation with the Germans, the traditionalist right's bolt was shot. There would be other right wing French politicians, and there still are, but the legacy of Vichy has so tainted the traditionalist right wing that the French right wing has simply had to accommodate itself to the permanent influence of the left, even when its out of power.
Now, this lesion would be easy to dismiss, but the key fact may be this. Accommodating to the seeming lesson of the immediate age deprived the French traditionalist right of a role in its future. France that came out of World War Two had no place for it even when those who were really basically sympathetic to it, including Charles DeGaulle, were in power.
Let's turn sought from France for a second and look at a similar example, that of Spain
The Spanish Falangist
Falangist ideology is misunderstood in the US and always has been. It wasn't represented by one political party, but two. And it isn't fascism, at least in the abstract. And, moreover, it never ruled Spain. Furthermore, in some ways the party was uniquely Spanish
Falangism had its roots in the collapse of the Spanish monarchy, which was a long time in coming. The movement itself was diverse and included everyone from true fascist to dedicated monarchist. By and large, if taken in broadly, and if its individual branches aren't examined, what it stood for was syndicalism as an economic theory, something that has never been popular in the United States, monarchism, and traditionalism. While one branch of the party was decidedly fascist, and therefore anti religion, another part was decidedly Catholic, and as time went on, while the two coexisted, they never completely reconciled. This later feature was emphasized by the forced union of all of the Falangist parties with the Carlist parties under the Franco regime. Carlist were a distinctly traditionalist and nationalist movement that was dedicated to monarchy.
Looked at this way, Falangism had some themes that were very similar to the Revolution Nationale, after the forced 1934 merger. The movement had a dedicated inward looking economic view that was opposed to Communism and Capitalism, it sought to vest great power in the state, it was highly traditional and Christian Nationalist, and it came to be focused on one man, Francisco Franco.
Franco, of course, came to power either rescuing Spain or destroying it, depending upon your view of things. Which every it was, he remained in power until his death in 1975. Franco was never a member of the Falange, but he did rely on it and it was accordingly heavily associated with him.
Franco, always enigmatic, saw his own end and the end of the state he created coming on with his death. Before that time came, he restored the Spanish monarch and the current king of Spain actually briefly ruled the country following his death. But with Franco, the Falange pretty much died as well. In the 1930s it was the single most significant political movement in Spain. Now, while Falange parties remain, they're non entities.
The lesson here? Well, perhaps not much of one because the state of Spanish democracy was such a mess in the 1930s its hard to really see a Spain that didn't collapse into civil war. But if there is one, it's this. The Falange wasn't a believer in democracy. When democracy came back to Spain, it died. Vested ultimately in, as Ben Sasse would say, om the "weird" dedication to "one dude", it didn't survive the dude.
Let's go a bit to the west, Portugal
The National Union
Here's another movement that has a now familiar sounding name and, as will be scene for those not familiar with it, now familiar sounding politics. The Portuguese National Union.
The National Union came to power with António de Oliveira Salazar, the strongman who ruled Portugal for a blistering 36 years..
Portuguese generals following the coup of May 26, 2926.
Salazar was an economist who was brought into the Portuguese government in 1926 when the Portuguese Army, distributed by Portuguese political instability, stage a coup on May 28 of that year. Most sections of Portuguese society, except for the left, supported the coup. While the generals felt that they had saved the nation from disorder, they proved unable to run the economy, and brought Salazar in as the finance minister.
Salazar was successful in addressing the Portuguese deficit and by 1932 he was running the country as its Prime Minister. His policies were somewhat like those already mentioned for Vichy France, but nowhere near as extreme. Perhaps for this reason, his rule lasted an incredibly long time. He was, in essence, a moderate authoritarian.
Which provides, perhaps, the lesson.
Salazar.
Salazar was a conservative, anti democratic, and yet dignified man. He likely would have found the Trumpite wing of the Republican Party deeply repellant for a variety of reasons, and indeed he was opposed to political parties in general. He was a deeply religious Catholic himself, but he did not seek to unify Christianity with the nation, regarding politics as separate from faith. HIs regime studiously observed religious tolerance and he made every effort to separate the government from religion. He believed that his death would end the National Union, but it didn't immediately.
But it did end, and when it did, it went down in the Carnation Revolution of 1974, a left wing, military coup by young officers in the Portuguese military.
For a time, it was feared that Portugal would become a Communist state. It did not. Today its current government is a coalition government of Socialist, conservative Christian Democrats, and monarchist, an unlikely coalition if ever there was one. The country none the less features some significant left wing parties. They aren't governing, however.
So the lesson here is that Portugal's anti democratic highly conservative movement also, interestingly enough, eschewed extremism. It remains in power longer than any other autocratic governments, and its figurehead was not charismatic. When it fell, it fell peacefully, and more or less into moderation.
The German Conservative Right.
The German right wing political pars of the Weimar period give us an other example, although an interesting one in context. They actually were evolving in the opposite direction in some instances, although not enough to save them.
German National Peoples' Party poster from the 1920s. I think this is supposed to show a Teutonic night, the symbol of Germany, trapped between a Communist and a Pole, but I'm not really sure. It's creepy, that's for sure.
The big right wing political party in Germany between the wars and before the Nazis was the German National People's Party. It wasn't the only right wing German party by any means, however. All of the far right "conservative" parties were an odd mixture of highly nationalistic, monarchist and militaristic ideologies, including the NDV. Some of the really nasty ideologies that would fully bloom in Nazism were present in the NDV before the Nazis amounted to much.
The NDV, however, oddly evolved in a different direction. Never a huge fan of democracy, they became more democratic as time went on. It actually began to fall apart when some of its leadership admitted in 1928 that campaigning to restore the monarchy was pointless as it wasn't going to happen and younger Germans didn't support it. That set the party up for real problems as German politics became increasingly extreme after October 1929 and radicalized far right Germans gravitated towards the Nazi Party, just as radicalized left wing members of the SDP increasingly joined the German Communist Party. As right wing radicals struggled to drag the party back to the right, moderates bolted and formed the Conservative People's Party, a center right party.
Every German political party came basically to an end with the Nazis coming to power in 1932, although not immediately, and the NDV, to its lasting shame, participated in brining the Nazis to power. Some NDV figures participated in the early Nazi government, and as with all German political parties some simply went over to the Nazis. The Nazi government ultimately suppressed the NDV on the grounds that it had been infiltrated by Communists. However, some surviving members of the party were part of the July 20, 1944 plot, which makes a great deal of sense as the goals of those plotters were less purely democratic than they were in the nature of conservative anti Nazism.
After the war the NDV never revived. The Christian Democratic Union, untainted by the Nazis and their rise in any fashion, simply supplanted them. The CDU, however, was not really a conservative party but a center right party. And that's the lesson here. The NDV's inability early on to place democracy above its own interests made it an inherently anti democratic party whose reform came to late, as it participated in the damage to German society and its democracy that gave rise to the Nazis. When Germany returned to democracy after the war, the anti democratic role of the NDV was too much of a legacy for the German right to overcome. It simply disappeared. The fact that the majority of the German populace was no less interested in democracy than the members of the NDV didn't matter. It's day was done, just as in democratic West Germany, the day of the KDP was done as well.
A British Example
Let's throw in a British example, from something along the lines of the last time this happened in an English speaking country.
Let's look at Oliver Cromwell.
Oliver Cromwell.
Cromwell started off as a parliamentarian, and in that role he was a central figure in the English Civil War.
The English Civil War was, obviously, quite a while back and it figures into the long mess of the English trying to sort out the disaster of the Reformation and the accompanying Elizabethan Religious Settlement, which was no settlement at all, but rather a compromise that allowed Elizabeth to reign without things being decided and, at least by some accounts, without her actual belief in it.^^^ Be that as it may, during the reign of King Charles I, the question of the rights of kings, a long running dispute in English history, arose which pitted the highly Anglican King Charles against he Parliament.
Parliamentary forces fell to the control of Cromwell, who proved to be an able general. He was also a devout Puritan, which is to say a devoted follower of Calvin, and he believed the Church of England to be tainted, in his view, with Catholicism.
Cromwell's military prowess lead him to victory and on to the position of English dictator as the "Lord Protector". That lead him to be hated. He was even posthumously executed, with his body desecrated, and his head being kept in a secret location to this day, least the desecration repeat. His actions lead to the execution of King Charles I, but his reign lead to the restoration of the Crown under King Charles II, who for all his faults converted to the faith Cromwell feared the most, Catholicism, prior to his death.
The lesson? Well Cromwell was a purist fanatic. His fanaticism lead him to power and it lead many people to their death, including King Charles I. In effect, Cromwell, in his view, "stopped the steal", but his government then went about telling everyone what to think and what to do, and not to do, in accordance with the leader's beliefs. It lead the English to hate him in his own day, and the Irish to hate him forever. Puritanism fell from grace and they ended up fleeing to Holland and the English colonies in North America. Not a real record of success.
So what to make of all of this?
What indeed.
Well, perhaps quite a lot.
Right now the Republican Party, a party that did not have its origin in extreme conservatism and which originally sought to overthrow at least one item in the existing social order, and which has both flirted with liberalism and been the standard bearer of conservatism, has seen a large part of its based infused by populism. Some of those populist were Democratic populist at one time, an element of the Democratic Party that was once strong. Additionally, in some regions of the country the GOP is the only party, the way that conservative Democrats were once the only party in the South.
A longer strain of history in the party, the traditional Republican Party, has seemed to lose control of the situation and right now there's a civil war in the party about what sort of party it is going to be. Long history suggest the traditionalist will will out, but right now there's good reason to believe that won't occur. Maybe the Trump wing will persevere and dominate. Maybe the party will spit into two.
And here's the concern. The country needs a conservative party, and as basic conservatives, we'd like to see a real conservative party exist. But the direction the Trump wing of the party is taking it won't succeed long term, and might not succeed short term, even if it contains real elements of conservatism that should be in a conservative party. The history of all such movements in western society has been disastrous, not only to themselves, but to the movements they espoused, and often to conservatism in the larger sense.
Ben Sasse has warned about the an allegiance to "one dude". His warning is well placed. Beyond that, an allegiance to the movement over the democratic process has a really bad history. It tends to lead to the extinguishment of such movements themselves, no matter what the merits of their aims may be.
Put another way, by censuring Sasse and Cheney, real conservatives, they're essentially and ironically censuring themselves in the pages of history, and probably to their ultimate political extinction, and that which they stand for. They need to step back and consider what they're doing, but in the heat of the moment, that hardly ever occurs.
*People should be making no mistake about Cruz. Cruz was already going to go down in defeat if he ran again for the Senate in 2024. He has his eyes on the White House, but he has to. He has nowhere else to go and is going to be out of a job in 2024.
Cruz was supporting the Trumpites as he hoped they'd draw his wagon into the White House. Cruz was serving Cruz in recent events, and he likely sank his political career permanently as a result.
**Of note, those in the administration who were openly religious nearly uniformly were protestants, with perhaps the exception of Kelly Anne Conway, who is a Catholic. Mike Pence was a fallen away Catholic who had become an evangelical Christian, something that's extremely significant in regards to a person's religious views if their serious about it. Mike Pompeo went overseas to Italy while in office and noted his Italian roots, but he's also a protestant which, in the case of ethnicities such as Irish Americans and Italian Americans frankly disqualifies a person from claiming that status.
***Gingrich has moderated considerably with age and his views on various things have changed. He's acknowledged a lot of fault in his prior life of all types.
****The Democrats have the same problem, however, in that the moderates in the party and the left wing radicals really can't be housed in the same party either.
*****Lummis, who regarded Trump with distain in 2016, endorsed him heartily in 2020. While perhaps her conversion was sincere, it has the appearance of somebody calculating their political fortune and making a guess that Wyoming was Trumpite, and Cruz was Trumpite, and Cruz was headed to the White House, therefore she'd have a position in a Cruz White House. That calculation was almost certainly wrong and will likely permanently marginalize her political future.
^Weltanschauung is a German word for "World Outlook", but the term conveys more than that and is difficult to translate into English.
^^Events such as what is going on inside the GOP must be madding to members of parties like the Indepedant Party or the Constitution Party, which have long been hard right. They must wonder where all those people were all those years.
^^^While it may be apocryphal, by some accounts she refused the attention of priests of the Church of England upon her death, calling them "false priests", and thereby tacitly acknowleding the position of her sister Mary.
.jpg)
