Tuesday, November 15, 2022

The 2024 Election, Part I. Early adopters.

Um. . . 2024?

Yes, already.

Indeed, the 2024 election has been mentioned numerous times already in our threads on the 2022 election, which also appeared disturbingly early. And the reason is clear. . . the menacing specter of Donald Trump running again, and how the Republican Party is going to deal with that.

Trump's refusal to concede the 2020 election and his historic, and not in a good way, attempt to subvert that election through a prolonged refusal to acknowledged its results followed by supporting those who bought off on his conspiracy theories, leading to the January 6 insurrection, has caused him to retain his leadership role in the party in spite of loosing the Oval office and Capital Hill.  And, as we've addressed elsewhere, it's made him the giant GOP elephant in the room both for the 2022 and 2024 elections.  As he's a presumptive candidate for the GOP nomination. . . maybe even the presumptive nominee, both those who oppose him and those who hope to replace him as his political heir are lining up to position themselves for a run.  

And the race is, effectively, on right now.

So far we have:

Republicans.

Donald Trump.

Trump has been addressed ad nauseum in other posts here recently, but the businessman who built his success on inherited money and selling himself identified his market correctly and sold himself to disenfranchised blue collar Americans.  Trump isn't a conservative but rather a populist, and a dangerous one whose main focus is himself.  Twice defeated in the popular vote, Trump seems unable to accept defeat in the 2020 General Election and has converted his base support into a near personality cult.  he's clearly running for 2024.

His race presumes longevity which nature in general and his appearance would suggest may be hubris. The last two bulky Presidents, William H. Taft and Grover Cleveland lived to ages 63 and 71 respectively.  Trump is already older than that and is demographically not well positioned to have nature allow him to run in 2024. 

A Trump nomination will nearly guaranty a presumed Harris victory in 2024.  Hardly noticed in all the concern for the Trump base in the GOP, his presence is driving conventional conservatives out of the party.

Liz Cheney

Cheney hasn't officially announced but its been predicted and hinted that she's positioning herself for a run.  Of note, the first place that was predicted that I saw. . . was here.

Conventional Washington wisdom holds that she's in big political trouble in Wyoming, but the Wyoming GOP has shown itself to be made up mostly of a moderate rank and file and an extremely noisy far right politically active minority.  The loud minority, if that's what it is, is busy presuming her defeat, but the fact that the rank and file is moderate and that Wyoming is effectively a one party state means that her reelection is likely.  She's loud in her opposition to Trump's anti democratic actions and she likely is gambling on Democratic gains in the mid terms, a gamble which, at this point, is a good bet.  If that all comes to pass she'll be in a position to demand with other conservatives that Trump go for good, and will be in a good position to be the conservative nominee in 2024.

Indeed, she's probably one of just a mere handful of Republicans that are actually electable to the Oval Office.  She's not personable, but her bravery in taking on Trump has been very widely admired.

Chris Christie

Christie is the former Governor of New Jersey and has run for the Presidency, and lost in the primaries, before.

An early backer of Trump, he's converted himself into a post Gubernatorial pundit.  He's a conservative with populist leanings and dumped Trump immediately upon his loss election night. Since then he's criticized Trump for maintaining the fantasy that he won the election but hasn't been vociferous about it in public, basically taking the same approach that Mitch McConnell has.  In private he's apparently been blistering on the ongoing association of the GOP with Trump.

If he runs, and  he's all but indicated he will be, he'll be more appealing to the Trump base than Cheney but less appealing to the conservatives, even though he is one.  In a head to head with Cheney, he's likely to lose, but he is a serious candidate.

Ted Cruz

Cruz is clearly positioning himself to the Trump heir apparent and is betting on Trump not running due to decision or the advance of time.  

Cruz seems to be a candidate that Texans like but he's really dislikable almost everywhere else.  If he runs, and if Trump doesn't, he'll draw Trump voters early on but will fade.  Indeed, my current prediction is that within the next four years he'll lose his Senate seat as well, which if it occurs will knock him out of the Presidential race.

Nikki Haley.  

Haley is also positioning herself to be a Trump heir apparent, stating that she won't run if Trump does.  I don't know much about the former South Carolina Governor, but she's occupying the same space that Christie does in the "friends of Trump" but not so friendly slot.  That is probably why Christie attacked her recently in an interview, criticizing her statement that she'll defer first to Trump running.

Haley may be betting that Trump won't run due to age, infirmity, or nature and that her having deferred to him may help with the Trump base.

Democrats.

Democrats are really in the catbirds seat this election, as long as they don't screw something up. They may be doing that right now, however, by screwing up the economy.  If their spending spree isn't checked, they may end up igniting inflation which will mean whomever is the GOP nominee in 2024, assuming that there isn't a new serious conservative party as well, will win the Oval office, probably.

That somewhat assumes that the GOP nominee isn't Trump. Trump lost the popular vote twice and in a Harris v Trump contest, Harris is going to win.

Joe Biden

Biden has stated since being elected that he expects to be a two term President.  His advance age makes that highly unlikely but it was likely necessary for him to state that as a sitting President becomes an instant lame duck if he declares himself there for one single term.

Kamala Harris.

If Biden doesn't run, Harris clearly will.

Harris will be a polarizing figure whose mere presence in the race will ignite GOP conservatives, if any are left in the GOP by that point, against her.  It'll also mean that the GOP effectively nearly has to nominate a woman, two of whom are mentioned above, as Harris having served as the first female Vice President will draw in votes merely because she will stand to be the first female President.

She'd also be far to the left of any US President ever, which is why conservatives, again if any remain in the GOP, will be highly motivated against her.

May 21, 2021

The much anticipated letter by over 100 Republicans has been issued as A Call for American Renewal.  It did not call for a new party, as some speculated, but for reform of the GOP.  It issued a manifesto that vague at best.

What's mostly clear is that its the formation of an organization dedicated to taking the GOP back from the Trumpites, which is something, but which right now is a long haul.   The organization is holding a national town hall on June 16.

May 26, 2021

The New York Attorney General's office has announced that its investigation of the Trump organization is now a criminal investigation and it will be submitting its findings to a grand jury.  Trump has termed it a "witch hunt".

A poll just released shows Trump to be the GOP front runner for 2024, which is rightly interpreted as showing the widespread support he retains in the party, so far, but which fails to note that some of that is due to the mass exodus of conventional Republicans from the party.  The party now represents about 25% of voting Americans, which isn't that much better actually than Democrats who are around 30%, but the GOP is hemorrhaging voters due to Trump.

Populist Trump supporters aren't going to be convinced by an indictment, and New York's AG is on the hardcore left wing so there's reason to doubt anything that comes from that quarter, but this gets to a prediction we noted elsewhere in regard to the actions of Elizabeth Cheney.  Trump may actually be relatively close to major legal trouble that might cause his general support among voters to evaporate and which could outright disqualify him from running.  How this will develop isn't yet known, but current events are dooming the chances of the GOP in 2022 and 2024.

May 28, 2021

In dual examples of delusion, Matt Gaetz has hinted that if Donald Trump doesn't run for President in 2024, he might. 

Gaetz will be quite frankly really lucky if by 2024 he isn't serving time.

And Marjorie Taylor Greene has indicated that she and Gaetz are "taking charge" of the GOP.

It's getting hard to recall that the GOP was once associated pretty closely with evangelical Christianity and that a fair number of people with really serious religious beliefs opted for the GOP because of that, mostly because of the Democrats position on abortion and other social issues is in fact antithetical to Christianity.  That was before the populist influx into the GOP, however, for which religion is sort of a background issue in some ways.

Indeed, Matt Gaetz expressly acknowledged a libertine view towards sex that's completely contrary to the Christian faith, crediting himself with treating his paramours well, financially.  I don't know anything about Marjorie Taylor Greene in regard to this, but her bull in a china shop attitude, and statements on various things, pretty clearly aren't what most Christians would regard as Christian in attitude.  

Besieged Anthony Bouchard, who in fairness has never campaigned on religious issues, didn't come across as repentant in his recent revelations in regard to his teenage years, and instead blames having to reveal them on the "fake news" industry, which has seemingly reported everything correctly and, moreover, in the case of the US press, has been pretty delicate on them.

All of which gets to this.  From roughly 1973 up to 2020, the GOP attracted a lot of faith oriented voters.  They've been struggling ever since the election of Donald Trump, however, who claims to be a man of faith but whose personal life is extremely difficult to reconcile with that.  Post 2020 its becoming really confusing.

Which leads back to this.

What the crap is going on in the GOP and when will they get their house in order, if they are going to.

That may not seem to be immediately related, but frankly it is.

A friend of mine from elsewhere who isn't in the populist camp but is a dedicated conservative, in a discussion on Bouchard, noted that he pretty clear didn't like Cheney, and that all she wanted to do is to discuss Trump.  Liking  Cheney or not, i.e. setting that aside, there's some merit to that criticism, and some reason to criticize that view.

Truth be known, probably the majority of Republican Senators don't like Trump and never did. For Republican Congressman of pre 2016 vintage, which would be a considerably smaller number, probably most of them don't either.  For post 16 GOP Congressman you probably have around half, I'd guess, that don't really care for Trump in varying degrees, and half that do in varying degrees, with maybe half of them being dedicated Trumpites whose loyalty to Trump means more to them than anything else.  There's reason to discuss how they got there, and for some its one or two issues that really matter, and for others its something else.

Anyhow, most Republicans are afraid of the Trump populists.  A few, like Cheney, aren't.  Most of the ones who are don't seem to see the moderate Republicans running out of the party, which perhaps is something they should be afraid of.  I.e., they ought to be afraid that Greene is exactly correct, she, Gaetz will end up the Alte Kampfer of a GOP internal coup, with that party declining to down below 20% of the American voter, at which time it will simply expire.

So here's what's really going on fight wise. There are three camps.  We might term them the McConnell/McCarthy camp, the Cheney/Romney camp/ and the Greene/Gaetz camp.

The McConnell/McCarthy camp is banking on Trump dying, having a stroke, or maybe going to jail, at which time they'll emerge back on top. Their plan is to say nothing at all bad about Trump, as they figure when he goes to his eternal or temporal reward, they'll still be there to pick up the pieces.  Of course, a real question is how many pieces of the GOP puzzle will be left by then, but they're banking that conservatives won't really leave or will come back.

In other words, they want everyone to shut up for four years, after which they figure Trump will be a resident of a Federal guest house, on life support, or under a memorial at Mara Lago.  All will be forgiven, George F. Will will come back home, and they populist will be reined back in.

The Cheney/Romney camp figures that Trump's amazing longevity in spite of an unhealthy lifestyle, a trainload of ex wives, and constant threats of prosecution, will win out and if something isn't done about him right now politically, he'll be the 2024 GOP candidate.  That, they figure will see every Republican still in the party with a community college degree or more leave forever, at which time the GOP goes extinct.  Cheney's the most prominent member of this camp, but the 100 Republicans who signed a letter to form a new organization hold the same view.  Paul Ryan, now edging towards a 2024 Presidential run, is in this camp also.

And then there's the Greene/Gaetz wing.  Trump is their hero, and they hold deeply populist views that aren't grounded in theology or philosophy, but a hard edged nativist cultural instinct.  Their views are closer to Nathan Bedford Forrest, in other words, that to William F. Buckley.  They figure their hero, Trump, will be around and run in 2024, but they also  figure, like the inner circle at the Kremlin in 1953, or in Bergtesgarden in 1944/45, that if the leader falls, they're the next leader.  

That's the irony here.  Quite a few of the Trumpites believe he will be the candidate in 2024 and are looking forward to it. Trump holds that view most of all. But quite a few aren't quite so convinced and probably have their knives out for each other.  Greene figures she's the leader.  Gaetz figures he's the leader.  Ted Cruz is sure he's the leader.  

Whose right in all of this we cannot, of course, be sure.  We'll find out.  But my guess is that it isn't the Trumpites, as 2022 is likely to hurt the GOP in a fashion that the McConnell/McCarthy camp can't ignore.  Folks like my friend, I suspect, may be viewing Cheney as a bit of a hero by 2023.

Ultimately what this means is something additional, in regard to this thread, as well.  Will the GOP ticket in 2024 be Trump/Greene (no way Pence is coming back for anything), Cruz/Lummis or Cheney/Ryan.  It could, of course, be none of the above.

My present guess it'll be the third of those options.

May 28, cont:

Paul Ryan reentered the political sphere with a speech stating that the Republican Party should not be about one man.

In predictable fashion, Trump, presiding over a party whose numbers are smaller every day, largely due to objections to Trump, and which features a major internal fight over how to deal with his post November legacy, lashed out against Ryan.

Ryan is being somewhat dismissed, but he shouldn't be.  He dropped off the radar when Trump overwhelming it, and his reentering now suggest that he, like Cheney, are sensing a shift in the wind.  It's easy to dismiss them now, but as things grow closer to 2022, and then beyond it, their positions and actions now will either be regarded as prescient in some fashion.

May 29, 2021

Perhaps an item not really belonging to be in this thread, or perhaps it is.

Following their leader, Mitch McConnell, all but six Republican Senators voted against a 9/11 style commission on the insurrection, a move they hope will help the public forget what occurred and perhaps forget Trump by 2022 and 2024.  Barrasso and Lummis were part of the six.  

This, of course, with the filibuster rule in place.

The mother of Officer Brian Sicknick requested just before the vote to meet with every Senator. Barrasso did, but Lummis did not, citing scheduling conflicts.  A spokesman noted the loss of her husband a few years ago in a claim that she understood what it was like to lose a love one, but frankly that probably only serves to point out that she didn't find time for Mrs. Sicknick.

While McConnell's tactic prevents a 9/11 style commission from occurring, it's one more step towards eliminating the filibuster, which is probably only shy three votes now from occuring.

November 23, 2021

Joe Biden has confirmed that he is running in 2024 for President.

There's some speculation that this may be posturing, to keep him from appearing as a lame duck President so early in his term.

November 26, 2021

Following a visit to New Hampshire, there is building speculation that Liz Cheney will run for the Oval Office in 2024.

Of cousre, she'll have to keep her seat, probably, in 2022 in order for that to be a viable option.

November 29, 2021

On Meet the Press, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen claimed that Trump will not run for office in 2022 as he's "grifting" the American public, and running would not serve that interest, and further Cohen feels he'll lose if he runs.

January 3, 2022

In an absolutely frightening conjunction, all three major weekend political shows featured evidence that the attempt to steal the 2020 election by President Trump really commenced well prior to the election itself.  More frightening yet, it's now plain that Trump's campaign is attempting to steal the 2024 one should he run and not obtain a majority of electoral votes.

In the face of this, about the only thing that's happening is that the January 6 Committee is set to start releasing in the next few weeks what it has found publicly. There are slight hints that matters may be referred to the Attorney General's office to determine if Trump should be prosecuted. 

My predication is that he will be.

It now also seems clear that Liz Cheney will run for President in 2024.

Of interest, one thing that has developed statistically is that participants in the January 6 insurrection disproportionately come from areas that have undergone a demographic change recently, so there's a strong belief among those participants in the "Great Replacement" theory.  This explains a lot of what is occurring, as those individuals are discounting their oppositions' legitimacy entirely.

One two shows it was pointed out that Trump's first claims of "stolen election" went back to the 2016 primary and were first used against Ted Cruz, ironically enough, in one of the primary contests.  Running up to the election, he telegraphed beforehand that if Clinton won, it could only be because the election was stolen.

A conservative columnist on This Week pointed out that in fact Clinton was reluctant to actually concede that Trump's election was valid.  A Republican House member who did come out publicly against Trump was nearly in despair over the whole thing, but also went back to the 2020 riots to point out that neither side really is that ready to accept a democratic result.

There's something to that which goes back to something I've tried to start as a post here several times and abandoned.  In some real ways, the root of the January 6, 2021 insurrection goes back to liberal resort to the Courts to force social changes on the country, which was a predominant part of the history of the country in the late 20th Century. Starting with legitimate reversals of dubious decisions holding up institutional racism, proof that stare decisis really isn't all that much, it went on starting in the 1970s force a liberal world view on the country where it could, most notably, early on, with Roe v. Wade.  That decision marked a full scale commitment to change by court decision over ballot box by the left.  It also started the process of alienation of a lot of the right wing.  The final decision of that type was the notable Obergefell decision, which fell in the same category and which had a much deeper social impact than liberals imagine.

These decisions convinced traditionally minded people that a liberal campaign to force a liberal worldview on the country was in full swing and that it was antidemocratic, which has some strong elements of truth to it.  Congressional inability to address real problems inflicting the working class made the impression worse, with a combined blind eye towards a huge immigration rate impacting that class disproportionaly at the same time that jobs were shipped overseas. This has all contributed to a populist radicalization of the blue collar, lower middle class, and even some of the middle middle class and upper middle class that's of  a very traditionalist mindset.  Discounting the legitimacy of their opposition they were and are ready to believe that elections not going to conservative populists are being stolen in spite of no evidence to that effect, and are silently willing to discount the legitimacy of liberal politics and politicians.

This is going to be really hard to crawl back from, although ironically the process has started. The Supreme Court has been fixed, albeit only recently, and that is about to force social issues back to state legislatures where they largely belonged.  A forty year project, the restoration of democracy in this sense is a conservative triumph, but it may be one that will be lost as a result of where we now are.

Or not, if Republicans like Cheney prevail in their party. For Democrats, it's time to restore a belief in campaigning over litigating, something that doesn't seem to have really fully sunk in yet, although there's evidence that they grasped that in the 2020 election.  What they clearly haven't grasped yet is how to legislative in Congress  Really anti Democratic bills have emerged in state legislatures which could be trumped in the national one, but they instead seem completely stuck in the mud on large infrastructure and massive policy bills instead.

In other political news, Andrew Yang has launched (some time ago actually) a new politcal party called the Forward Party.  It's motto is "not right, not left, but forward".

His welcoming letter states:

Hello and welcome to the Forward Party! 

I started the Forward Party for a few big reasons.  The main one is one we can all see – the current two-party duopoly is not working.  While the two major parties have different issues, we can all see that polarization is getting worse and worse, with 42% of both parties regarding the other as not just mistaken but evil.  Neither side is able to meaningfully solve problems, so we all get angrier and angrier.

Worse, the incentives of our leaders are not necessarily lined up with ours, in large part due to a closed primary system that disproportionately empowers those with the highest stake in government.  Approval of Congress stands at about 28% while individual members sport re-election rates of 92%. 

We are also left with an out-of-date bureaucracy ill-suited to solve the problems of today.  Washington D.C. is painfully behind the curve, in part because of a seniority system that has led to a gerontocracy. 

Indeed, 60% of Americans now regard both parties as out of touch, and 57% want a third party.  Most Americans want common sense solutions that would improve our lives - like Universal Basic income - and sense that we will be waiting forever for those solutions to arrive.    

So why, if a majority of Americans want a third party, has none succeeded? 

One, the Internet is still a relatively recent phenomenon.

Two, the gravity of the dysfunction and the polarization are higher than ever.    

But the main reason is structural – the two parties right now control the primary system, which makes it very difficult for any meaningful third party to emerge.  You can’t win races. 

Imagine a duopoly that prevents any effective competition.  That’s what we presently have in the United States. 

Changing this is both extraordinarily difficult yet imperative for our future.  We need to push for open primaries and ranked-choice voting in Congressional races around the country.  This would both diminish polarization by making it so that our representatives answer to the broad majority rather than the partisan few, and enable new parties and perspectives to emerge.  It would make our entire country more reasonable.   

I also have a hope for a positive political movement that is not born of rage and demonization, but on optimism and solutions.  This is an inclusive movement.  You can participate while retaining your current party registration if you’d like, as we know that in many locations de-registering would effectively disenfranchise you from your local politics.  Forward is positive and practical.  We believe in people of every political alignment that want to help the country.  

If this is the kind of mission that appeals to you, welcome to the Forward Party. 

-Andrew Yang

Third parties haven't done well in the US as a rule. The last really significant one was the Progressive Party, which did see largescale defection from the Republican Party, but which failed to elect its candidate Theodore Roosevelt.  Governor Carey of Wyoming, however, was in it, although he had been elected as a Republican.  The Prohibition Party did not succeed, obviously, but it was influential as well. The Progressive and Populists Parteis of the late 19th Century and early 20th Century were actually quite influential, so perhaps they can be regarded as successful in heavily influencing both the GOP and the Democrats of that era.

The last fully successful start up party was the Republican Party. That's often noted, but as the Whigs had collapsed, it wasn't really a "third party".

Anyhow, things are a mess right now and Yang does command quite a bit of public attention.  While Yang has real points, however, he's most likely to pull from the Democrats, which would help the populist Trump loyalists.

There's been a lot of speculation about a conservative third party as well, but nothing has materialized and it appears extremely unlikely that anything will. So the struggle over what conservatism means, or if it will even exist, will take place in the GOP.

April 4, 2022

John Sununu blasted former President Trump at the Gridiron Club dinner on Saturday, calling him "fucking crazy".

Sununu is expected to run for President in 2024.

Sununu also went after My Pillow figure Mike Lindell, who has been trying to prove that Trump won the 2020 election, which he definately did not.  Regarding Lindell, Sununu stated:

This guy’s head is stuffed with more crap than his pillows, And by the way, I was told not to say this, but I will: His stuff is crap. I mean, it’s absolute crap. You only find that kind of stuff in the Trump Hotel,

Holding nothing back, he also stated, regarding Ted Cruz: "What is with Ted? You see that beard? He looks like Mel Gibson after a DUI or something.”

Speeches at the Gridiron Club are supposed to be satirical, but Sununu's were clearly beyond that and state a sharp departure with Trump.

April 11, 2022

In a campaign rally in North Carolina, Donald Trump claimed that he has to be "the cleanest sheriff" and stated that he may be "the most honest human being, perhaps, that God ever created."

April 15, 2022

Park County's Republican Party voted to issue a letter to John Barasso rebuked Senator John Barasso on the basis that he voted for the recent budget, being the only member of Wyoming's Congressional delegation to do so. While a spokesman complained that he was "headed down the path of Liz Cheney", Cheney didn't vote for the budget.  One of the county GOP voters stated "Next time, he's next", suggesting that the party will go after him as it has Cheney.

Their complaint on the budget was based on it including funding for Planned Parenthood.  The budget did include the same.  Barasso, however, generally receives very low marks from Planned Parenthood.  

Barasso failed to vote with Trump's policies only 11% of the time when the former President was still in office. Cheney, for that matter, only did 7% of the time.  Barasso, moreover, supported the President after the January 6 insurrection, which Cheney obviously did not.  The fact that the GOP would go after him now is not only surprising, but telling regarding the current state of the party.

September 22, 2022

The House passed a bill reforming the Electoral Count Act.

September 26, 2022

Liz Cheney has indicated that she will campaign for Democrats against Trump wing Republicans and will not be a member of the GOP should Trump be the 2024 nominee.

October 11, 2022

Tulsi Gabbard, whom I'm presuming is running for the President in 2024 (I'm pretty sure), announced she's leaving the Democratic Party.  She stated on Twitter:

I can no longer remain in today’s Democratic Party that is now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness, who divide us by racializing every issue & stoke anti-white racism, actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms, are…
1:14
7.5M views
I’m leaving the Democratic Party.

She also has a vido on Blaze TV, which I haven't watched, but you can if you feel so inclined here.


It was actually really easy to forget that Gabbard, who was formerly in Congress, was a Democrat as her positions fit in much more easily with the current GOP.  

Gabbard commanded a lot of respect at one time across both parties, but that really started to deminish in the last election cycle when she, in her Presidential campaign drifted increasingly towards the populist right.  Democrats basically abandoned her and she in turn abandoned them.  She really doesn't lose much by leaving the Democratic Party.

She's been in the camp critical of U.S. support for the war in Ukraine and has very right wing and populist views on other topics.

As an odd item, fwiw, the line she included about the Democrats "actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms" is odd from her. Gabbard is a member of an offshut branch of Hindusim.  I'm not an expert on the topic by any means, but Hinduism is polytheistic, although her branch as a heavy emphasis on Krishna being the supreme manefestation of God and the source of all gods, so perhaps she is monotheistic.  She generally doesn't speak of her religious beliefs.

October 14, 2022

A take away, Trump won't be the 2024 nominee, and if he is, he'll lose.

October 23, 2022

Liz Cheney appeared as a guest on Meet The Press today.  Relevant to the current election, she indicated that she's not voting for Harriet Hageman or Chuck Gray, and that anyone who is concerned about democracy, cannot.

Cheney also predicated that if Donald Trump is the nominee in 2024, the GOP will split into two parties and a new conservative party will arise.  She all but indicated that she'd be willing to be its nominee.

This likely, given the source, should not be taken as idle talk but as an indicator that there's an effort to develop a new conservative party, in that event, right now.

November 8, 2022

Former President Trump warned his chief rival Ron DeSantis that a DeSantis bid for the Oval Office in 2024 could harm the Republican Party.

M'eh.

November 15, 2022

In a blistering act of a hypocrisy, Cynthia Lummis, when asked if she was going to support Donald Trump should he announce his run for the Oval Office in 2024 today, stated:

I don't think that's the right question. I think the question is who is the current leader of the Republican Party. Oh, I know who it is: Ron DeSantis.

Eee gads. Lummis has gone from anti Trump, to pro Trump Senator voting not to certify the election, on to pro DeSantis.

Why did Wyoming want her there?  Some sort of human GOP weathervane?

Mike Pence, regarding an anticpated Trump run, has said this time the GOP will have "better options", implying that 1) Trump isn't the best option, and 2) last time he was the least bad option for the GOP in some fashion.

Related threads:

The GOP. What in the world is going on?

How a Generation Lost Its Common Culture - Minding The Campus

How a Generation Lost Its Common Culture - Minding The Campus: By Patrick Deneen My students are know-nothings. They are exceedingly nice, pleasant, trustworthy, mostly honest, well-intentioned, and utterly decent. But their brains are largely empty, devoid of any substantial knowledge that might be the fruits of an education in an inheritance and a gift of a previous generation. They are the culmination of western civilization, […]

Monday, November 14, 2022

What's wrong with Russia? It was never part of Rome.

By Ssolbergj - Own work, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2992630

SPQR Senātus Populus que Rōmānus.Translated, the Senate and People of Rome.  The motto of the Roman Empire, whose legions marched under that banner in service of its Emperors.

"I will burn other people's villages with a cheerful smile."

"It ain’t a war crime if you had fun."

"Behind us, there is a house on fire. Well, let it burn. One more, one less."

Russian wall scribbling in liberated Ukrainian territory.

What's wrong with Russia?

People have been asking that question for years, maybe centuries.

Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. 

Winston Churchill

No, it's really not.

What it is, is something it isn't.  It was never part of the Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire was the most extensive expression of the Greco-Roman world and their culture.  The Greeks had commenced the work that Rome would end up finishing, or rather the Catholic Church would end up finishing, well prior to Rome's rise, however.  The great Greek philosophers came into being prior to even the expansion of the Greek Empire under Alexander the Great, infusing its culture with the outlook of the Western world.  Under Alexander the Greeks spread throughout the Mediterranean region, but the Romans picked it up, and the Greek world view, and massively expanded it.

Indeed, the influence of the Greeks and the Romans was so extensive that a student of early Christianity can't help but be impressed by the extent to which Christ and his disciples lived in a Judea that had been heavily impacted by the Greeks. The version of the Old Testament that is quoted in the New Testament pretty clear is the Septuagint, the Greek version.  Most, maybe all, of the New Testament was originally written in Greek.  Thoughts expressed in the New Testament are such that there have been those who have speculated that they could not have been expressed in Hebrew, had Hebrew remained the language of the Israelites, and that therefore Divine Providence was at work.  Early Christian Church fathers applied Greek philosophy to their understanding of Theology.1 

The Romans built on what they obtained from the Greeks, and they built the concept of a multicultural empire.  Rome started off a city state monarchy but in the end, it was a multicultural empire in which anyone within it could become a Roman citizen under certain circumstances.  Its unifying features was a uniform legal code and two languages, Latin and Greek.  You could be a cultural German, but if you could learn Latin and adhere to Rome's legal code, you had a chance to be as Roman as an Italian born in Rome.

The Church, and there was only one, came in and added the concept that there was only one moral code for everyone in the world, and your status and culture didn't trump that.  It also came in with a strong ethos of support for the plight of the poor and the equality of everyone before God.  Real women's rights came in with the Church, and the end of slavery was made inevitable by it as well.  The supremacy in religious matters of the Roman pontiff pointed out that even the government was subject to the Natural Law, and that it didn't create it.

We are all Romans.

The influence of Rome spread well beyond the Empire, even during the Roman age, and that was through Christianity.  Rome made it all the way up to the Teutoburg, but not beyond that.  Christianity did, however.  It may have taken the Northern Crusades to bring the Poles in, but brave missionaries to bring in the Scandinavians, but they did.

In the East, the Baltic was part of the Greek world, and hence the Roman world.  St. Andrew the apostle travelled into what is the southern Ukraine, via the Black Sea, and preached at least in Scythia.  Some maintain that he saild the Dneiper and preached in Kyiv.

Ukraine was the subject of missionary work in the 800s.  St. Cyril and Methodius, brothers, passed through Ukraine during their missionary work.  Western Ukraine, which is where the Ukrainian Catholic Church has its presence today, was Christianized first.

St. Cyril and Methodius.

Under St. Vladimir The Great, a Kyivan king claimed by both the Ukrainians and the Russians, the Kyivan Rus were firmly brought into the Church.   But of note, Vladimir had been born a pagan and converted to the Church (again, there was only one) in 988 after traveling to the West and studying the non-pagan religions. He died in 1015 at age 57.

Now, 1015 is a very late date.  St. Andrew had been in the region in 55AD.  St. Cyril and Methodius in the late 800s.  But as late as 988 paganism still existed in the lands of the Rus.

And in 1054, the Great Schism commenced.

Now, the Rus did take to Christianity, of that there can be no doubt. But the Great Schism put their Church outside the Latin world to some degree.  Islam was already on the rise, and the Byzantine Empire would fall in 1453.  In 1448 the Russian Church obtained de facto independence, although in 1439 history nearly took a different course with Russian Orthodox representatives recognized Rome as the head of the Church at the Council of Florence. Sadly, their union was prevented from taking effect.

So basically, the Russians were on the edge of the world. The Great Schism, the collapse of the Roman Empire, and then the collapse of the Byzantine kept them there.  Ukraine had been part of the Greco-Roman world, and to some degree, it remains so, especially the further west in Ukraine you go.

And this matters.

Outside of the Moscow elite and a very small urban elite, Russia is one great big blue-collar country.

Fiona Hill

Russia definitely has a cultured development and the Russians are a great people. But they're a people where western concepts have never taken root, including the concept that power devolves from the people, and not the other way around. Even those who have attempted, and there have been many, to change that, have uniformly failed.

It's a culture that has developed great works of art and literature, while remaining insular and focused on itself.  Outside of Russia, everyone is some sort of odd stranger, and the Russians have, from time to time, imagined themselves as the archetype of Slavs.  The culture has a hard time not accepting that to some degree.

And it's a rough place to live in part because of this.  People die young, often due to conditions and alcoholism.  Male deaths outstrip women's by quite some margin.Brutality and acceptance of horrible conditions exists where it has departed elsewhere.  Russia's military retains an ethos of cruelty that stems back to ancient times and manifests itself in horrific ancient behaviors. 

And hence, there's really no mystery.  

Russia wasn't part of the Greco-Roman world.

Ukraine, however, was.

Footnotes.

1. There's a common myth that Islam preserved the works of the Greek philosophers, and Christians got them from them.

In reality, Islam got the texts of the Greek philosophers from Chaldean Christians, who had preserved them.  Latin Christians did get them from Islamic Arabs, but it is important to note that Islamic Arabs got them from Chaldean Christians.  

As it happened, Hellenized Islamist theologians were later dismissed and regarded as heretical in Islam.

2.  As an odd expression of this, it's often frequently noted that younger Russian women are disproportionately beautiful, before age and conditions change this at a rate not experienced in the West.   It's been seriously suggested that this is due to natural selection, as the population of women always exceeds that of men, thereby giving physically attractive women a heightened competitive genetic advantage.

Tuesday, November 14, 1972. Closing above 1,000.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed above 1,000 for the first time in history.

It had been first calculated in 1896.

Saturday, November 14, 1942. Losses at sea.

The Japanese battleship Hiei went down in the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal.

The Hiei was detected by the USS Helena at 01:24 on November 13, but she was not able to effectively engage because her main guns were loaded with anti-aircraft munitions in anticpation of shelling Henderson Field.  She was accordingly damaged by fire from the USS San Francisco. She became damaged herself and was attacked by B-17s and later by dive bombers and torpedo bombers, sinking in the early morning hours of this day.

The Hiei under attack from B-17s.

The Italian Scilin was sunk by the Royal Navy submarine Sahib, taking 800 Allied prisoners of war down with her.  The British did not reveal the cause of this loss until 1966.

Tuesday, November 14, 1922. The Beeb broadcast the news.

The British Broadcasting Corporation delivered the first radio news report in the UK at 6:00 p.m. on this day.  That would be 11:00 a.m. MST.

The news was full of interesting stuff, including the details of a train robbery a speech by Bonar Law, and a meeting with Winston Churchill.

On the same day, in the U.S., pro-Republican pickets protested regarding the self-imposed death by starvation of Lord Mayor MacSwiney of Cork. Defining that as murder may have been a bit much.



Jānis Čakste was approved by the Saeima, to become the first President of Latvia.  He'd already acted as head of the Latvian state since 1918.  He was a lawyer by profession.

On the same day, Kyösti Kallio became Prime Minister of Finland.  He was a member of the Finnish Agrarian League, which today is its Centre Party.  The party retains an agrarian position.

A delegation of various states' National Guards met with Pershing.

They all appeared in mufti.

The lovely actress Veronica Lake was born.


Constance Frances Marie Ockelman, her real name, was famous in the late 30s and 40s for her "peek a boo" hair style.

The Breeders - Cannonball

Sunday, November 13, 2022

Getting the wrong message. Abortion and the 2022 Election.

Since the election ended, I've seen a lot of hand wringing from some, and rejoicing from others, that the abortion issue supposedly motivated people at the polls to vote against Republican candidates.

Baloney.

First of all, in most locations, abortion wasn't on the ballot.  It was in some places, namely Montana, Kentucky, Michigan, Vermont and California.

Montana's was shocking in that Montana does not allow for abortions pass the point of viability, and the proposed law would have required physicians to assist any such aborted baby born alive.  The ballot measure failed.

Kentucky has a trigger law that's now being litigated, but its ballot measure stated:

Are you in favor of amending the Constitution of Kentucky by creating a new Section of the Constitution to be numbered Section 26A to state as follows: To protect human life, nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion?”

Voters rejected the amendment.

Michigan put a right to an abortion, of some sort, in its state constitution.

Vermont did as well, passing an initiative that stated:

That an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.

And California also put a right to an abortion into its state constitution.

So, in terms of the 2022 midterm election, what does this really tell us?

Well, this issue wasn't on the ballot in most places.  Indeed, it brings up a real irony in regard to Wyoming, which enacted an anti Obama Care amendment out of the nonsensical fear of "death panels" securing individuals right to make their own health care decisions that risks being interpreted the way that these new constitutional provisions in various states do.  It'll be interesting to see if the new legislature attempts to amend the bad amendment.  Having adopted the thesis that everything associated with Obama Care must be bad, they can't really simply repeal the amendment, which would make a lot more sense.

Anyhow, as this issues was only on the ballot in these states, it probably says more about these states.  All of them have a strong liberal streak in them, even Montana, so if it brought people out to the polls, those states weren't going full MAGA hog wild anyhow.

Indeed, only really Wyoming went full MAGA, with the state really diving into the shallow end of the pool head first, for which we'll pay in the next couple of years, but that's another topic.

Nationwide, what this really probably tells us is this.

Yes, abortion matters to a lot of voters, but it isn't the only thing that matters to a lot of those voters.  Democracy as on the ballot over the entire country, and for a lot of people that outweighed abortion as they feared that a vote for the GOP was a vote, well, for something that looked disturbingly a bit like this:


That doesn't make those people, however, liberal progressives.

Rather, its a lesson to the GOP about it looking like, well, something like this:


It's also a lesson on something else, which I've long noted.

The "two party system" is stupid.

And its beginning, finally, to erode.

In Alaska its basically been abandoned, which has led to the rise of a Native American Democratic to Congress from Alaska, and which will be the source of a runoff between two Republican contenders for the Senate, one incumbent moderate and another a MAGA Republican.

If we had that system in Wyoming, I"m not sure that the results would have been a lot different, but what you would have had is two Republicans contending for Secretary of State. The Bonapartist one that won, and a moderate that lost to him in the primary.  And the Governor's race would have been between Gordon and Bien, for what that's worth.  I think Gordon would still have won that, but there's no denying that race made more sense than the one against a Democratic whose name we've already forgotten.

And more than that, there's utterly no reason that all of the issues conceived as "conservative" or "right wing" or progressive or "left wing" should be linked.  And I think in this race, the voters started to decouple them to the disadvantage of the Republicans who have really linked them in a hardcore fashion.

If you listen to the GOP, if you oppose abortion you also have to support the death penalty, be a climate change denier, and believe that Donald Trump took every single vote cast in 2019.

That's absurd.

Indeed, I'll be there were a lot of conservative, Catholic, women who went to the polls and voted for the Democrats even if they were registered Republicans as they were worried about democracy, the environmental health of the country their children will live in, and want something done about firearms. They probably also opposed abortion, but weighting it all out, they thought the Democrats a better bet.

The messages, and there are two, are pretty clear.

The big message is that the two party system needs to be deinstitutionalized.  That would be the end of "voting the straight ticket" as there'd be no straight ticket.  People would have to run on their own merits and the ability of the parties to shovel out, well this;


would be greatly reduced.

Indeed, it might mean that candidates actually had to engage their brains a bit when they endorsed platitudes and explain them, and that voters might actually have to pay attention to what was actually proposed.

Indeed, on that score, there are probably quite a few Wyomingites that will be surprised to learn what they voted for, when they perfunctorily voted for Republican legislators, this upcoming winter.

As doing that, although it seems to be slowly taking hold, will take some time, the next best thing would be for people to reassess their loyalties to either of the two primary parties.  Probably a lot of Republicans in the middle, and the two or three Democrats left in the middle, and lots of independents, really belong in the American Solidarity Party.  Should the GOP not sink under the waves with Donald Trump, as it increasingly looks likely to do, the MAGA folks would really be better off in something like the Constitution Party, rather than the Grand Old Party, and so on.

In the near term, however, the Republicans need to wrest the ship's wheel away from Captain Donald "iceberg?  I'm not hitting any iceberg" Trump.


In doing that, the GOP is going to have to come to the realization that embracing a big lie is killing it, and that embracing some of the extreme positions those who embrace the big lie do is driving people away.

Finally, while I've seen some real anger in some quarters on how voters didn't turn out, in some places, to vote  Republican and therefore pro abortion issues advanced, consider this.

The entire legal position in opposition to abortion has been limited to Roe v. Wade since 1973.  I.e., that it was wrongly decided.  Society wide, the anti-abortion forces have done a terrific job of attacking abortion, and it has declined in the US from post Roe highs.  But that doesn't equate with a complete ending of support for it entirely, and the fact that the basic legal point was, and always has been, that voters in the states should decide ironically somewhat weakens the argument on a state level.  I.e., having said for 40 years that they should decide, they're getting to decide.

There was always another position, which was that a right to life existed on an existential and natural law level.  But that argument was never made as a legal one, as the fear was that it was too scary of a proposition for many jurists.  So now the second part of this work begins, that being that anti-abortion forces, who have been hugely successful in changing minds, need to keep at it.

But the efforts of the hard right in the GOP, which would link every hard right program with abortion, don't help that.

So, there's no cause for despair.  The failure of the anti-abortion forces, in the few places they failed, doesn't mean a society wide rejection of their views.  It means that for a lot of voters, when they go to the polls, they are thinking of a lot of other things, and on this issue, they may not even have thought that much.  If the last person they heard talk about it was also talking about how Donald Trump should be President for Life and the danger of Jewish Space Lasers, and just viewed it as one of the list of items on some sort of political grocery list, well. . . . 


Friday, November 13, 1942. The Sullivan's

In North Africa, the British 8th Army captured Tobruk, a major British victory and a major Afrika Korps defeat.

Off of the Solomon's, the Japanese sank the U.S. Navy light cruiser Juneau, which took 687 men with it, including five brothers of the Irish Catholic Sullivan family of Iowa.

The Sullivans.

It's commonly asserted that after this the U.S. military would not allow siblings to serve together, but in fact many siblings were already serving together in combat in North Africa as members of Federalized National Guard units. Entire towns would end up loosing huge numbers of their male citizens in the combat actions to come. There was a policy change, which relieved a sole survivor from military service, but it did not come until 1943, and was partially due to the deaths of the Borgstrom brothers of Utah as well.  Indeed, the Navy already had a policy precluding siblings from serving on the same vessel, but they did not actively enforce it.

A sister of the Sullivan brothers remained in Navy service.  Indeed, their enlistment in the Navy, or in once case a reenlistment, was to avenge the death of her boyfriend, who died at Peal Harbor.

The Sullivan family was not informed of the death of their sons until 1943, at which time their father was informed of all of their deaths at one time.  The Navy would commission a ship in their honor during the war, and oddly enough, one of the sons of the one of the men lost would later serve as a post-war officer aboard it. That ship has been decommissioned, but a second The Sullivans was commissioned to take its place.  

The current The Sullivans.

The tragic story was also made into a patriotic movie during the war itself, which was released in 1944.

The Sullivan story was the inspiration for the film Saving Private Ryan, although it's obviously in a much different setting.

It should be noted that at least over 100 men survived the sinking of the Juneau, and were spotted by an USAAC B-17, but radio silence precluded its rapid reporting.

On the same day the cruiser Atlanta and the destroyers Barton, Cushing, Laffey, Monssen and Preston went down while the Japanese suffered the loss of the cruiser Kinugasa and destroyers Akatsuki and Yūdachi.

Brazil, El Salvador, Honduras and Panama broke off diplomatic relations with Vichy France.

Monday, November 13, 1922. Disgusting acts and opinions.

The day featured a double header for fascism and racism.

Not good.

Mussolini asked King Victor Emmanuel III for extraordinary authority to enact fiscal and civil service reforms without full parliamentary authority.  The King granted the same through December 31, 1923, which goes to show the stupidity of having a king with actual power.

The United States Supreme Court ruled in Ozawa v. United States that "white persons" were people of European descent, thereby approving California giving the shaft to people of Japanese ancestry.

The full opinion is here:

Ozawa v. United States, 260 U.S. 178 (1922)

Ozawa v. United States

No. 1

Argued October 3, 4, 1922

Decided November 13, 1922

260 U.S. 178

CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

1. Section 2169 of the Revised Statutes, which is part of Title XXX dealing with naturalization, and which declares: "The provisions of this Title shall apply to aliens, being free white persons, and to aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent," is consistent with the Naturalization Act of June 29, 1906, and was not impliedly repealed by it. P. 260 U. S. 192.

2. Revised Statutes, § 2169, supra, stands as a limitation upon the Naturalization Act, and not merely upon those other provisions of Title XXX which remain unrepealed. P. 260 U. S. 192.

3. The intent of legislation is to be ascertained primarily by giving words their natural significance; but if this leads to an unreasonable result plainly at variance with the policy of the legislation as a whole, the court must look to the reason of the enactment, inquiring into its antecedents, and give it effect in accordance with its design and purpose, sacrificing, if necessary, the literal meaning, in order that the purpose may not fail. P. 260 U. S. 194.

4. The term " white person," as used in Rev.Stats. § 2169 and in all the earlier naturalization laws, beginning in 1790, applies to such persons as were known in this country as "white," in the racial sense, when it was first adopted, and is confined to persons of the Caucasian Race. P. 260 U. S. 195.

5. The effect of the conclusion that "white person" means a Caucasian is merely to establish a zone on one side of which are those clearly eligible, and on the other those clearly ineligible, to citizenship; individual cases within this zone must be determined as they arise. P. 260 U. S. 198.

6. A Japanese, born in Japan, being clearly not a Caucasian, cannot be made a citizen of the United States under Rev.Stats. § 2169 and the Naturalization Act. P. 260 U. S. 198.

Questions certified by the court below, arising upon an appeal to it from a judgment of the District Court of Hawaii which dismissed a petition for naturalization.

Page 260 U. S. 189

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellant is a person of the Japanese race born in Japan. He applied, on October 16, 1914, to the United States District Court for the Territory of Hawaii to be admitted as a citizen of the United States. His petition was opposed by the United States District Attorney for the District of Hawaii. Including the period of his residence in Hawaii, appellant had continuously resided in the United States for 20 years. He was a graduate of the Berkeley, California, high school, had been nearly three years a student in the University of California, had educated his children in American schools, his family had attended American churches, and he had maintained the use of the English language in his home. That he was well qualified by character and education for citizenship is conceded.

The District Court of Hawaii, however, held that, having been born in Japan and being of the Japanese race,

he was not eligible to naturalization under § 2169 of the Revised Statutes, and denied the petition. Thereupon the appellant brought the cause to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and that court has certified the following questions upon which it desires to be instructed:

"1. Is the act of June 29, 1906 (34 Stats. at Large, pt. 1, p. 596), providing 'for a uniform rule for the naturalization of aliens' complete in itself, or is it limited by § 2169 of the Revised Statutes of the United States?"

"2. Is one who is of the Japanese race and born in Japan eligible to citizenship under the naturalization laws?"

"3. If said Act of June 29, 1906, is limited by § 2169 and naturalization is limited to aliens being free white persons and to aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent, is one of the Japanese race, born in Japan, under any circumstances eligible to naturalization?"

These questions, for purposes of discussion, may be briefly restated:

1. Is the Naturalization Act of June 29, 1906, limited by the provisions of § 2169 of the Revised Statutes of the United States?

2. If so limited, is the appellant eligible to naturalization under that section?

Firt. Section 2169 is found in title XXX of the Revised Statutes, under the heading "Naturalization," and reads as follows:

"The provisions of this Title shall apply to aliens, being free white persons and to aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent."

The Act of June 29, 1906, entitled

"An act to establish a Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization, and to provide for a uniform rule for the naturalization of aliens throughout the United States," consists of thirty-one sections, and deals primarily with the subject of procedure. There is nothing in the circumstances leading up to or accompanying the passage of the act which suggests that any modification of § 2169, or of its application, was contemplated.

The report of the House Committee on Naturalization and Immigration recommending its passage contains this statement:

"It is the opinion of your committee that the frauds and crimes which have been committed in regard to naturalization have resulted more from a lack of any uniform system of procedure in such matters than from any radical defect in the fundamental principles of existing law governing in such matters. The two changes which the committee has recommended in the principles controlling in naturalization matters and which are embodied in the bill submitted herewith are as follows: first, the requirement that, before an alien can be naturalized, he must be able to read, either in his own language or in the English language, and to speak or understand the English language, and second, that the alien must intend to reside permanently in the United States before he shall be entitled to naturalization."

This seems to make it quite clear that no change of the fundamental character here involved was in mind.

Section 26 of the Act expressly repeals §§ 2165, 2167, 2168, 2173 of Title XXX, the subject matter thereof being covered by new provisions. The sections of Title XXX remaining without repeal are: Section 2166, relating to honorably discharged soldiers; § 2169, now under consideration; § 2170, requiring five years' residence prior to admission; § 2171, forbidding the admission of alien enemies; § 2172, relating to the status of children of naturalized persons, and § 2174, making special provision in respect of the naturalization of seamen.

There is nothing in § 2169 which is repugnant to anything in the Act of 1906. Both may stand and be given effect. It is clear, therefore, that there is no repeal by implication.

But it is insisted by appellant that § 2169, by its terms, is made applicable only to the provisions of Title XXX, and that it will not admit of being construed as a restriction upon the Act of 1906. Since § 2169, it is in effect argued, declares that "the provisions of this Title shall apply to aliens being free white persons, . . . " it should be confined to the classes provided for in the unrepealed sections of that title, leaving the Act of 1906 to govern in respect of all other aliens, without any restriction except such as may be imposed by that act itself.

It is contended that, thus construed, the Act of 1906 confers the privilege of naturalization without limitation as to race, since the general introductory words of § 4 are: "That an alien may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States in the following manner, and not otherwise."

But obviously this clause does not relate to the subject of eligibility, but to the "manner," that is, the procedure, to be followed. Exactly the same words are used to introduce the similar provisions contained in § 2165 of the Revised Statutes. In 1790, the first naturalization act provided that "[a]ny alien being a free white person . . . may be admitted to become a citizen. . . ." C. 3, 1 Stat. 103. This was subsequently enlarged to include aliens of African nativity and persons of African descent. These provisions were restated in the Revised Statutes, so that § 2165 included only the procedural portion, while the substantive parts were carried into a separate section, (2169) and the words "[a]n alien" substituted for the words "[a]ny alien."

In all of the naturalization acts from 1790 to 1906, the privilege of naturalization was confined to white persons (with the addition in 1870 of those of African nativity and descent), although the exact wording of the various statutes was not always the same. If Congress in 1906 desired to alter a rule so well and so long established, it may be assumed that its purpose would have been definitely disclosed and its legislation to that end put in unmistakable terms.

The argument that, because § 2169 is in terms made applicable only to the title in which it is found, it should now be confined to the unrepealed §§ of that title, is not convincing. The persons entitled to naturalization under these unrepealed sections include only honorably discharged soldiers and seamen who have served three years on board an American vessel, both of whom were entitled from the beginning to admission on more generous terms than were accorded to other aliens. It is not conceivable that Congress would deliberately have allowed the racial limitation to continue as to soldiers and seamen to whom the statute had accorded an especially favored status, and have removed it as to all other aliens. Such a construction cannot be adopted unless it be unavoidable.

The division of the Revised Statutes into titles and chapters is chiefly a matter of convenience, and reference to a given title or chapter is simply a ready method of identifying the particular provisions which are meant. The provisions of Title XXX affected by the limitation of § 2169 originally embraced the whole subject of naturalization of aliens. The generality of the words in § 2165, "[a]n alien may be admitted, . . . " was restricted by § 2169 in common with the other provisions of the title. The words "this title" were used for the purpose of identifying that provision (and others), but it was the provision which was restricted. That provision having been amended and carried into the Act of 1906, § 2169 being left intact and unrepealed, it will require some thing more persuasive than a narrowly literal reading of the identifying words "this title" to justify the conclusion that Congress intended the restriction to be no longer applicable to the provision.

It is the duty of this Court to give effect to the intent of Congress. Primarily this intent is ascertained by giving the words their natural significance, but if this leads to an unreasonable result plainly at variance with the policy of the legislation as a whole, we must examine the matter further. We may then look to the reason of the enactment and inquire into its antecedent history and give it effect in accordance with its design and purpose, sacrificing, if necessary, the literal meaning in order that the purpose may not fail. See Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U. S. 457; Heydenfeldt v. Daney Gold Mining Co., 93 U. S. 634, 93 U. S. 638. We are asked to conclude that Congress, without the consideration or recommendation of any committee, without a suggestion as to the effect or a word of debate as to the desirability of so fundamental a change, nevertheless, by failing to alter the identifying words of § 2169, which section we may assume was continued for some serious purpose, has radically modified a statute always theretofore maintained and considered as of great importance. It is inconceivable that a rule in force from the beginning of the government, a part of our history as well as our law, welded into the structure of our national polity by a century of legislative and administrative acts and judicial decisions, would have been deprived of its force in such dubious and casual fashion. We are therefore constrained to hold that the Act of 1906 is limited by the provisions of § 2169 of the Revised Statutes.

Second. This brings us to inquire whether, under § 2169, the appellant is eligible to naturalization. The language of the naturalization laws from 1790 to 1870 had been uniformly such as to deny the privilege of naturalization to an alien unless he came within the description "free white person." By § 7 of the Act of July 14, 1870, c. 254, 16 Stat. 254, 256, the naturalization laws were "extended to aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent." Section 2169 of the Revised Statutes, as already pointed out, restricts the privilege to the same classes of persons, viz., "to aliens [being free white persons, and to aliens] of African nativity and to persons of African descent." It is true that, in the first edition of the Revised Statutes of 1873, the words in brackets, "being free white persons, and to aliens" were omitted, but this was clearly an error of the compilers, and was corrected by the subsequent legislation of 1875, c. 80, 18 Stat. 316, 318. Is appellant therefore a "free white person," within the meaning of that phrase as found in the statute?

On behalf of the appellant, it is urged that we should give to this phrase the meaning which it had in the minds of its original framers in 1790, and that it was employed by them for the sole purpose of excluding the black or African race and the Indians then inhabiting this country. It may be true that those two races were alone thought of as being excluded, but to say that they were the only ones within the intent of the statute would be to ignore the affirmative form of the legislation. The provision is not that Negroes and Indians shall be excluded, but it is, in effect, that only free white persons shall be included. The intention was to confer the privilege of citizenship upon that class of persons whom the fathers knew as white, and to deny it to all who could not be so classified. It is not enough to say that the framers did not have in mind the brown or yellow races of Asia. It is necessary to go farther and be able to say that, had these particular races been suggested, the language of the act would have been so varied as to include them within its privileges. As said by Chief Justice Marshall in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 17 U. S. 644, in deciding a question of constitutional construction:

"It is not enough to say that this particular case was not in the mind of the convention when the article was framed, nor of the American people when it was adopted. It is necessary to go farther, and to say that, had this particular case been suggested, the language would have been so varied as to exclude it, or it would have been made a special exception. The case, being within the words of the rule, must be within its operation likewise unless there be something in the literal construction so obviously absurd, or mischievous, or repugnant to the general spirit of the instrument as to justify those who expound the Constitution in making it an exception."

If it be assumed that the opinion of the framers was that the only persons who would fall outside the designation "white" were Negroes and Indians, this would go no farther than to demonstrate their lack of sufficient information to enable them to foresee precisely who would be excluded by that term in the subsequent administration of the statute. It is not important in construing their words to consider the extent of their ethnological knowledge or whether they thought that, under the statute, the only persons who would be denied naturalization would be Negroes and Indians. It is sufficient to ascertain whom they intended to include, and, having ascertained that, it follows as a necessary corollary that all others are to be excluded.

The question then is: who are comprehended within the phrase "free white persons"? Undoubtedly the word "free" was originally used in recognition of the fact that slavery then existed and that some white persons occupied that status. The word, however, has long since ceased to have any practical significance, and may now be disregarded.

We have been furnished with elaborate briefs in which the meaning of the words "white person" is discussed with ability and at length, both from the standpoint of judicial decision and from that of the science of ethnology. It does not seem to us necessary, however, to follow counsel in their extensive researches in these fields. It is sufficient to note the fact that these decisions are, in substance, to the effect that the words import a racial, and not an individual, test, and with this conclusion, fortified as it is by reason and authority, we entirely agree. Manifestly the test afforded by the mere color of the skin of each individual is impracticable, as that differs greatly among persons of the same race, even among Anglo-Saxons, ranging by imperceptible gradations from the fair blond to the swarthy brunette, the latter being darker than many of the lighter hued persons of the brown or yellow races. Hence, to adopt the color test alone would result in a confused overlapping of races and a gradual merging of one into the other, without any practical line of separation. Beginning with the decision of Circuit Judge Sawyer in In Re Ah Yup, 5 Sawy. 155 (1878), the federal and state courts, in an almost unbroken line, have held that the words "white person" were meant to indicate only a person of what is popularly known as the Caucasian race. Among these decisions, see, for example: In re Camille, 6 F. 256; In re Saito, 62 F. 126; In re Nian, 6 Utah 259; In re Kumagai, 163 F. 922; In re Yamashita, 30 Wash. 234, 237; In re Ellis, 179 F. 1002; In re Mozumdar, 207 F. 115, 117; In re Singh, 257 F. 209, 211, 212, and In re Charr, 273 F. 207. With the conclusion reached in these several decisions we see no reason to differ. Moreover, that conclusion has become so well established by judicial and executive concurrence and legislative acquiescence that we should not at this late day feel at liberty to disturb it in the absence of reasons far more cogent than any that have been suggested. United States v. Midwest Oil Co., 236 U. S. 459, 236 U. S. 472.

The determination that the words "white person" are synonymous with the words "a person of the Caucasian race" simplifies the problem, although it does not entirely dispose of it. Controversies have arisen and will no doubt arise again in respect of the proper classification of individuals in border line cases. The effect of the conclusion that the words "white person" means a Caucasian is not to establish a sharp line of demarcation between those who are entitled and those who are not entitled to naturalization, but rather a zone of more or less debatable ground outside of which, upon the one hand, are those clearly eligible, and outside of which, upon the other hand, are those clearly ineligible for citizenship. Individual cases falling within this zone must be determined as they arise from time to time by what this Court has called, in another connection (Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97, 96 U. S. 104), "the gradual process of judicial inclusion and exclusion."

The appellant in the case now under consideration, however, is clearly of a race which is not Caucasian, and therefore belongs entirely outside the zone on the negative side. A large number of the federal and state courts have so decided, and we find no reported case definitely to the contrary. These decisions are sustained by numerous scientific authorities which we do not deem it necessary to review. We think these decisions are right, and so hold.

The briefs filed on behalf of appellant refer in complimentary terms to the culture and enlightenment of the Japanese people, and with this estimate we have no reason to disagree; but these are matters which cannot enter into our consideration of the questions here at issue. We have no function in the matter other than to ascertain the will of Congress and declare it. Of course, there is not implied -- either in the legislation or in our interpretation of it -- any suggestion of individual unworthiness or racial inferiority. These considerations are in no manner involved.

The questions submitted are therefore answered as follows:

Question No. 1. The Act of June 29, 1906, is not complete in itself, but is limited by § 2169 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.

Question No. 2. No.

Question No. 3. No.

It will be so certified.