The Grand Old Party. 1854 to 2024.

Lex Anteinternet: The 2024 Election, Part XIV. Wishful Thinking.:

March 12, 2024

North Carolina Republican Party Chairman Michael Whatley was chosen by the RNC to serve as the party's new Trump sycophantic head, and Trump's daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, as co-chair in unanimous votes.

The Republican Party has died, which makes up my mind in my earlier "shall I stay or shall I go" question I posed here.

Positions with the RNC are being slashed as the party merges with the Trump campaign organization so that it can more effectively apply the Führerprinzip.

The Republican Party, founded on March 20, 1854, nearly 170 years ago, has died.  Donald Trump killed it.  Ronald Reagan, who was a Republican, and Newt Gingrich, who was too, gave him the weapons and ammunition to do so.

The GOP was founded as a left wing progressive party that embraced Federalism and the economic thoughts of the American System.  It opposed a party, the Democrats, that was racist, nativist and provincial.  The GOP used the absence of the Democrats during the Civil War to expand the nation's railroads and agriculture through direct government involvement.  It retained its essential views through the Taft Administration, after which it entered the political wilderness and stood for "business".  It became isolationist during the Great Depression, but returned to its traditional views, which it retained throughout the Cold War, at the start of World War Two.

It became, in the post Taft era, the conservative party due to in part its economic views, which were not laissez-faire, and in part due to its social views.  The social views became much more paramount following the Democratic Party's lurch to the left starting in 1968, causing the rise of Ronald Reagan, who obtained the Presidency by making a deal with Southern Democrats, bringing them and their laissez-faire, extreme populists, ideas into the party.

Though a combination of factors, which we have dealt with elsewhere, that wing of the party has now supplanted the party itself.  Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Hoover, and Eisenhower couldn't recognize this party, nor would they wish to be part of it.

With the co-opting of the RNC, there's no going back.  The current Republican Party doesn't resemble the party of old at all.  It's more Francoist than Buckleyite.  

If Trump fails to win the Oval Office in the Fall, it'll destroy the new GOP.  It's already throwing itself apart.  If he does win, that'll destroy the GOP, as the next four years will be ones of totally unpredictable turmoil.  Nobody really knows what Trump believes in, other than himself.  His followers apply the Führerprinzip to what they believe he reflects in their beliefs and belief that he reflects them back.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

The Agrarian's Lament: A sort of Agrarian Manifesto. What's wrong with the world (and how to fix it). Part 1. How the barbarians took over the city.

The Agrarian's Lament: A sort of Agrarian Manifesto. What's wrong with t...:   

A sort of Agrarian Manifesto. What's wrong with the world (and how to fix it). Part 1. How the barbarians took over the city.

 As a bishop, it is my duty to warn the West! The barbarians are already inside the city.

Robert Cardinal Sarah

Alaric entering Athens, 395.

On August 6, 1979, Newsweek came out with a surprising cover depicting Theodore Roosevelt leading the 1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry up Kettle Hill.  The caption was "Where Have All The Heroes Gone".  I can remember laying on the couch in the living room looking at the issue.  I would have been about fifteen.

That was right about the time the nation was getting ready to see Carter square off against Reagan, and if the author of that article thought the choices were uninspiring, I have to wonder what he'd think now.

Anyhow, in reading about the contest between Reagan and Carter I was compelled to ask my father, "What's the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats?", trying to figure out what it was, and what I was, in that context.  I'm actually surprised, in looking back, that I was asking this question at that age, as in my mind, this was earlier.  And in fact I may very well be remembering this inaccurate, as to when I asked this question and what brought it about.

I do recall his answer.  He informed me that "the Republicans are more conservative than the Democrats".

It was an interesting answer.  He didn't say that the Republicans were conservative or that the Democrats were not.  He said the Republicans were more conservative than the Democrats, implying that they were sort of in the middle.

I decided at the ripe old age of 12, or so, that I was more conservative, and therefore I was a Republican.

When I registered to vote six years later, I in fact registered as a Republican, which is what I thought I likely was.  It didn't last a real long time, however, as by age 20, I was registering as a Democrat.

Conservation was the reason why.  Even by my late teens I as clearly a conservationist, and I teetered on the edge of, and crossed into, environmentalism.  While I didn't see myself being on the political left, those around me did. I recall one friend of mine in junior college, who had known me since high school, remarking in a conversation about the Vietnam War protests that if I'd been college age at that time, I'd be in the protesters, a comment that really surprised me as I was in the National Guard at the time, and I was a defense hawk, part of the reason I'd originally registered as a Republican.  The now late mother of a friend of mine loaned me The Monkey Wrench Gang on the basis that I'd like it, and while I was surprised by that when I read the cover about a group of fictional who were basically environmental terrorists, I in fact did like the 1975 Edward Abby novel.  It probably didn't hurt that I had a crush on the daughter of that lender, the sister of one of my friends, and that entire family were obviously environmentally centered, eccentric, Democrats.

It wasn't a facade, however.  I wasn't a DINO, if there is such a thing.  Going through my undergraduate years and through law school, and into at least my first decade of practicing law, I remained a Democrat.  It was rural issues that did it.  The Democrats were for preserving the wilderness, at a time that the Reagan Republicans never saw a tree they didn't want to cut down.  The Democrats were for keeping Wyoming's wildlife a public resource when a Republican legislature wanted to give it to landowners in a bill, I'd note, that our current Congressman's father promoted.  The Republicans always saw wild lands as something to be exploited, the Democrats normally saw them as something to be preserved.

Ultimately I left the Democratic Party for the Republicans as I couldn't stomach being in a party that embraced death so closely.  I wasn't alone.  Really significant Wyoming Democrats, like Ray Hunkins, who had campaigned as Democrats, left the party and became Republican politicians.  The overall impact was a good one, however, for the state's GOP.  It took a party that was already highly independent and frankly middle of the road on most things, and made it more so.  It was a Wyoming Party.

Those days are dead and gone.

It's hard to describe where we are politically in this country today, and that's in no small part because it's hard to explain where we are culturally.  The absolute insanity of social movements in the Western World, unleashed since the annus horbillus of 1968, but with roots dating back at least to the 1790s, has created as sort of cultural hellscape which now, very late in the day, average people are reacting to, but reacting in way that expresses their ignorance of their own culture and existential nature.  It's been a long time in the making.

Some thirty years ago I was at a not very well done bachelor's party, no not one of that type, that I hosted for a friend getting married. At the party was a young man who had just been admitted to a university in New York.  He was pretty impressed with getting into it, and had already taken up calling New York City, "the city", even though he knew just about as little about NYC as I did.

At the party he raised the question of whether the United States was existentially a liberal, or conservative, nation.  In thinking about it there in my late 20s, when I was somewhat more liberal than I am now, I thought the country basically existentially liberal.

I'm not certain that I think that now.  But then, back then, in the late 1980s, being liberal didn't mean I had to pretend that biological truths weren't just that, truths.

Educated people, including educated conservatives like me, as that's basically what I am, are to a large extent baffled by the phenomenon of Donald Trump.  How, we wonder, could anyone vote for a person like him, particularly after he attempted a coup to overthrow the 2020 election?

The Judicial Coup of 2015 has everything to do with that, as we warned that it would, in 2015.

Why Americans, irrespective of position, ought to cringe over Obergefell

Yes, we warned what was in store:

The common wisdom right now is that the public will now accept this, where it hadn't.  I doubt it will, and already those who appeared defeated are beginning to resist and rally, with proposals that will have to be taken seriously in short order.  A real reaction is likely to be a massive level of contempt for a Court which was already not particularly well liked by much of the nation, and which now shows itself capable of acting in a Napoleonic fashion

And we warned about it more than once.

We educated people, including we social conservatives, had acclimated ourselves to accepting that an unelected body of jurist could decree social liberality on the society, and everyone had to accept it.  To a large extent, frankly, we grew comfortable with being conservatives of varying stripes, but not getting much of what we wanted.

Obergefell was clearly a bridge too far, and it was right from the beginning.  And what liberals promised, that "this would never mean", very rapidly turned out to be a whopping lie.

The Supreme Court tries a bit to mop up a dog's breakfast. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

An argument on what you can and cannot think about stuff that people don't understand with implications you just don't expect but maybe ought to.. Fallout from Obergefell

The line from Kennedy to Trump. . and from democracy to the reeducation camp. Judicial blunderng and its impact.

The contempt that's come for evolutionary biology and basic nature out of the American left, and indeed, the European left, since 2015 has been epic.  But it didn't start in 2015.  It started well before, with major events marking the path.  May 9, 1960, the entire year of 1968, 1969, 1973.  What marked it all, during the very period in which the left embraced everything in nature outside of ourselves, was the rejection of our natures.  We didn't see ourselves as men in nature any longer, but like gods, outside of it.

What the left apparently they didn't grasp is that no matter what the educated conservative "establishment elite" was willing to accept, the rank and file, instinctively conservative middle, wasn't, and isn't, once things went too far.

For we brought nothing into the world, just as we shall not be able to take anything out of it.

If we have food and clothing, we shall be content with that.

Those who want to be rich are falling into temptation and into a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires, which plunge them into ruin and destruction.

For the love of money is the root of all evils, and some people in their desire for it have strayed from the faith and have pierced themselves with many pains.

1 Timothy, Chapter 6.

At the same time, however, a combination of two of the oldest malevolent forces in the world had already united to make any reaction abhorrent.  Ignorance had combined with greed.

People like to spout a lot of babble about the settlement of North America, and the United States, that is just that.  People imagine that hardworking benighted immigrants came in and built a new land out of the sweat of their brows.  Yes, there's an element of truth in that, but the larger truth is that they were massively assisted by their governments, which removed the native population by force at public expense, and then sold or gave the land to the settlers for no value or grossly undervalue.  It's impossible to look at what occured and not regard it as deeply immoral, and claims to the opposite as deeply hypocritical. When Wyoming politicians today proudly declare that they're fourth generation Wyoming rancher who built their enterprises from nothing but their own hard work, they're deluding themselves.  Their ancestors were, as a rule, dirt poor people who benefitted from what was effectively a government hand out, in part, and in part from a program that made that possible by what today would be regarded as ethnic genocide.

There's really no two ways about it.

Nonetheless, in being honest about it, we can also be honest about the fact that the beneficiaries of those programs did not have in mind killing people.  

They also largely didn't have in mind getting rich.

The goal was to have a family, and provide for it.

We recently spent a lot of time on our companion blog looking at the laws and social conditions prior to the fateful legislature of 1977.  Those laws were geared towards that end.  And, prior to the 1970s, the laws in the country largely were.  Laws  on "domestic" topics were geared towards the preservation of the family and the protection of children.

And before Ronald Reagan, the tax structure and the structure of the Federal Government was aimed at regulating excessive accumulation of wealth and reigning in big business. It was widely held, and correctly, that people needed protection against large business and that vast accumulation of wealth could result in the wealthy paying their own way.  The wealthy were not worshiped, and big business was not seen as the little man's friend.  

A figure like Donald Trump was not regarded as admirable.

Reagan came in and changed that, selling the public the lie that as the wealthy got wealthier everyone else did as well.  It made some sense, until you thought it out.  And to a certain degree its true, as the wealthier a society becomes, the wealthier everyone in it is.  But it only goes so far, and it didn't go nearly as far as its backers claimed.  Moreover, the advance of technology, accelerated by World War Two and the Cold War, marched on irrespective of tinkering with the tax rates, and that is likely what made the reason difference.

Something that didn't withstand the tinkering was the assault on education.  The Great Depression, followed by World War Two, followed by the Cold War, had emphasized the need for science and engineering like nothing else.  World War Two, in turn, flooded universities with servicemen after the war, making college educations common.  But with Reagan came a reduction in support for science and engineering.  University remained important, but degrees suffered value erosion.  Degrees like law, which could be societally beneficial, or destructive, evolved towards the latter, as a Reagan era emphasis on greed set in.

Just as societal structures started to break down due to the battering rams of the left, therefore, they were replaced by a lack of education and an emphasis that everything was about money.  It was not a combined intentional attack.  The left would not have made everything about money, and the right would not have broken down societal structures, but the combined assault of both had that effect.  This left an American, and Western, culture with no existential values and nothing to measure individual self-worth other than economic success.  Like the concurrent assault of Germanic, Slavic, and Eastern tribes in the Middle Ages, the damage on the American metaphorical Rome was too much to bear.

Rome, of course, had the Church. And as Rome fell, the Church stepped in, preserving what was worthwhile of the existing culture, and educating the Barbarians.  The United States is not, however, Imperial Rome.  When Rome fell, which was over time, the Roman culture could look towards the Church and realize that it held existential truths Roman civilization did not.  As the American culture falls today, it has instead the adulterated American Civil Religion, a light and reduced content variant of original strict Protestant sects that reflected the product of the Reformation.  And people retain their native instincts, although not in a restrained or educated fashion.

This has left the reeling street level populist reacting against things they know are wrong, but mixing them with ignorance and confusion.  That it's absurd that some claim there are more than two genders is self-evident, and wrong, and that steps like Chloe's law must be taken to combat it is apparent.  What is not is that this depraved state of affairs stems from one that divorced sex from marriage, or the concept that marriage is natural, and not a set of highly advanced sexual dates which allow for discarded partners.  Hence, you have some railing against sexual mutilation, who practice chemical sterilization, or who are serial polygamists themselves.

And the substitution of money as the supreme value over family remains in the same class, with some seriously believing, as some have asserted since the 1980s, that God basically endorses their occupations as surely he must.  It can't be the case, they think, that their occupations could do harm. Therefore, you have those who, like James Watt, can't grasp the thought that natural resources must be conserved, and that this is conservative, let alone that there are things that are being economically exploited which may very well destroy the ability for us to exist.  In their heart of hearts there are those on the populist right who believe that the use of fossil fuels is Divinely sanctioned, just as there are those on the left who believe that altering our psychological and physical natures is some sort of existential, if not Devine, right.

This sort of thing has put us in the untenable position we now find ourselves it.

It ought to be possible, in other words, for a thoughtful conservative to oppose infanticide, genocide, and ecocide.  That is, it ought to be perfectly possible to oppose abortion, gender mutilation, Russian aggression in Ukraine while supporting conservation and indeed be concerned about the environment. That would, in fact, be thoughtful conservatism.

There's no need, and indeed no sense whatsoever, in feeling that because you are worried about gender disorder, that you need to support Putin in Ukraine, or hail a serial polygamist as somebody who presents as a modern Cyrus the Great.

But where to go from here, especially for a thoughtful conservative.

It's clear at this point that neither the modern Republican Party or Democratic Party are going to do anything to solve this. They are both too far corrupted in an existential sense. The Democratic Party is virtually at war with Human Nature and the Devine, while the GOP is at war with intelligence, Science and thought.  Between the two parties, the Democrats have revived a belief in democracy they lost in 1973, however, whereas the Republicans view everyone who doesn't agree with their Caudillo as a class enemy.

The populists know that something is deeply amiss with the assault on human nature. The progressives know that there's something deeply wrong with the assault on science and nature.  Progressives sense that a worship of money is wrong, whereas the Republicans are outright worshiping it.  Populists sense that a worship of yourself as a demigod is perverse, but only embrace that up to the point that it's not personally inconvenient.

National Conservatives and their fellow travelers claim they're the answer.  C. C. Peckhold, a university professor who seems to be in this camp, gives about as good of a justification of this as can be given in an episode of Catholic Answers live that's well worth listing to, but also  a little disturbing in some ways as well.  Like Patrick Dineen, he's big on "order".

What he seems to be missing, in so far as that interview goes, is that corporate capitalism has imposed its own order.  He regards "liberalism", as in the classic meaning of this word, to be the problem, and seeks a "post liberal order", and is one of the contributors to the Post Liberal Podcast whose blog we've linked in our companion site as its interesting.  What they miss, however, is that what they are seeking is effete, which to a large degree is what took down "post liberalism", by which them mean the pre liberal ancient regime, and that it was also corrupt, as concentration of order encourages corruptness.  Indeed, that's what we have now, to a degree, concentrated in capitalism.

Only in a Distributist Agrarianism, by whatever name, is the solution to this found.

Should I Stay or Should I Go?

Questioner: "Why did you leave the Republican Party?"

George F Will: "The same reason I joined it. I am a conservative."

If I were to listen to people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, or some of the Freedom Caucus here in Wyoming, it would be go.

If I listen to lifelong residents here in the state, including some lifelong Republicans whom would currently be classified as RINO's by the newly populist Wyoming GOP, it would be stay.  Alan Simpson, who is an "anybody but Trump", former U.S. Senator, and who the Park County GOP tried to boot out as a elected precinct committeeman, is staying.

The problem ultimately is what time do you begin to smell like the crowd on the bus?

Konrad Adenauer of the Christian Democratic Union, West Germany's first post-war chancellor.  He worked towards compromise and ended denazification early, even though he'd speant the remaining months of World War Two in prison and barely survived.  By CDU - This file was provided to Wikimedia Commons by the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, a German political foundation, as part of a cooperation project., CC BY-SA 3.0 de, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=16173747

To put it another way, I'd give an historical example.  It's often noted that quite a few Germans joined the Nazi Party as it was just a way to get by, or advance careers, etc., during the Third Reich period of German history.  When I was a kid, there was a lot of sympathy, oddly enough, for that view amongst those who were of the World War Two generation, although at the same time, there was a widely held belief that militarism, combined with radical nationalism, were something that was basically in the German DNA.  The US, as is well known, didn't even particularly worry about letting former Nazis into the country.

The Germans themselves pretty much turned a blind eye towards this, so many of them had been in the Nazi Party.  Even post-war German politicians who had spent the war in exile did, as it was the programmatic thing to do.

Since that time, however, that view has really changed.  It started to in 1968 when German students rioted and exposed former Nazis in the police.  Germans haven't really come to terms with it, but having been a member of the Nazi Party is a mark of shame, and it's become to be something despised everywhere, even if a person did it for practical reasons and wasn't really involved in the party.

And it should be a mark of shame.

Americans have been sanctimonious about that for a long time, but starting in the 1970s lots of Americans became ashamed, in varying degrees, of our own ancestors in regard to various things.  Ironically, the backlash to that, symbolized by Confederate battle flags, is part of what brings us to our current crisis.

Ed Herschler, former Marine Corps Raider, and Democratic lawyer, who was Wyoming's Governor from 1975 to 1987.  Herschler probably wouldn't have a home in today's Democratic Party in Wyoming.

I registered as a Republican the first time I was old enough to vote. The first Presidential Election I was old enough to vote in was the 1984 Presidential election, in which I voted for Ronald Reagan. The first election I was old enough to vote in was the 1982 off year election.  I honestly don't know who I voted for Senator.  Malcolm Wallop won, but I very well have voted for the Democrat.  Dick Cheney wont reelection that year against Ted Hommel, whom I don't recall at all.  I probably voted for Cheney.  I know that I voted for the reelection of Democratic Governor Ed Herschler, who was one of the state's great Governors. 

A split ticket.

Split tickets were no doubt common in my family.  My father would never reveal who he voted for in an election.  The first Presidential election I recall was the 1972 Election in which Nixon ran against McGovern, and I asked who he voted for when he came home. He wouldn't say, and I don't know to this day.  

I knew that my father registered Republican, but not everyone in my father's family did.  My grandmother, for one, registtered Demcrat,somethign I became aware of when we were visiting her, which we frequently did, at her retirement apartment here in town.  She was pretty clear that she was an unapologetic Democrat, which made sense given that she was 100% Irish by descent.  Most Irish Americans, at that time, were Democrats, and all real ones were Catholic.  Reagan, who claimed Irish ancestry, woudl have been regarded a a dual pretender for that reason by many of them.

My father's view, and it remains mine, that you voted for the person and what they stood for, not hte party.

But being in a party means something, and that has increasingly come to be the case.

I switched parties after that 1984 election.  I was, and remain, a conservative, but the GOP was drifting further from a conservative center in that period, and as I've noted, the election of Ronald Reagan paved the path for Donald Trump, although I won't say that was obvious then.  And also, Democrats were the party that cared about public lands, as they still do, and cared about rural and conservation issues that I cared about and still do. The GOP locally was becoming hostile to them. So I switched.

Campaign image for Mike Sullivan, Democratic Governor from 1987 to 1995.

I remained a Democrat probably from about 1984 until some time in the last fifteen years.  Being a Democrat in Wyoming meant that you were increasingly marginalized, but finally what pushed me out was that it meant being in the Party of Death.  The Democrats went from a party that, in 1973, allowed you to be middle of the road conservative and pro-life.  We had a Governor, Mike Sullivan, who was just that.  By the 2000s, however, that was becoming impossible.  Locally most of the old Democrats became Republicans, some running solid local campaigns as Republicans even though they had only been that briefly.  Even as late as the late 1990s, however, the Democrats ran some really serious candidates for Congress, with the races being surprisingly close in retrospect.  Close, as they say, only counts with hand grenades and horseshoes, but some of those races were quite close.  The GOP hold on those offices was not secure.

Dave Freudenthal, Democratic Governor from 2003 to 2011.

Before I re-registered as a Republican, I was an independent for a while.  Being an independent meant that primaries became nearly irrelevant to me, and increasingly, as the Democratic Party died and became a far left wing club, starting in the 2000s., it also meant that basically the election was decided in the primaries.  Like the other rehoming Democrats, however, we felt comfortable in a party that seemingly had given up its hostility to public lands.  And frankly, since the 1970s, the GOP in Wyoming had really been sui generis.  Conservative positions nationally, including ones I supported, routinely failed in the Republican legislature. Abortion is a good example.  The party nationally was against it, I'm against it personally, but bills to restrict it failed and got nowhere in a Republican legislature.

The Clinton era really impacted the Democratic Party here locally.  Wyomingites just didn't like him.  That really started off the process of the death of the Democratic Party here.  As center right Democrats abandoned the party in response, left wing Democrats were all that remained, and the party has become completely clueless on many things, making it all the more marginalized.  But just as Clinton had that impact on the Democrats, Trump has on the GOP.

Throughout the 70s and 80s it was the case that Wyoming tended to export a lot of its population, which it still does, and then take in transients briefly during booms.  In the last fifteen or so years, however, a lot of the transient population, together with others from disparate regions, have stayed.  They've brought their politics with them, and now in the era of Trump, those views have really taken over the GOP, save for about three pockets of the old party that dominate in Natrona, Albany and Laramie Counties.  A civil war has gone on in some counties, and is playing out right now in Park County.  In the legislature, the old party still has control, but the new party, branded as the Freedom Caucus, which likes to call its rival the UniParty, is rising.  The politics being advanced are, in tone, almost unrecognizable.

Like it or not, on social issues the old GOP's view was "I don't care what you do, just leave me alone". That attitude has really changed.  Given a bruising in the early 1990s due to a Southeastern Wyoming effort to privatize wildlife, the party became pro public lands for awhile. That's change.  The party was not libertarian.  That's changed.  

Money helped change it, which is a story that's really been missed.

Like the Democrats of the 90s, a lot of the old Republicans have started to abandon the party.  If there was another viable party to go to, floods would leave.  A viable third party might well prove to be the majority party in the state, or at least a close second to the GOP, if there was one.

There isn't.

So, what to do?

While it'll end up either being a pipe dream or an example of a dream deferred, there's still reason to believe that much of this will be transitory.  If Trump does not win the 2024 Presidential Election, and he may very well not, he's as done as the blue plate special at a roadside café as the GOP leader.  Somebody will emerge, but it's not really likely to be the Trump clone so widely expected.  And the relocated populists may very well not have that long of run in Wyoming.  Wyomingites, the real ones, also tend to have a subtle history of revenge against politicians who betray their interests.  Those riding hiding high on anti-public lands, anti-local interests, may come to regret it at the polls later on.

The Johnson County invaders of 1892. The Republican Party, whose politicians had been involved in the raid on Natrona and Johnson Counties, took a beating in the following elections.

Or maybe this process will continue, in which case even if Trump wins this year, the GOP will die.  By 2028, it won't be able to win anything and a new party will have to start to emerge.

We'll see.

None of which is comfortable for the State's real Republicans.

One more example of how Ronald Reagan made the United States worse.

I have a thread up about reassessing Reagan, whom conservatives worship (they also tend to worship Theodore Roosevelt, oddly, who was a radical liberal, but anyway).

I've never been particularly certain on my views on Reagan, as I've noted here before.  I am a conservative, but something about Reagan has made me long uncomfortable.  In part, it might frankly just be because he was an actor, and I find actors to be fake.  I never bought off on his persona, I guess.  

I've noted here several times that Ronald Reagan started the process that gave us Donald Trump.

The Guardian just ran an article on the psychology of our political times, starting off with this:

Many explanations are proposed for the continued rise of Donald Trump, and the steadfastness of his support, even as the outrages and criminal charges pile up. Some of these explanations are powerful. But there is one I have seen mentioned nowhere, which could, I believe, be the most important: Trump is king of the extrinsics.

Some psychologists believe our values tend to cluster around certain poles, described as “intrinsic” and “extrinsic”. People with a strong set of intrinsic values are inclined towards empathy, intimacy and self-acceptance. They tend to be open to challenge and change, interested in universal rights and equality, and protective of other people and the living world.

I'm not sure what I think of The Guardian either, which is a British left wing newspaper working hard to break into the US market.  But this article has some interesting points, starting with this generalization:

People at the extrinsic end of the spectrum are more attracted to prestige, status, image, fame, power and wealth. They are strongly motivated by the prospect of individual reward and praise. They are more likely to objectify and exploit other people, to behave rudely and aggressively and to dismiss social and environmental impacts. They have little interest in cooperation or community. People with a strong set of extrinsic values are more likely to suffer from frustration, dissatisfaction, stress, anxiety, anger and compulsive behaviour.

Interesting.  And:

Trump exemplifies extrinsic values. From the tower bearing his name in gold letters to his gross overstatements of his wealth; from his endless ranting about “winners” and “losers” to his reported habit of cheating at golf; from his extreme objectification of women, including his own daughter, to his obsession with the size of his hands; from his rejection of public service, human rights and environmental protection to his extreme dissatisfaction and fury, undiminished even when he was president of the United States, Trump, perhaps more than any other public figure in recent history, is a walking, talking monument to extrinsic values.

That is in part what has made the "left behinds" fanatic devotion to Trump so hard for me to grasp.  People declaring themselves average patriotic, Christian, middle class, Americans are fanatic in their devotion to somebody who expresses none of those values whatsoever.  This is so much the case, that extreme efforts have to be taken to project those onto Trump.

But here's where it gets really interesting: 

We are not born with our values. They are shaped by the cues and responses we receive from other people and the prevailing mores of our society. They are also moulded by the political environment we inhabit. If people live under a cruel and grasping political system, they tend to normalise and internalise it, absorbing its dominant claims and translating them into extrinsic values. This, in turn, permits an even crueller and more grasping political system to develop.

If, by contrast, people live in a country in which no one becomes destitute, in which social norms are characterised by kindness, empathy, community and freedom from want and fear, their values are likely to shift towards the intrinsic end. This process is known as policy feedback, or the “‘values ratchet”. The values ratchet operates at the societal and the individual level: a strong set of extrinsic values often develops as a result of insecurity and unfulfilled needs. These extrinsic values then generate further insecurity and unfulfilled needs.

I think there's a lot more that can be analyzed as to these statements, but at an elemental level, there's a large measure of truth to them.  Norwegians today are a kindly, non-threatening group.  That reflects a lot of things, but one of them is the Christianization of the country in the Middle Ages.  That took them from a brutal society where murdering your own children was accepted, to what we have today.

Continuing on with The Guardian; 

Ever since Ronald Reagan came to power, on a platform that ensured society became sharply divided into “winners” and “losers”, and ever more people, lacking public provision, were allowed to fall through the cracks, US politics has become fertile soil for extrinsic values. As Democratic presidents, following Reagan, embraced most of the principles of neoliberalism, the ratchet was scarcely reversed. The appeal to extrinsic values by the Democrats, Labour and other once-progressive parties is always self-defeating. Research shows that the further towards the extrinsic end of the spectrum people travel, the more likely they are to vote for a rightwing party.

That' is absolutely the case.

Most voters, and most conservatives alive today, don't recall the country before Reagan.  They don't even recall that George Bush, who urged a "kinder, gentler, conservatism" in the race he won for the Oval Office, ran against Reagan in the 1980 GOP contest.

Reagan had a charming smile and a personal "oh shucks" type of presentation.  He was running against a widely personally admired man, Jimmy Carter, whose policies had failed.  He was also running at a time at which the country was desperate on inflation, and trying to figure out what had happened in the 1960s, and how the Vietnam War had gone so wrong.  Hard hat Americans were losing their jobs to Japanese manufacturing. Southerners were grasping to figure out what had happened to the Old South.

It wasn't a really good time in the country.

From the election of 1912 all the way through the election of 1980, the county had been on a much different path. The three-way race of 1912 saw a Progressive (Roosevelt) dragging along a conservative (Taft) against another somewhat Progressive (Wilson).  Progressivism, which first really started to come into its own during Theodore Roosevelt's administration, was on the rise and in fact became ingrained in American politics.  The Harding, Coolidge and Hoover administrations really didn't change that, but the Franklin Roosevelt administration very much did, ramping it up enormously.  The setting on the dial that Roosevelt put the country on was only turned down a couple of notches post-war, and the difference between post-war Republican Administrations and Democratic ones was slight in regard to these issues for the most part, at least until Lyndon Johnson, who tried to set the dial back up.  Nixon may have set the dial back down, but by modern Republican standards, Richard Nixon was a liberal RINO.

Reagan started to pull the dial off the settings, much of it in a budget fashion.  The mentally disturbed were set out on the streets as state's lost funding from the Federal Government for them.  Support for education at the Federal level, a major feature of the World War Two/Cold War Federal governments, started to evaporate.

With this, a sort of fend for yourself individualism came in.  The promise is that everything would improve, and everyone's lives with it.  And because Reagan did tackle inflation, and he did face down the Soviet Union (which of course is more or less unrelated), things did improve.

But that's stopped.

The left deserves much of the blame as well, as it got goofy, frankly, and started to take on a universalism approach that doesn't appeal to hardly anyone, and which in fact is detrimental to the country.

But Reagan took us down a path that involved hating the government, and incorporated the disaffected into the party to be used, but not really supported.  Lots of people ended up being left behind.

There were signs.  His political career had been launched by his A Time For Choosing speech in favor of Barry Goldwater, who was in some ways an earlier version of the Anti Republican, Republican.  As Governor of California, he had been a proponent of tax cuts, and he cut the number of individuals in California's mental institutions.

But all that is forty years ago.  Hating the government has become institutionalized on the right, along with a belief that all those in government service are enemies of the people.  A Lord of the Flies type of view towards economics has been accepted.  The ignored are angry  An acceptance of politicians whose personal lives don't reflect their professed Christianity is now fully accepted, particularly by a public that claims to want to turn back the clock, but doesn't recall what the prior clock settings were.

Changing this requires an change on an existential level.  There's no reason to believe that any current Republican, save perhaps for Christie and Romeny, could affect the start of it.

The moment the fatal wounds were afflicted.

How did we end up with two ancient, disliked men being advanced by their parties?

Well, we ended up here as the Democrats quit believing in democracy, favoring rule by the courts, until the courts decided they believed in democracy, and because both parties lied to their rank and file, working class, constituents for a period of fifty years.

We've dealt with this before.

However, it can nearly be determined with precision.

The date of the wounds were:

• January 22, 1973

That's the date the United States Supreme Court issued the Roe v. Wade decision, replacing its judgment for that of state legislatures. As the dissent noted:

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

And Democrats concluded they didn't really need to persuade voters anymore, the Courts would impose a new liberal regime on the besotted and benighted public without their participation.

And:

• July 17, 1980.

That's the date that the GOP nominated Ronald Reagan for President. Reagan would go on to use the Southern Strategy to draw in Southern (and Rust Belt) Democrats who had lied to as the post World War Two economic prosperity collapsed. Thing is, the GOP didn't really listen to their concerns, just as the Democrats had quit doing. 

Seven years in which we went from two functioning political parties and put them on the path to being pure machines, breaking what they claimed to serve.

Blog Mirror: After New Hampshire

One of the blogs linked in on our sidebar is City Father, the blog of a Catholic Priest in New York.  It's always worth reading.

He's made some comments on the recent GOP primary results which are similar to those I've been making, but his most recent one is much more blunt.  A sample:

No one should really have been surprised by this. If the moneyed, zombie Reaganite elite that used to run the party - the rich who undoubtedly believe the country is theirs to rule by right - still believed the party was theirs and that their un-rich, taken-for-granted constituents whom they have for decades brought off with culture-war sloganeering were still in their pockets, then they were likely the only ones who still believed one of their own could be imposed upon their increasingly left-behind and increasingly angry-about-it constituents.

I wouldn't put it quite that way, but he's spot on about the "taken for granted constituents".  Indeed, for years I've been saying this about both parties, and while not noted in his post, many of the MAGA Republicans are actually disaffected Southern Democrats and Rust Belt Democrats brought into the GOP over a forty-year period, starting with Reagan's Southern Strategy.

Reagan was treated for years as if he was some sort of a saint.  He came to define conservatism.  Whatever he was, however, he unleashed the "Tea Party" forces that became the MAGA ones, and they are now the GOP.  The old GOP isn't coming back.  No new conservative party has yet emerged (one will). The Democratic Party, for its part, has ossified into the left wing, 1970s, version of itself and can't get out of it. Hubris has allowed this all to be vested into two, ancient, men.  Donald Trump, as he increasingly evidences the onset of dementia, is going to win the general election.  Reagan, and the Democrats having become the Supreme Court fan club, up until recently, post 1973, are to blame for that.

Whigs and the GOP. A timely lesson.

Log cabins and cider were the symbols of the Whigs.

The Whig party formed in 1833, making it just a few years younger than the Democratic Party.  It was a center left, anti-Masonic, anti Manifest Destiny, pro American System, party, although most articles will claim it was a "conservative" party.

It opposed populist Andrew Jackson, a Democratic populist.

William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, Zachery Taylor and Millard Fillmore were members of the Whigs.

A lot of its policies were very reasonable in a modern conservative context. What it couldn't adjust to, however, was slavery, and the passage of the Kansas Nebraska Act, which nullified the Missouri Compromise, broke it up in 1856.  Those members of the party who came down as solidly anti-slavery formed the new Republican Party, which was also a center left, anti-Masonic, anti Manifest Destiny, pro American System, party, with anti-slavery added to it.

The GOP went from birth to the White House in just four years.

The Whigs drew from the Democratic Republican Party that preceded it, but it drew from other camps as well.  Not only did the old Democratic Republicans come into it, but Democrats did as well as that party became increasingly populist.

Note that.  

The Whigs were a major center left American political party.  The Democrats were a conservative, populist party.  The Whigs of the 1850s would have recognized the Republican Party of the 1950s as their successor.

Note what happened, and perhaps more importantly, how quickly it can happen.

The classic bromide of American politics is that third parties don't succeed.

Some do.

The Whigs came out of a prior political party's period of turmoil. They consolidated around solid, government backed, economics and a policy of what would amount to anti discrimination for the era.  As a result of that, it attracted businessmen, quasi liberals, and (immigrant) Catholics.  It won several elections before spectacularly breaking up.

The GOP has been around much longer, but at least in its early periods up to the Great Depression, and then again from 1950 on, up until Ronald Reagan, it was much like the Whig Party it had replaced, but with civil rights added as an element. Ronald Reagan, as much as he is admired by conservatives, began to dismantle that when the Democrats incorporated civil rights into its makeup starting in the 50s and 60s.  The Democrats had been struggling with its southern membership, which very much reflected the views of the traditional party, since the 1932 election of Franklin Roosevelt.  Southern Democrats stuck with the party as they had nowhere else to go, until Reagan cynically offered them one.

Now that element has taken over the party.

The GOP nearly cracked up in 1912 when the Theodore Roosevelt wing of the party, which wanted to take the party much to the left, and make it much more liberal/populist, bolted.  That same year, the Democratic Party began its evolution into a liberal party by running Woodrow Wilson, drawing in disaffected Republican populists.

Note that.

It took twenty years, but by 1932 TR's cousin FDR put the liberals in the Democratic Party permanently in control, Wilson's bid having transformed the party permanently.  It took roughly 30, but Ronald Reagan did the same thing with the Dixiecrats he incorporated into the GOP, that having also transformed the party permanently.  It took the Democrats 40 years to start shedding the Dixiecrats.  It took about 40 years for the Dixiecrats Reagan invited into the Republican Party to start a GOP civil war.

Conservatives gush about Reagan, and with some good reasons.  He was the country's one and only really conservative President.  Prior Republicans had fit more into the Whig mold.  Those who came after him sort of recalled it, like the first Bush, or fit into a new Neo Con mold that real conservatives tended to despise.  Reagan's Presidency was transformational, however, in that it inserted certain conservative strains of thought into government, while it never got a hold of the nation's budget, which has become increasingly out of whack due to the tax cuts he and Republican successors introduced.

But what he also introduced, Dixiecrats and Rust Belt Democrats, infected the party and now has killed it.  The "Republican" Part of today is the Dixiecrat Party/Rust Belt Democrat Party in a very real sense.  It's populist, but not conservative.

There are holdout Republican elements within it, but they have no hope of taking it back.  The past three years have proven that. Trump Populists don't care that Trump tried to seize power illegally.  They see class enemies everywhere which justify their positions, something Democrats just don't grasp.  Democrats like Robert Reich run around wondering when they'll wake up, not realizing they're wide awake.

When the Whigs broke up, it took the GOP only a few years to become successful.  The Whig collapse in 1856 was followed by the Republican success of 1860.

That's lesson number 1.  New parties can succeed quickly when the old one dies.

Lesson number 2 is that opposing parties become complacent.  The Democratic Party after 1912 didn't worry about its southern base and allowed it to go into the Republican Party, which briefly helped the GOP, and then killed it.  The Whigs took not only from the collapsed Democratic Republicans but also from the Democrats themselves.

The current Democratic Party is the legacy of 1912 the same way that the GOP is the legacy of 1980.  Just as the GOP has gone Dixiecrat/Rust Belt Democrat, the Democratic Party has gone Ivy League Pink.  It's nearly as enfeebled as the GOP is right now, it's just not as obvious.

A new party must emerge to replace the GOP, and frankly it now will.  Conservatives have no home and need to find one.  Centrist, however, have no home as well.  People who believed in Reagan's social conservatism aren't the same people who vote for serial polygamist and icky Donald Trump.  Democrats that voted for a guy like Harry Truman aren't comfortable with Joe Biden, at least in the expression he's manifested himself.  49%, at least, of the electorate are independents who have already dumped the GOP or the Democratic Party.

The one, and only, thing the Democrats and the Republicans agree on is that you absolutely must not vote for a third party, as that helps the other guy. That thinking insures that the extremes of those two parties have a free ride.

Well, the party is over and on the GOP side, the people have gone home.  This election, or the next, a new center right party must form, and will form.

If it formed now, with a Manchin or Christie at its head.  It'd take the election, and the GOP would completely collapse.  Quite a bit of the Democratic Party would defect as well.

It should happen.

Wednesday, January 9, 1974. Oil.

OPEC voted to freeze oil prices for three months.  Saudi Arabia had been willing to reduce them, but Algeria, Iraq, and Iran, had not been.

Ronald and Nancy Reagan upon Reagan's 1966 Gubernatorial victory, and one decade away from his first run for the GOP Presidential ticket.

Actor turned politician Ronald Reagan delivered California's State of the State address, noting the oil crisis but asserting it was an opportunity to develop resources, freeing the US from foreign petroleum.

Courthouses of the West: In Memoriam: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

Courthouses of the West: In Memoriam: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: 

In Memoriam: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

I'm late in posting this and, frankly, so many things have been posted it would hardly be necessarily.

Justice O'Connor was the first woman appointed to the United States Supreme Court. Frankly, even though this came in relative terms, in 1981, fairly close to the pioneering appointment of an African American to the Supreme Court bench, it was later than it should have been. Having said that, like Nixon going to China, coming by way of a conservative, Ronald Reagan, perhaps it meant more in real terms than it would have had it come under an earlier President, such as Jimmy Carter.

O'Connor had been a member of the Arizona Court of Appeals at the time of her appointment. She was a Westerner by birth, having been raised on a 198,000 acre cattle ranch in that state.  She attended Stanford as an undergrad and as a law student, and oddly enough had received a proposal of marriage from William Rehnquist while still a student.

Her accomplishments cannot be denied, but frankly, like a lot that Reagan did, her appointment has a mixed record.  I frankly don't think she was as great of jurist as people now wish to recall, and like many of the "conservative" justice of her era, she was conservative only in a very reserved way.  True conservatives wouldn't really reappear on the Supreme Court for many years, none of which takes away from her personal accomplishments.

A few Veterans Day Comments.

Somewhere in Korea.

I wasn't going to post on Veterans Day at all, in part because the overblown hero worship that's been attached to it for some time is really starting to bug me. But then, I've been owly recently anyhow.  

But, as predictable (every year the number of posts on this site goes up, this year no exception, which is why I’m considering not posting at all in December) I changed my mind.  A few random comments.

Were you in the Army?

My new associate asked me this the other day, as I have the photograph of my basic training platoon up on my office wall.

Funny, I'm so used to it being there, I never notice it.

Military service, regular and reserve, was routine when I was young. Not everyone had it by any means, but lots of people do.

And this was even more so for my parents.  My father was in the Air Force, his brother in the Army.  My other uncles in the World War Two Navy and Canadian Army, and post-war Navy.  The guys my father ate lunch with every day had all been in the service.

Not so much anymore.

November 7, 1983: Able Archer 83, a Close Call

An item from Uncle Mike's fine blog.

I was in the National Guard at the time. Little did we realize how close we'd come to serving in a short, sharp, and probably nuclear war.

As odd as it may sound, I actually had predicted a war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact at about this time, a predication that didn't come true, but my reasoning was sound.

Reagan became President in 1981 and as soon as his first military budgets started to take effect, things really were noticeable in the Guard.  New equipment, better field training, etc.  The Warsaw Pact took note of that and started building up to counter it.

Able Archer, like Team Spirit, and Reforger were all part of the training regime of the time.  It was no secret that the Warsaw Pact was trying to respond to it all.  In the end, that spending brought them down. They couldn't afford it.

A lesson there to a country that's spending like crazy right now and just got economically downgraded.

Anyhow, my prediction nearly came true with Able Archer, but not for the reason I thought this would happen. I thought it would happen as the Warsaw Pact, or rather the USSR, would reason that it only had so much time while it had military superiority in which to act.

This was a view, I'd note, that was reinforced by playing the military hex and counter war games based on a NATO/Warsaw Pact war.  It was pretty clear that it was really hard for NATO to win a conventional one.

Or so it seemed.

We vastly overrated the Red Army and Soviet military equipment, as the war in Ukraine has demonstrated.

Funny, at the same time I recall being assigned A Republic of Grass in college which suggested we surrender to the Soviets before a war broke out.

A note on Reagan

When Reagan was President, I wasn't sure what to make of him.  As a Guardsman, we were all grateful for the new equipment and attitude.  Carter's military had been a sad sort of thing, as exemplified, perhaps, by the failed attempt to mount a raid to free the Iranian embassy hostages.

But it seemed like we were messing around in Central America an awful lot, which I wasn't sure what to make of. In retrospect, it's clear that the Cold War was being played out there in proxy.

When Reagan was president, I was a university student.  It seems to be forgotten now, but most university students weren't big Reagan fans.  As noted, I wasn't an opponent, but I wasn't a fan.  My father was convinced that Reagan had Alzheimer's which, in fact, he did.

On Reagan and Carter, it's interesting to note that Carter was an Annapolis graduate. Reagan had more of a military career than his opponents claimed, having been a pre-war cavalry reserve officer, but his wartime role was in the branch of the military that made films. That was honorable enough, but Reagan introduced the snappy salute to servicemen which stuck after that, and which I don't like.  Presidents saluting servicemen seems really odd, particularly when we get Presidents who've never been in the military.

Anyhow, most of my conservative friends love and admire Reagan.  I still am not so sure about him.  I can see where he made course corrections at the time which were vital.  It was under Reagan, really, that the country got back on its feet after the Vietnam War.  And Reagan introduced the brief period of Buckleyite conservatism, which I like, to the government.

He also, however, started the populist smudge which is now a roaring flame by using the Southern Strategy to win, and that's having dire effects.  And frankly, I'm not impressed with the starving of the government economically that came in at that time.

On this Veterans Day, don't thank those who served, but ponder those who didn't.

This sounds harsh, but I'm not kidding.

Most veterans don't really want to be thanked for serving.  Truth be known, a lot of us served for reasons that weren't all that noble or were mixed.  Paying for university was in my mind, for example.

Having said that, in my adult years I've known a few people who avoided serving in the military when there was a time of need. Some of them have real reason of conscience and can and do defend it, on the rare occasions it comes up.

In contrast, we have people who sort of hero worship the military, or who are public figures thanking it, about whom there are real questions.

Donald Trump sent out his thanks today, but he avoided the Vietnam draft on a medical profile.  That's never been adequately answered, and in private comments he disdains those who served in the military, which fits right in with his epic level of being self impressed.  Biden had draft deferments too, I'd note.

There are real reasons for deferments, but what gets me here is the co-opting of valor, or the bestowing of it on people who don't deserve it.  People don't claim that Biden is some sort of hero. But you can find completely absurd illustrations of Trump as a military figure.  I don't really see Trump voluntarily serving in any war at any time, and had he lived during the Revolution, I sure don't see him as some sort of Continental Army officer.

So, while it's rude, for at least some thanking veterans "for their service", an appropriate response is "why didn't you serve?".

The real purpose of the day

The real purpose of this day is to remember the dead and badly wounded.  That's about it.

Lots of people serve during time of peace in one way or another. We don't deserve your thanks.  Yes, I'm sure that I'm personally responsible for keeping the Red Horde at bay, but I didn't get hurt serving.  Truth be known, I benefitted from it personally in all sorts of ways, a lot of which are deeply personal.  The service formed a lot of my psychology on certain things in a permanent way, all of which are ways in which I'm glad that it did. 

A lot goes into a person's personality, some of it more significant than others, and I do have more significant ones. The service was, however, a significant one.  Hindsight being 20/20, I wish I had not gotten out of the Guard when I did, also for a selection of personal reasons.

So I owe the service thanks. The country doesn't really owe me any. But people whose lives were permanently altered or last? Well, that's a different matter.

A declaration.

I want the nation to know that, if I am elected President, I will rescind Nixon's pardon and seek that he's tried and convicted.

Yes, I know that there's no precedent for that, and I know that Nixon is dead, but that won't stop me.  After all, Cromwell was beheaded after he was dead, and if our ancestral parliament can do that, I see no reason not to sentence Nixon in postmortem abstentia.  

Pardoning Nixon, together with Reagan's Southern Strategy, are the two prongs on the fork of national disaster that have wrecked conservatism and given us the problems we now face.

Blog Mirror: The state of Joe Biden’s union: The return to democratic capitalism

Interesting article by Robert Reich:

The state of Joe Biden’s union: The return to democratic capitalism

Reich claims that Joe Biden has restored the economic paradigm that governed from 1932 until the Reagan Administration.  He's certainly correct that that Democratic Capitalism, or Market Democracy as it is sometimes called, governed American economic thinking in that period, and he's also correct that Reagan attacked it upon coming into office.

And he's also correct that Milton Friedman, when he was head of the Fed, aggressively attacked inflation.  Indeed, Friedman was absolutely correct to have done so, and I wouldn't hold that Reagan's economic policies were wrong at the time.

Of note, some will site to St. Pope John Paul II the Great's encyclical Centesiumus Annus, issued in 1991, as support for a sort of Democratic Capitalism.

Reich's argument, while I'm not wholly convinced by any means, is an interesting one.  In essence he argues that the economic system of 1932 to 1980 was the correct one, and the one we went to since that time is unjust.