Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: Movies In History: Paper Moon: I know that I wasn't the only one. Lex Anteinternet: Movies In History: Paper Moon : Movies In History: Paper Moon Paper Moon This 197...
Flipping through the channels last night, this movie was actually on.
I wonder if it was suddenly added?
Lex Anteinternet: Movies In History: Paper Moon:Movies In History: Paper Moon
Paper MoonThis 1973 film came about some decades prior to Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? but it also really has the feel of the Depression right, in this case in the Missouri Kansas border region. The film surrounds the story of a con artist who arrives in the story just in time for the funeral of a woman with whom, the film strongly suggests, he has, unbeknownst to him, had a child. The association with the deceased mother, we understand, was illicit in nature, and he never acknowledges at any point in the film that he's the child's father. He does accept, however, a charge to take the child to an aunt. From there, a series of adventures ensues.
The gritty nature of the film, filmed entirely in black and white, and the desperation of the protagonist, even though it's a comedy, really come through. The lack of, or failure of, the social structure also shines through, with it not seeming all that odd, by the end of the film, that a little girl has been essentially been adopted, outside the law, by a man who was in the end a kindhearted stranger, or who may be that.
Filmed in black and white, as noted, even though well within the color film era, the cinematography and the excellent cast give it the right feel.
The protagonists are portrayed by actual father and child Ryan and Tatum O'Neal. This is Ryan O'Neal's best film, to the extent I've seen his films, and he acts in it quite well. Tatum O'Neal was brilliant in the film.
In terms of material details, the film is excellent, with the portrayal of Dust Bowl Kansas significantly added to by the use of black and white cinematography.
Industrial History: 1977-2024 I-695 Lost Francis Scott Key Bridge over...: ( Archived Bridge Hunter ; no Historic Bridges; Satellite ) A ship alliding with this bridge and causing a catastrophic failure has upped ...
A good account of actual events in this matter.
I have to say that this disasters demonstrates how truly moronic social media has become. Within mere minutes of the disaster, some people who really need to go to some sort of Moron Reeducation Camp were spinning wild conspiracy theories about this disaster.1
The ship lost power. The pilot, who is a licensed pilot for the harbor, did everything he could to address the situation. The crew immediately radioed, which kept this from being a much worse disaster than it turned out to be.
Footnotes:
1. The absolute stupidity of the conspiracy theories should cast a little light on how people have spun moronic conspiracy theories about all sorts of things, from Pearl Harbor to the assassination of JFK, in the past. People like to imagine that things have to be intentional, or it could happen to anyone.
The B-17 "Knock Out Dropper" flew its 75th mission, the first American bomber to reach that mark. It would have had multiple crews in reaching that goal.
Negotiations between the USSR and Finland resumed.
The Marine Corps completed its unopposed landings on Emirau.
The Red Army captured Kamenets-Podolski, on the Dnestr River and Gorodenka. The German 1st Panzer Army is ordered to break out.
The British regroup in India, with reinforcements brought in by air.
Life magazine, which was heavy on photos, featured a Landing Ship, Infantry, on the cover. In the pages it had an article on the best techniques for pin-ups.
Last prior edition:
Black minister and farmer, Rev. Isaac Simmons, was lynched in Amite County, Mississippi by a party of six seeking to take his land, which they in fact did. They were not convicted for their crimes, and his terrorized family fled the area.
Winston Churchill delivered his Road To Victory speech:
I HOPE you will not imagine that I am going to try co make some extraordinary pronouncement tonight and tell you exactly how all the problems of mankind in the war and in peace are going to be solved.
I only thought you would like me to have a short talk with you about how we are getting on and to thank you for all the kindness with which you have treated me in spite of my many shortcomings.
It is a year almost to the day since I spoke to you on a broadcast here at home. This has been a time of disappointments as well as successes, but there is no doubt that the good news has far outweighed the bad, and that the progress of the United Nations toward their goal has been solid, continual and growing quicker.
The long and terrible march which the rescuing powers are making is being accomplished stage by stage, and we can now say not only with hope but with reason that we shall reach the end of our journey in good order, and that tragedy which threatened the whole world and might have put out all its lights and left our children and descendants in darkness and bondage perhaps for centuries—that tragedy will not come to pass.
He is a rash man who tries to prophesy when or how or under what conditions victory will come.
But come it will—that at least is sure.
It is also certain that unity of aims and actions and singleness of purpose among us all—Britons at home and our Allies abroad—will make it come sooner.
A year ago the Eighth Army which had marched 1,500 miles across the desert from Alamein was in battle for the Mareth Line and the First British Army and American Army were beating their way forward to Tunisia. We were all confident of victory but we did not know that in less than two months the enemy would be driven with heavy slaughter from the African continent, leaving at one stroke 335,000prisoners and dead in our hands.
Since then the successful campaign in Sicily brought about the fall of Mussolini and the heartfelt repudiation by the Italian people of the Fascist creed.
Mussolini indeed escaped to eat the bread of affliction at Hitler's table, to shoot his son-in-law and help the Germans wreak vengeance among the Italian masses whom he had professed to love and over whom he had ruled for more than twenty years.
This fate and judgment more terrible than death has overtaken the vainglorious dictator who stabbed France in the back and thought his crime had gained him an empire of the Mediterranean.
The conquest of Sicily and Naples brought in their train the surrender of Sardinia and the liberation of Corsica, islands which had been expected to require for themselves a serious expedition and a hard campaign.
We now hold one-third of the mainland of Italy. Our progress has not been as rapid or decisive as we had hoped. I do not doubt we shall be victors both at the Anzio bridgehead and on the main front to the southward and that Rome will be rescued.
Meanwhile, we have swept out of the struggle sixty-six Italian divisions and we are holding in Italy, for most part in close action, nearly twenty-five divisions and a noteworthy part of the German Air Force, all of whom can bleed and burn in the land of their former ally while other and even more important events which might require their presence are impending elsewhere.
We have been disappointed in the Aegean Sea and its many islands which we have not yet succeeded in dominating.
But these setbacks in the eastern Mediterranean are offset, and more than offset, by the panic and frenzy which prevailin Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria, by the continued activities of Greek guerrillas and above all by the heroic struggle of the Partisans of Yugoslavia under the leadership of Marshal Tito.
In the Near and Middle East we have certainly traveled a long way forward from those autumn days in 1940 when we stood all alone—when Mussolini was invading Egypt, when we were driven out of British Somaliland, when all Ethiopia was in Italian chains and we wondered whether we could defend the Suez Canal, the Nile Valley, the Sudan and British East Africa.
There is much still to be done in the Balkans and the eastern Mediterranean. But here again I do not doubt the task will be finished in a workmanlike manner.
We who dwell in the British Isles must celebrate with joy and thankfulness our deliverance from the mortal U-boat peril—which deliverance lighted the year which has ended.
When I look back upon the fifty-five months of this hard and obstinate war, which makes ever more exacting demands upon our life-springs of energy and contrivance, I still rate highest among the dangers we have overcome the U-boat attacks upon our shipping, without which we cannot live or even receive the help which our dominions and our grand and generous American ally have sent us.
But there are other deliverances which we should never forget. There was the sea mining peril which loomed so large in 1939 and which has been mastered by superior science, ingenuity and by the often-forgotten but almost-unsurpassed devotion to duty of our minesweepers' crews and the thousand ships they work and man that we may eat and live and thus fight for the good cause.
We have been delivered from the horrors of invasion at a time when we were almost unarmed. We have endured without swerving or failing the utmost fury Hitler could cast upon us from the air, and now the tables are turned and those who sought to destroy their enemies by the most fearful form of warfare are themselves reeling and writhing under the prodigious blows of British and American air power.
We had ourselves a large air force in this island this time last year. We have a larger one today, but besides all that our American Allies have now definitely overtaken and outnumbered us in the mighty air force they have established here. The combination in true brotherhood of these two air forces-either of which is nearly as large in numbers and in power much greater than the whole air force of Germany-aided as it will be by another Allied air force in Italy almost as large which is now established there, these together will produce results in these coming months which I shall not attempt to measure in advance but which will certainly be of enormous advantage to the cause of the Allies.
Not only have the British and Americans this great preponderance in numbers which enables them to send out a thousand bombers as often as the enemy is able to send a hundred against us, but also by sharing all our secrets with one another we have won leadership in the marvels of radar, both for attack and defense.
Surveying these famous and massive events on land, sea and air in the war waged by the two western Allies—Britain and the United States—against Hitlerism, we are entitled, nay bound, to be encouraged and be thankful and resolve to do better than we ever have done before.
It would be quite natural if our Soviet friends and allies did not appreciate the complications and difficulties which attend all sea crossings—amphibious is the word—operations on a large scale. They are the people of great land spaces and when foes threaten the sacred soil, Russia, it is by land that they march out to meet and attack them.
Our tasks are difficult and different, but the British and American peoples are filled with genuine admiration for the military triumphs of the Russian Army.
I have paid repeated tributes to their splendid deeds, and now I must tell you that the advance of their armies from Stalingrad to the Dniester River, with vanguards reaching out toward the Prut—a distance of 900 miles—accomplished in a single year constitutes the greatest cause of Hitler's undoing.
Since I spoke to you last, not only have the Hun invaders been driven from the land they have ravaged but the guts of the German Army have been largely torn out by Russian valor and generalship.
The peoples of all the Russias have been fortunate in rinding in their supreme ordeal of agony a warrior leader, Marshal Stalin, whose authority enables him to combine and control the movements of armies numbered by many millions upon a front of nearly 2,000 miles and to impart a unity and concert to the war direction in the east which has been very good for Soviet Russia and very good for all her allies.
When a moment ago I spoke of the improvements for the Allied cause which are taking place in Hungary and in the satellites in the Balkans, I was reserving the acknowledgment that the victorious advance of the Soviet Army has been the main cause of Hitler's approaching downfall in those regions.
I have now dwelt with the progress of the war against Hitler Germany. But I must also speak of the other gigantic war which is proceeding against the equally barbarous and brutal Japanese. This war is waged in vast preponderance by the fleets, air forces and armies of the United States. We have accepted their leadership in the Pacific Ocean just as they accepted our leadership in the Indian theatre.
We are proud of the contributions made by Australia and New Zealand against Japan. The debt which the British and the Commonwealth of Nations owe to the United States for the fact that their operations against the Japanese shielded Australia and New Zealand from Japanese aggression and from mortal peril during the period when the mother country was at full stretch in the struggle against Germany and Italy. That debt is one which will never be forgotten in any land where the Union Jack is flown.
Remarkable success has attended the work of the American Navy and American, Australian and New Zealand troops. The progress in New Guinea is constant American victories in the Pacific and, in particular their latest conquest and liberation of the Marshall Islands, constitute a superb example of a combination naval, air and military force.
It is possible that the war in the Pacific may progress more rapidly than was formerly thought possible. The Japanese are showing signs of great weakness. Attrition of their shipping, especially their oil tankers, and their air forces on all of which President Roosevelt dwelt with sure foresight a year ago, has become not merely evident but obvious. The Japanese have not felt strong enough to risk .their fleets, in general engagements for the sake of their outer defense lines. In this they have been prudent, considering the immense expansion of United States naval power since the Japanese' treacherous assault at Pearl Harbor.
What fools the Japanese ruling caste were to bringagainst themselves the might and latent war energy of the great Republic all for the sake of carrying out a base and squalid ambuscade.
The British Empire and Commonwealth of Nations have pledged themselves to right side by side with the United States against Japan no matter what it costs or how long it lasts.
Actually we have suffered from Japanese injuries even greater than those which have roused the armed wrath of the American Union. In our theatre of war, in Burma and the Bay of Bengal, we shall strive our utmost to aid the Americans in their contacts with China and to add to our own.
The more we can fight and engage the Japanese and especially wear down their air power the greater the diversion we make from the Pacific theatre and the more help we give to the operations of the United States.
In Burma those plans which were prepared last August at Quebec are now being put into practice. Young men are at the helm. Admiral Mountbatten infused the spirit of energy and confidence into the heavy forces gathered to recover Burma and by that means to defend the frontiers of India and reopen the road to China.
Our airborne operations enable us to attack the Japanese rear. They, for their part, have got behind our front by infiltration at various places and fierce fighting is going on at many points. It is too soon to proclaim the results in this vast area of mountain and jungle, but in nearly every combat we are able to count three or four times more Japanese dead —and that is what matters—than we have ourselves suffered in killed, wounded and missing.
Individual fighting superiority in the jungle has definitely passed to the British and Indian soldiers as compared with the Japanese. Farther to the north an American column of experienced jungle fighters and a considerable Chinese army under General Stilwell of the United States service are progressing with equal mastery.
Later on I shall make to you or Parliament a further report on all this hard fighting which, mind you, is not by any means decided yet.
Meanwhile, we have placed a powerful battle fleet under Admiral Somerville in Indian waters in order to face the main part of the Japanese fleet should it turn westward after having declined battle against the Americans.
When I spoke a year ago I drew attention to the possibility that there would be a prolonged interval between the collapse of Hitler and the downfall of Japan. I still think there will be an interval, but I do not consider it will be as long an interval as I thought a year ago. But be it long or be it short, we shall go through with our American brothers with our utmost strength to the very end.
I have now tried to carry you, as if in Mosquito aircraft, on a reconnoitering duty over the world-wide expanse of this sterile and ferocious war. And I trust you have gained not only some glimpse of the particular scenes, but also have the feeling of the relative size and urgency of the various things that are going on. There are, as you see, quite a lot of things going on.
Still, I remember when I spoke to you on March 21 of last year I gave up the main part of what I said to what we were planning to do to make our island a better place for all its people after the war was over, whenever that should be. I told you there would have to be a general election and a new House of Commons, and, if I was still thought fit to be of any further use, I should put to the country a four-year plan to cover the transition period between war and peace and bring the soldiers, sailors and airmen back to a land where there would be food, work and homes for all.
I dwelt on how wrong it would be to make promises which could not be fulfilled and for one set of politicians to try to outbid another in visionary scheming and dreaming. But I mentioned five or six large fields in which practical action would have to be taken.
Let me remind you of them—a reform on a great scale of the education of the people, a nation-wide uplifting of their physical health. I spoke of the encouragement of agriculture and food production and of vigorous revival of healthy village life. I dwelt upon the importance of a national compulsory insurance scheme for all classes, for all purposes from the cradle to the grave, and of the sound scheme of demobilization which would not delay the rebuilding of industry and not seem unfair to the fighting men. I also spoke about the maintenance of full employment and about the rebuilding of our cities and the housing of the people, and I made a few tentative suggestions about the economic and financial policy and what one might call the importance of making both ends meet.
All this was to happen after the war was over. No promises were to be made beforehand but every preparation that was possible without impeding war effort, including legislative preparation, was to be set on foot.
Now, my friends—as your unfailing kindness encourages me to call you—I am a man who has no unsatisfied ambitions except to beat the enemy and to help you in any way I think right, and, therefore, I hope you will not suppose that in what I am going to say I am looking for votes or trying to glorify this party or that. But I do feel that I may draw your attention to the fact that several of these large matters, which a year ago I told you might be accomplished after war was over, have already been shaped and framed and presented to Parliament and the public.
For instance, you have the greatest scheme of improved education that has ever been attempted by a responsible government. This will soon be on the statute book. It involves a heavy cost upon the State, but I do not think we can maintain our position in the post-war world unless we are an exceptionally well-educated people and unless we can handle easily and with comprehension the problems and inventions of the new scientific age.
Then there is the very far-reaching policy of a National Health Service, which already has been laid before Parliament in outline and received with a considerable measure of acceptance.
Before this session is out we shall lay before you our proposals about the extensions of national insurance, upon which a vast amount of patient work has been done.
So here you have, or will have very shortly, three of the important measures, which I thought would be put off until after the war already, fashioned and proclaimed at a time when no one can tell when the war can end, and all this has been done without relaxing the war effort or causing any party strife to mar the national unity. But there are several other large problems upon which the Ministers and their assistants have toiled and wrought and which are far advanced.
And, indeed, if this process continues and war goes on long enough a greater part of my four-year plan of a year ago may very well be perfected and largely in operation before we reach a general election and give the people a chance to say what they think about it.
b. Now I must say that one might have expected His Majesty's Government would receive many compliments upon the remarkable progress they have made not only with the war but with the preparation for the social and domestic welfare at the armistice or peace.
Last Oct. 1 I thought the time had come to ask the King to appoint Lord Woolton to be Minister of Reconstruction, with a seat in the War Cabinet. His was a record which rightly commanded respect. However, there is a large number of respectable and even eminent people who are not at all burdened with responsibility who have a lot of leisure on their hands and who feel quite most sincerely that the best work they can do at this present time of hard effort and anxiety is to belabor the Government with criticism and condemn them as unprofitable servants because they are not, in the midst of this deadly struggle, ready at any moment to produce fool-proof solutions for the whole future world as between nation and nation, as between victors and vanquished, as between man and man, as between capital and labor, as between the state and individual, and so forth and so on.
The harshest language is used, and this national Government, which has led the nation and the empire and, as I hold, a large part of the world, out of mortal danger, through the dark valleys into which they had wandered, largely through their own folly, back onto the broad uplands where the stars of peace and freedom shine, is reviled as a set of dawdlers and muddlers unable to frame a policy or take a decision or make a plan and act upon it.
I know you will not forget that this Administration, formed in an hour of disaster by the leaders of the Conservative, Labor and Liberal parties in good faith and good will, has brought Britain out of the jaws of death. Back from the mouth of hell, while all the world wondered. I know you will not forget that.
There are two subjects of domestic policy which I mentioned last year on which we have not produced an account of our course of action. This first is housing. We set before ourselves the provision of homes for all who need them with priority for service men, as and when they come home from the war. Let me first lay down an absolute rule—nothing can or must be done in housing or rehousing which by weakening or clogging the war effort prolongs the war. Neither labor not material can be diverted in any way which hampers the vast operations which are in progress or impending.
Subject to that there are three ways in which the business of housing and rehousing the people should be attacked.
Let me tell you about it. Now I do not take the view myself that we were a nation of slum dwellers before the war. Nearly 5,000,000 new approved houses or dwellings were built out of about 11,000,000 in this small island between the two wars, and the British people as a whole were better housed than almost any people on the Continent of Europe, or, I will add, in many parts of the United States of America. But now about 1,000,000 homes have been destroyed or grievously damaged by the fire of the enemy. This offers a magnificent opportunity for rebuilding and replanning, and while we are at it we had better make a clean sweep of all those areas of which our civilization should be ashamed.
However, I have given my word that, so far as it may lie in my power, the soldiers, when they return from the war, and those who have been bombed out and made to double up with other families, shall be restored to homes of their own at the earliest possible moment.
The first attack must evidently be made upon houses which are damaged, but which can be reconditioned into proper dwellings. This must go forward during the war. And we hope to have broken the back of it during this year. It is a war measure, for our allies are here among us in vast numbers and we must do our best for them.
The second attack on the housing problem will be made by what are called the prefabricated, or emergency, houses. On this the Minister of Works, Lord Portal, is working wonders. I hope we may make up to half a million of these, and for this purpose not only plans but actual preparations are being made during the war on a nation-wide scale. Factories have been assigned, the necessary set-up is being made ready, materials are being ear-marked as far as possible, the most convenient sites will be chosen, the whole business is to be treated as a military evolution handled by the government with private industry harnessed to its service.
And I have every hope and a firm resolve that several hundred thousand of our young men will be able to marry several hundred thousand of our young women and make their own four-year plan.
Now what about these emergency houses? I have seen the full-sized model myself and steps are being taken to make sure that a good number of housewives have a chance of expressing their views about it. These houses will make a heavy demand upon the steel industry and will absorb in a great measure its overflow and expansion for war purposes. They are, in my opinion, far superior to the ordinary cottage as it exists today. Not only have they excellent baths, gas or electric kitchenettes and refrigerators, but their walls carry fitted furniture—chests of drawers, hanging cupboards and tables which today it would cost eighty pounds to buy. Moreover, for the rest of the furniture standard articles will be provided and mass produced so that no heavy capital charge will fall upon the young couples or others who may become tenants of the houses.
Owing to the methods of mass production which will be used, I am assured that these houses, including the £80 worth of fitted furniture, will be available at a very moderate rent. All these emergency houses will be publicly owned and it will not rest with any individual tenant to keep them in being after they have served their purpose of tiding over the return of the fighting men and after permanent dwellings are available. As much thought has been and will be put into this plan as was put into the invasion of Africa, though I readily admit that it does not bear comparison in scale with the kind of things we are working at now.
The swift production of these temporary houses is the only way in which the immediate needs of our people can be met in the four or five years that follow the war. In addition to this and to the reconditioning of the damaged dwellings, we have the program of permanent rebuilding which the Minister of Health, Mr. Willink, has recently outlined and by which we shall have two or three hundred thousand permanent houses built or building by the end of the first two years after the defeat of Germany.
Side by side with this comes the question of the employment of the building trade. We do not want a frantic splurge of building, to be followed by a sharp contraction of the trade. I have a sympathy with the building trade, and with the bricklayers. For they are apt to be the first to be taken for the wars and in time of peace they all know if they work at their job, that when it is finished they may have to look for another. If we are to secure the best results, it will be necessary that our twelve-year plan for the building trade on which Mr. Bevin [Minister of Labor and National Service] and Lord Portal have spent so much time—a plan which will guarantee steady employment for long periods and increased reward for increased efforts or superior skill we have —it will be necessary to see that that plan is carried out.
Then we are told by the busy wiseacres: How can you build houses without the land to put them on; when are you going to tell us your plans for this? But we have already declared in 1941 that all land needed for public purposes shall be taken at prices based on the standards of values of March 31, 1939. This was a formidable decision of state policy which selected property and land for a special, restricted imposition. Whereas stocks and shares and many classes of real property have gone up in value during the war, and when agricultural land, on account of the new proposals and new prospects opened to farmers, has also risen in value, the state has the power, which it will on no account surrender, to claim all land needed bona fid a for war industry or for public purposes at values fixed before wartime conditions supervened. There are certain hard cases which will best be adjusted by Parliamentary debate, but in the main you may be sure that ample land will be forthcoming when and where it is needed for all the houses, temporary or permanent, required to house our people far better than they have ever been housed before.
Nobody needs be deterred from planning for the future by the fear that they may not be able to obtain the necessary land. Legislation to enable the local authorities to secure any land required for the reconstruction of our towns has been promised and will be presented to Parliament this session. There are some comfortable people, of course, who want to put off everything until they have planned and got agreed to in every feature, a White Paper or a blueprint for the regeneration of the world, before, of course, asking the electors how they feel about it.
These people would rather postpone building the homes for the returning troops until they had planned out every acre in the country to make sure the landscape is not spoiled. In time of war we have to face immediate needs and stern realities, and it surely is better for us to do that than to do nothing whilst preparing to do everything.
Here is my difficulty. I put it frankly before you. I cannot take anything that will hinder the war. And no one-except the very clever ones—can tell when the war will end or whether it will end suddenly or peter out. Therefore, there must be an emergency plan, and that is what Ministers concerned have been working at for some time past. But in spite of this and of all I have said, I cannot guarantee that everything will be perfect or that if the end of the war came suddenly, as it might do, there will not be an interval when things will be pretty rough.
But it will not be a long interval, and it will be child's play compared to what we have already gone through. Nor need we be frightened about the scale of this task. It looks to me a small one—this housing—compared to some of those we have handled and are handling now.
The value of the land involved is between one-twentieth and one-thirtieth of the cost of the houses to be built upon it, and our population itself is unhappily about to enter upon a period of decline—numerical decline—which can only be checked by the most robust treatment of housing and of all its ancillaries.
There is one other question on which I should like to dwell tonight, but for a reason which I will mention later I only intend to utter a passing reassurance—I mean demobilization.
Now, I know about as much about this as most people, because I was Secretary of State for War and Air at the time of the great demobilization after the last war, when in about six months we brought home from abroad, released from military service and restored to their families nearly 3,000,000 men. Great plans had been prepared before the armistice by the planners to bring home all the key men first, and any soldier who could get a telegram from someone at home saying that he was wanted for a key job had priority over the men who had borne the burden and heat of the war. The troops did not think this was fair, and by the time I went to the War Office a convulsion of indiscipline shook the whole of our splendid army which had endured unmoved all danger, slaughter, privation.
I persuaded the Cabinet to reverse this foolish and inequitable plan and to substitute the simple rule—first out, first home—with the result that discipline was immediately restored and the process of demobilization went forward in a smooth and orderly fashion.
Now, my friend, Mr. Bevin, the Minister of Labor, for whose deep sagacity and knowledge of the wage-earning masses I have high admiration—Mr. Bevin has devised a very much less crude but equally fair and healthy scheme in which I have the greatest confidence, in which all concerned may have the greatest confidence.
Why am I not going to tell you all about it tonight? Or why will Mr. Bevin not tell you about it in the near future?
Here is the reason. This is not the time to talk about demobilization.
The hour of our greatest effort and action is approaching. We march with valiant Allies who count on us as we count on them. The flashing eyes of all our soldiers, sailors and airmen must be fixed upon the enemy on their front. The only homeward road for all of us lies through the arch of victory.
The magnificent armies of the United States are here, or are pouring in. Our own troops, the best trained and best equipped we have ever had, stand at their side in equal numbers and in true comradeship. Leaders are appointed in whom we all have faith. We shall require from our own people here, from Parliament, from the press, from all classes, the same cool, strong nerves, the same toughness of fiber which stood us in good stead in those days when we were all alone under the German blitz.
And here I must warn you, that in order to deceive and baffle the enemy as well as to exercise the forces, there will be many false alarms, many feints and many dress rehearsals. We may also ourselves be the object of new forms of attack from the enemy.
Britain can take it. She has never flinched or failed, and when the signal is given, the whole circle of avenging nations will hurl themselves upon the foe and batter out the life of the crudest tyranny which has ever sought to bar the progress of mankind.
The Battle of Sangshak ended with a Japanese tactical victory, but a British strategic one, as the British holding action had allowed them to send reinforcements to Kohima.
Reorganization of the 5th Army in Italy commences, with the French Corps and New Zealand Corps removed from the line in favor of units of the British 8th Army.
The fifteen captured OSS men of Operation Ginny II were summarily executed by the German under Hitler's Commando Order.
Large elements of the German 1st Panzer Army were cut off at Kamenets-Podolski
The USS Tullibee was sunk north of Palau due to a torpedo malfunction. Only 1 of its 60 man crew would survive. At the same time, Japanese observers again observe US naval forces and decide to disperse their own.
This is Holy Week. It commenced yesterday with Palm Sunday, which we noted yesterday:
In those countries which were spared the cultural impact of the Reformation, at least directly, at the entire week is one of celebration and observance. In a lot of those places, people have the whole week off. Some of Spanish and Central American friends, for example do.
Well, in the English-speaking world we've had to continue to endure the impact of Cromwell and all his fun sucking, so we'll be headed to work instead.
Conservatives are not Populists.
Far from it.
Liberals aren't Progressives.
Liberals and Conservatives have more in common, than they do to the other categories noted above
Populists and Progressives share many common traits.
Confused?
We hope to clear that up. But let's start with this. A lot of commentary, particularly of an uneducated type, keeps referring to Donald Trump as "a conservative", and sadly, a lot of true conservatives fall right into line with that fallacy. Populists right now continually refer to themselves as conservatives, which is because they don't know what conservatives actually are.
They'd likely be horrified if they did. And indeed, occasionally they are.
Donald Trump is not a conservative. He's a populist, or is appealing to them. There's a world of difference. People who figure he stands for conservative values are deeply misguided on this point. He doesn't. But in the right/left thin gruel political world we live in, it's slightly understandable how people could be misguided on this linguistic point.
But it's wrong.
Let's take a look at it. More particularly, what are conservatives, liberals, populists and progressives, the four main branches of what we have around in terms of political philosophies right now.
Let's start with this. What is a conservative?
What is a conservative?
At the core of their Weltanschauung, conservatives believe that human nature is essentially fixed, and that it's been fixed by an existential external. Religious conservatives believe that the existential external is God, but not all conservatives are religious conservatives.1 Those who aren't, like George F. Will for example, would hold that the existential external is essentially our evolution.2
Because this is the core belief of conservatives, conservatives are strong advocates for the application of Chesterton's Fence, which holds:
There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."
This is why people tend to think that what conservatives stand for is not changing anything. This isn't really true, but they are very cautious about it. Conservatives do not have any real faith that human nature is set to improve, and therefore have a large degree of caution regarding the changing of anything that's substantial until it can be determined why that thing came into existence in the first place.
And they believe that certain things, human nature, as noted, is essentially unchanging. Given this, they hope we all do as well as we can, but they don't have any view of remaking humanity or creating Heaven on Earth.
I'll note, I am, on most things, a conservative.
In most societies overall, except in cultures that are deeply conservative, conservatives are a minority. They may be a large minority, but they are usually a minority. The reason for this is that conservatism is, by its nature, somewhat pessimistic. Conservatives hope things get better, but more than that hope they don't get worse, and often hope that the better is a return to some status quo ante that was less messed up.
Conservatives are nearly always a minority, which is one of their weaknesses, but they are also generally intellectual by nature, which is part of the reason that they are a minority and are comfortable being one. Conservatives suspect most people instinctively agree with them, but don't know why, and they're comfortable with that as a rule.
A strength and weakness of conservatives is that they are reluctant to change things until its proven they need to be. Conservatives believe that Chesterton's fence should have a pretty strong latch, or maybe even a keyed lock on it. That's also a strength, however, as they're much less prone than others to whims of any kind.
Because conservatives do not feel that humans are in control of their natures, conservatives tend to be somewhat pessimistic as a rule, but they also don't except a lot of humankind in general. They generally feel that people are left best to their own devices, but they are not anarchists or libertarians, as they believe that order is necessary and a good.
To give a few examples of recent, more or less, conservatives, we have the following. Probably, William F. Buckley is the supreme example of a post World War Two conservatives. George F. Will would be a close second. George Weigel, must less well known, would be a third.
In terms of politicians, we have, currently, Mitt Romney. Ronald Reagan was a conservative, but imperfectly so. Margaret Thatcher was another. Herbert Hoover, who was a much better President than he is credited as being, was a conservative. Winston Churchill was a conservative, as was his nemesis Éamon de Valera.
To look at some illustrative issues, in the abstract, as politicians and individuals both vary and compromise, we'll take some more or less contemporary examples, and carry them through.
Abortion. Conservatives oppose abortion as they believe in an external, and therefore don't have the right to destroy a human life without just cause. This view, I'd note, is not limited to religious conservatives.
Death Penalty. As a rule, conservatives have tended to support the death penalty, as it's always existed. They are clearly capable of having their minds changed on the topic, slowly.
Gender issues. I'm lumping this all into one category, but conservatives as a rule feel that homosexuality is a person's own business, but it shouldn't change institutions like marriage. They don't believe transgenderism is real, as the science isn't there.
Climate Change. Early on a lot of conservatives were skeptical on climate change, but few would outright dismiss it. Many were cautious in accepting it, however, consistent with their general reluctance to immediately accept something new.
Economics. As a rule, conservatives tend to be in favor of a free market, with as little government interference in the economy as possible, basically taking the view that the best economy is one in which people get to decide things for themselves and that overall, the economy is really too complicated for human micromanaging.
Immigration. Conservatives have been for restricted immigration, believing that excessive rates damage the economy, impact national culture too rapidly, and impact sovereignty.
Defense. Conservatives are for a strong national defense, as they support sovereignty. Prior to World War Two they were opposed to that extending overseas, but since the war they've applied the lessons of history and are very much in favor of extending defense beyond the seas, if not necessarily always intervening in foreign wars. Two give to contemporary examples of this:
William F. Buckley, who intellectually defined the modern conservative movement.
What, then, are liberals?
What is a liberal?
We don't hear much about liberals anymore. Progressives, which we will deal with below, have sort of taken over the political "left" in recent years, and liberalism, in a modern context, has weakened, which is a tragedy.
Liberals actually hold the essential core value that conservatives do, that being that there is an existential external that has set human nature. They believe, however, that human nature can be improved, and that it requires collective effort to do that. Unlike conservatives, who hope we all do as well as we can, liberals feel that we can all be made better. That's the real difference between traditional conservatives and traditional liberals.
Liberals see the world much the way that conservatives do, but have a very optimistic view of human nature and are certain that it can be improved. The early GOP was a liberal party and therefore, when you consider that, Lincoln appealing to "the better angels of our mercy" makes a lot of sense. Conservatives would appeal to angels as well, but not "ours", and for help.
Right now, however, real liberals and real conservatives are few and far between. That's because we have populists and progressives dominating the field.
In most societies, liberals are the majority. To some extent, that's because they are optimistic, and tend to believe they can make everything better than it currently is.
Looking at our issues, we have the following.
Abortion. Liberals generally support allowing abortion up to a certain number of weeks, although this isn't universally true. The intellectual underpinning of this is weak, but is based on the concept that by doing this they're supporting the rights of women.
Death Penalty. Liberals are pretty uniformly opposed to the death penalty, believing that it achieves no real purpose and is inherently barbaric.
Gender issues. Liberals, like conservatives, generally used to hold that homosexuality was a person's own matter, if they were subject to it. They've come to support regarding homosexuality as equating with heterosexuality in recent years on the belief that this improves the living standards of everyone.
Transgenderism is a new thing, but generally liberals lean towards supporting transgender "rights" on the concept that as it seems to occur, it must be natural, and society shouldn't hurt people who express it.
Climate Change. Liberals fully accept that this is occurring and is a grave crisis, and they want governmental action on it.
Economics. Contrary to what people like to imagine, conservatives and liberals really have very similar views of the economy. The difference is really at the margin in how much governmental action there should be in the economy, and what the tax rates are. If viewed from the abstract, however, tehir views are essentially the same.
Immigration. Liberals generally believe that all people are the same or can be the same, so they dismiss cultural issues regarding immigration. They are for controls, but having a desire to improve things for everyone, they're generally in support of a much higher immigration rate than conservatives.
Defense. Traditionally, contrary to what people like to imagine, liberals have been in favor of a strong defense and also have been quite interventionist. There are exceptions, but the "improve things for everyone" viewpoint resulted, throughout the 20th Century, in a much higher inclination by liberals to intervene in foreign wars than conservatives have had. Since Vietnam, this has been much less the case, however.
In terms, again, of recent examples, Robert Reich, who teeters on the edge of progressivism, is one. Bill Clinton was another. Nancy Pelosi is another example, as is Chuck Schumer. Going back a bit further, both John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were liberals. Frankly, Richard Nixon was as well.
A controversial example would be Theodore Roosevelt. While his breakaway political party was The Progressives, he was a pretty far left political liberal, as was his cousin Franklin Roosevelt.
Franklin Roosevelt, arguably the most clearly Liberal of American Presidents.
What is a populist?
This has certainly been the Age of Populism.
Populists believe that the good is determined by the collective wisdom of the masses. So unlike conservatism and liberalism which believe that an existential external had defined what human nature is, populists believe that the collective common sense of the people defines that, and that's an existential collective internal.
Because populists believe that, it's a particularly shallow political theory and particularly subject to the storms of the time. Populist can be, and have been, on the radical "left" and the radical "right". Indeed, when Trump was coming up in 2016 so was Bernie Sanders, and they both appealed equally to populists. A lot of the same people who now worship Trump, worshiped Sanders.
Right now, people confuse populism with conservatism as populism in the US stands, as it often has in the past, for an Evangelical variant of the American Civil Religion. Protestant in its view, it basically holds a very shallow version of Christianity which is mostly focused on sex, and mostly focused on homosexual sex being bad. Beyond that, it longs, just as it had in the mid to late 20th Century in the South, for a mythic version of American history in which everyone supposedly did really well economically and there were no problems (no drugs, no alcoholics, no mentally ill, no violence, etc.).
Populism has been an occasionally strong current in the American political stream from time to time. There was, at the turn of the prior century, a Populist Party that existed from 1892 until 1909, and which we should note did very well in Wyoming's elections of the period. It was, we might note, regarded as a left wing party.
Populism is only popular in a society during times of extreme economic or social distress. Massively pessimistic in its outlook, Populist always have the belief that they are under siege and are therefore extremely given to conspiracy theories of all type. They are, accordingly, very easy to manipulate. They also tend to be given to ignorance, which plays into this, as they believe folk wisdom is the ultimate source of knowledge on everything. And what it says, is that they're swimming in the shallow end of the pool, quite frankly.
Because of this populists are very easily led by other movements, when a savvy leader comes along and can manipulate them. And often, but not always, those leaders are quasi populists themselves. Both Lenin and Hitler were. Franco was not. Nor was Mussolini. All were able to lead the masses.
Turning to our set of issues, we have the following.
Abortion. This is actually hard to say as Populists vary on this to a fair degree. They all, right now, oppose abortion, but are prepared to compromise on some vague number of weeks if for no other reason that makes it easy.
Death Penalty. Populists are for it, as its always existed, and for its extension, as the people who get executed seem to be part of an evil "them".
Gender issues. Populists are very much opposed to homosexuality and transgenderism as they sense its not party of the collective norm. They share this view with Conservatives, but tend to be nasty and virulent about it, rather than thoughtful.
Climate Change. Populists just don't believe its real. The collective group of them doesn't, and therefore individual ones don't, evidence to the contrary aside. As populists engage in a sort of group think, that's what they think.
Economics. Populists say they are for a free market economy but have no real understanding of economic issues. They're for protectionism as that protects us against a foreign them.
Immigration. Populists are radically opposed to immigration as the people who come in are part of a foreign them, and are not part of us. They believe that immigration problems are the result, in some instances, of a conspiracy.
Defense. Populists support our troops, but appear to have the old William Jennings Bryan view of things, and he was a populist, that troops shouldn't leave our shores. They are radically opposed to intervention in any war overseas in the belief that none of them matter to us, almost.
Giving really outstanding example of populists is a bit hard to do, to some extent, as they tend to fail over time, and then be forgotten. But there are some notable examples. Louisiana's Huey Long was a populist. Fr. Charles Coughlin was as well. George Wallace was for much of his life, but he became a conservative in his final years.
What is a progressive.
Like populism, progressivism has existed in the United States for a long time, and perhaps just about as long as populism.
Progressives believe, like populists, that human nature is controlled by an internal existential, but in their case they radically believe that it's controlled by an internal individual existential. So, unlike progressives who believe in a sort of mystical will of the people, progressives believe that each and every individual has a radically individual reality that's a supreme existential good.
Progressives are convinced of radical individualism while at the same time having very low faith in people in general.
Because of their world outlook, progressives tend to share some odd traits with populists, and indeed historically they are both left wing in their political, and they tend to exist at the same time. Progressives tend to be radically opposed to human nature, and therefore given to conspiracy theories of a type. They tend to be anarchic in their expressed views, just as populists tend to be, but they favor autocracy in reality, just as populists ultimately tend to be. Societies that essentially degrade to a struggle between populism and progressivism, usually spectacularly fail, with late Republican Spain and late Weimar Germany being distressing examples.
In terms of Progressives, for reasons that we'll explain below, popular examples are often associated with other movements. Having said that, figures like Noam Chomsky, AoC, Henry Wallace, are good examples. Much of current academia, for peculiar reasons, is made up of Progressives. There aren't, however, any countries current governed by them, unlike Populists.
Progressives in recent decades have tended to lurk under the surface of liberals, so they don't erupt into existence the way Populists do. Being opportunistic, however, they've done so very much since the Obergefell decision, and then in reaction to Trump.
On our issues, we find the following:
Abortion. Progressives are radically in favor of abortion as they are radically in favor of any one human deciding their own fate, and the fate of an unborn person doesn't matter, as they are not yet born.
Death Penalty. Progressives are opposed to it, but mostly on a knee-jerk level. This is borrowed from the Liberals, and it's been adopted without much thinking. Having said that, termination of a life does radically end that person's ability to decide anything, so this is overall consistent with their views.
Gender issues. Progressives believe that this can and should be radically determined by the individuals, so basically they don't really believe that genders, science notwithstanding, really exist.
Climate Change. Climate Change impacts everyone, so Progressives are for immediate government action to address it.
Economics. Progressives lean towards radical economics, so concepts like Universal Basic Income and whatnot, that seem to be capable of individual use, are heavily favored. They like state intervention in the economy and society, to the extent it seems to free up anyone individual.
Immigration. Progressives, like liberals, don't believe that culture really matters, so they're heavily opposed to restrictions of significance.
Defense. Prior to the recent wars it would have been hard to say what a Progressive position was on defense, other than that Progressives like to use the Armed Forces as a petrie dish for social change. Given the various world crises right now, however, things have become clearer.
How these categories bleed into each other, creating confusion.
In no small part due to the adoption of the French Revolution "right wing/left wing" political map, we tend to think of all political categories as existing as a scaled line, when in fact their world more closely resembles a box, or perhaps intersecting circles. This confuses people in general, including those who fit any one category. For example, a lot of populists right now genuinely believe that they are conservatives, when in fact they are anything but. Put another way, a lot of members of the Freedom Caucus would actually feel a lot more comfortable at a Bernie Sanders Coffee Klatch than they would at a William F. Buckley Society cocktail party, and by leagues.
To start with conservatives again, as conservatives apply Chesterton's Fence to all sorts of things as a philosophical principle, they may see populists who arise due to social stress as members of the same group. To give an example, conservatives are rightly horrified by the gender nonsense that's going on right now, and more than that look back to male/female social roles that seem more solidly grounded in an existential other. Populists take the same outward approach, but that's because the collective mass of them tells them that what is going on is weird. Conservatives tend to support strong border and immigration policies as they believe in the principal of sovereignty, which has long existed, and they fear they value national culture and fear that uncontrolled immigration can damage it. Populists tend to support the same, but because the people coming across the border are part of some mysterious other, who are almost not real people, or at least not equal people.
On other issues, however the differences begin to become more apparent. Conservatives have always tended to support a strong national defense on sovereignty grounds, although that doesn't always take the same expression. Therefore, while conservatives of the 1930s were isolationist, they were also more than willing to build a strong Navy that projected power well beyond the United States. In recent years, they've been strong proponents of collective security, often aggravating liberals by being willing to see authoritarian regimes as potential defense partners. Populists are universally strict isolationist, as they feel anything beyond our borders doesn't matter.
Economically, conservatives generally tend to be fiscally restrained, but not unwilling to apply the American system where it will seem to work. They believe in balanced finances. Populists believe in balanced finances, but take a hyper stingy view of expenditures, virtually never seeing any expenditure as benefiting the populist mass. Therefore, funding for schools, something conservatives have long supported, becomes sort of an anathema to some populists. Strong education in science, math and history as a conservative position degrades into limited education on the populist end, as they have watched populist raised children evolve into conservatives, liberals or progressives.
Western conservatives (but not European conservatives) had tended to be in favor of limiting government, as they basically feel, in a pessimistic sort of way, that people are generally better off figuring out things for themselves rather than having the government do it, or do things for them. Populists are for a limited government as they hate the government, seeing it as the conspiratorial "they" that's out to destroy them and the culture they believe in.
For this reason, conservatives and populists confuse each other as being part of their ranks. Populists continually claim they are conservatives, when in fact they are not. Populists have been told that the Republican Party is the home of conservatives, which after 1912 it came to be, and as they believe that they are conservative, they believe anyone in the GOP who doesn't think the way they do is a Republican In Name Only. Ironically, populists were in the Populist Party at the turn of the last century in the US, and then in the Democratic Party for decades. What they are complaining about is the traditional positions of the Republican Party.
The same is true of liberals and progressives.
Liberals tend to be basically in favor of social liberty for the same reason that conservatives are in favor of limited government, they feel that people are best left to figure those things out for themselves and will ultimately figure the right thing out. Progressives want to force a brave new social world view on everyone. Liberals are more willing to use the government and government money for what they think the common good is than conservatives are, but progressives are willing to use both to force their view on what the good is on people who disagree with it. Liberals (like many conservatives) are supportive of preservation of the common good, through public and environmental policies. Progressives are as well, but they're more much willing to dictate an extra view on how people should generally behave. Liberals, like conservatives, have traditionally been in favor of a strong national defense, but have been, since the Vietnam War, very careful about using it beyond our shores unless absolutely necessary. Progressives, like populists, never see it as necessary as a rule.
Because liberals and progressives overlap, they confuse each other as being on the same scale on the left, which in fact, they're in different circles or boxes. Liberal inability to see the distinction has been to the benefit of Progressives, who have come to increasingly dominate the Democratic Party in recent years.
Liberals and conservatives tend to have a lot in common, but not be able to realize it, in part because liberals feel they need to make camp with the progressives, and the conservatives do make camp with the progressives.
A warning
And here we get, in a way, to where we are now.
Conservatives in the modern West, and always in the English-speaking West, have democracy as a primary virtue, in spite of being aware that they're never in the majority, although the National Conservative movement, which is reactionary in the true sense of the word (it's reacting to something) is weakening that and looking to a pre Second World War model of European conservatism.
Liberals are always in favor of democracy.
Progressives and Populists really aren't quite often. Sometimes they are, but often they are not.
And Progressives and Populists only are in the forefront of politics in odd, and dangerous, times.
We are in odd and dangerous times.
Footnotes:
1. Hindu conservatives, and there are millions, would say "gods", or some variant of it, we should note.
2. Evolutionary biology is almost an elemental fixture of conservatism. Indeed, scientists who are evolutioanry biologist have been rebuked, in recent years, by progressives simply for stating scientific truths.
Meet The Press's host interviewed retired United States Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer on last weekend's episode.
The episode is worth listening to, but due to Chuck Todd and Kristen Welker going after their employer, NBC, for getting them set up in an interview of Ronna McDaniel after it turns out that NBC has hired McDaniel to be a pundit. Suffice it to say, McDaniel won't be inviting them to any after work gatherings. But the interview of Breyer was pointless.
