Andrew’s New Blog At PJ Xpress!

The legendary Jean Shepherd use to broadcast out of WOR radio in New York.  Do you know of whom I speak?  If so, do you have any Jean Shepherd stories to share?  

I’m sorry to hear this. I won’t give page views to Simon. I hope you’ll consider mirroring your posts here as I really enjoy your work. Otherwise, thanks for everything.
 

The last time  Republicans were on the right side of a moral issue was 1865.  Then Lincoln got shot…and the Republican Party lost its conscience, backbone, wit, humor, and morality, forever and ever.

 I think you mean 1965, you know while the Democrats were fighting equal rights. Keep believing he lie.

So, prior to 1968, the Republicans were a bunch of Northern Liberals and the Democrats were a bunch of Southern conservatives? You mean like Calvin Coolidge? Like Franklin D Roosevelt? Eisenhower was liberal? Kennedy was conservative?

Besides…there was no “southern strategy”. Myth debunked:http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mlassite/risen.html

Republicans in American have always been on the right side of history and Democrats have always attempted to take credit for it, by rewriting history.

The dictionary definition of conservative does not necessarily correspond to the political definition. A “conservative” stance in America, by the dictionary definition of the term, would be for more of the same, which has been a trend toward progressivism since the early 1900s. By that logic, progressives would be conservative and vice versa. Once upon a time, the center-right in America referred to themselves as liberal. The center-left mostly referred to themselves as progressive. The right picked up the term conservative in reaction to the left attempting to redefine the term “liberal”.

Furthermore…”narrow-minded” must be a different dictionary. Mirriam-Webster says “tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions”. But even Webster separates into a political definition, though their definition is imperfect as the American status quo is toward greater government involvement and a robust welfare state, rather than “a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)”.

Further information:

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/ideology.htm

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Participating-Political-Process-2149/Liberal-Conservative.htm

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/perspective/perspective-i-liberal/

http://rslissak.com/content/analizing-how-left-hijacked-liberalism-profbrubin

Did I say there were NO racists or bigots on the right? No, but you sure as hell implied that it was the secret to their success, while attempting to defend the claims of another who claimed that conservatives were ONLY a bunch of haters.

I’m sorry if the facts and analysis doesn’t fit your preconceived narrative or your little anecdotes (here’s anecdotal evidence for my side, literally EVERY openly racist person I’ve ever met in my life has been a working-class pro union Democrat who complains about “n*ggers” taking their jobs.)

Here’re the simple facts: Both parties promoted policies now considered moderately conservative. Dems used to be anti-bank but gold standard. Reps used to be pro-industry, but pro-federal reserve. Over the centuries a rift began to open between the two sides with one side being a little more pro-business and the other being a little more pro-government.

This began with Andrew Jackson and his attempts to rule by executive order. In fact, Jackson’s administration paved the way for a president to be considered a “leader”, instead of a spokesman. His hatred of the banks began to lead the Dems down an anti-private-interest path, while a conservative movement by people like Daniel Webster began to oppose him.

Later, the progressive movement took off in both parties, with Teddy Roosevelt being the first progressive president. Factions within both parties warred against the progressive upstarts. In the Republican party, the conservatives won and Roosevelt was the last progressive Republican president, with La Follette hanging on to the Republican mantle a little too long. In the Democrat party, Wilson ran as a conservative and then governed as a progressive, which clinched the Democrat party for the progressives, hence FDR later.

During this FDR period, conservatism was gaining strength with the Republican party through the leadership of Robert Taft. This was the final battle between conservative Republicans and the moderate “Eastern” Republicans, led by Thomas Dewey. Thomas Dewey won this little battle, but it damaged the moderate/liberal movement within the party permanently and Taft’s faction won the soul of the Party.

At this point, the Republican party become firmly conservative, but the Democratic party was still mostly moderate progressives (early progressivism would look like conservatism compared to today’s liberalism) until the Berkley student protests, inspired by professors imported from the “Frankfurt School”, which is just another name for Marxists. It was then that the young Democrats began to protest their own leaders, like super-statist LBJ, for being too “chauvinist” and too conservative. The Democrats began to court those protesting radicals and eventually assimilated them into their ranks.

Since then, the ideologies of people like Timothy Leary and Allen Ginsberg has been branded as mainstream, while the ideologies of Daniel Webster and Robert Taft has been branded as extremism.

That’s a drastic change in tone from your earlier posts. In many ways, I can see Barack Obama as “conservative” if you mean that he promotes the status quo. If you mean, however, that he promotes ideologies that are often seen as aligned with the “conservative” political movement, you are mistaken. Conservatism, as it is today, has grown into what could be explained as a cocktail of the ideas of William F. Buckley Jr, Edmund Burke, and Milton Friedman. Granted, that is huge oversimplification, but the true scope of it would make a book. The same would be true of liberalism. But, simplifying that side, I could call it a mix of Sorel, Rousseau, John Dewey, and John Maynard Keynes.

There is nothing like Burke, Buckley, or Friedman in Obama’s governance. Granted, there’s very little of them in Romney either, but Obama has plenty of Keynes in him. Never mind the Rousseau (hope and change), Dewey (his wife’s push for strict school lunch standards), Sorel (his claims that he did things he didn’t do, like call the Libya attacks terrorism).

Romney, unfortunately (but much better than a Keynesian), is a pure pragmatist. There’s more William James in him than much else.

This group that you keep referring to, though, as “conservative” that you think is all important for the Southern vote, is typically only conservative with regards to social policy and is more than willing to support Democrats in local elections when promised more government benefits. The true conservative political movement is much more complex than that.

The same, however, can be said of the Democrat side. Many “liberal” voters aren’t truly liberal, but are simply blue collar workers who don’t really understand the issues any better than the under-educated Republican.

Here are more facts regarding racism by political ideology.

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/08/racism-by-political-party.html

The study shows that neither party is overrun by racists and that both parties are represented by essentially the same amount (within margins of error). But, let me reiterate, the important data is that neither side is dominated by racists. Neither ideology is intrinsically racist, but I am of the personal opinion that such “hand-holding” policies as affirmative action ought to be seen as an insult to the minorities, whom are being treated as if they have to have someone else prop them up before they can succeed. But, then, understand that people on the left believe that my opposition to affirmative action (which I believe will only sow more division) is evidence that I don’t want minorities to succeed. The term, racism, has become so subjective over time that it has been rendered nearly meaningless.

I would rather frame something like affirmative action in a practical sense. It may help some minorities in the short term, but not the minority group as a whole. It does not move the minorities out of the slums that have begun to dominate the life of many minorities.

The only things that can do that is to treat all people like adults, reform anti-poverty programs to support upward mobility rather than the current practice of simply making poverty more comfortable, and reform education to engage minorities and encourage them to succeed (many fail simply from the belief that applying themselves would be a waste of time, believing the narrative that others give them that a) they aren’t smart enough or b) society won’t let them succeed anyway.)

Read Empire of Lies last summer. A Christian with his toes in the dirt of his origin just might reach other earthlings. It could happen.

You must be a conservative then.. that was pretty mean what you said about them. Besides the fact that your wrong and Andrew is spot on. Of course you don’t agree with him. Libs never understand facts when presented with them.