Business Republicans VS Tea Party
AnonymousAnonymous
Veteran
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 70,088
Location: Portland, Oregon
18 Oct 2013, 3:18 pm
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-1 ... party.html
_________________
Silly NTs, I have Aspergers, and having Aspergers is gr-r-reat!
Thelibrarian
Veteran
Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
18 Oct 2013, 3:59 pm
Yes, the Tea Party is the American version of the Nationalist movements that are sweeping Europe, and threatening to take control of governments all over the continent. Both phenomena are a result of the state against its own citizens, which is an inherent part of all liberalisms.
Actually, the GOP was traditionally the party of big government spending, support for business interests above all else, and an indifference to social policies. In fact, big government spending paid for by tariffs that came at the South's expense was the proximate cause of the Civil War, and one of the founding purposes of the GOP was to destroy the South, which it duly did.
Southerners had little choice but to leave the Democrat Party, their traditional home, when the party drifted way too far to the left. Since then, there has been a contest between Republican right-liberal traditionalists who supply most of the money, and conservative upstarts who supply most of the votes. Since the aims of these two factions are irreconcilable, the GOP simply isn't big enough for both.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,778
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,778
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
19 Oct 2013, 2:26 am
Yes, the Tea Party is the American version of the Nationalist movements that are sweeping Europe, and threatening to take control of governments all over the continent. Both phenomena are a result of the state against its own citizens, which is an inherent part of all liberalisms.
Actually, the GOP was traditionally the party of big government spending, support for business interests above all else, and an indifference to social policies. In fact, big government spending paid for by tariffs that came at the South's expense was the proximate cause of the Civil War, and one of the founding purposes of the GOP was to destroy the South, which it duly did.
Southerners had little choice but to leave the Democrat Party, their traditional home, when the party drifted way too far to the left. Since then, there has been a contest between Republican right-liberal traditionalists who supply most of the money, and conservative upstarts who supply most of the votes. Since the aims of these two factions are irreconcilable, the GOP simply isn't big enough for both.
Most mainstream historians would suggest that slavery had been a major cause of the war. But even if tariffs had been the cause, doesn't it seem more than a little bitchy and whiny on the part of the south to succeed over just that? The west had had more than it's share of abuse by power elites back east, but never was there an attempt to fly into the kind of convulsive hysterics that the Confederacy did. Rather, westerners founded the Populist Party (not the insane group using the same name today), the Grangers, and even radical labor organizations like the Industrial Workers of the World to address those grievances in a more civilized manner. Even the train and bank robberies of Butch Cassidy's Wild Bunch, and Bill Miner's gang had a veneer of political rationality, and were often seen as old west Robin Hoods. The point is, even if those tariffs the the cause of the war, succession was really an overreaction.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Thelibrarian
Veteran
Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
19 Oct 2013, 7:52 am
Most mainstream historians would suggest that slavery had been a major cause of the war. But even if tariffs had been the cause, doesn't it seem more than a little bitchy and whiny on the part of the south to succeed over just that? The west had had more than it's share of abuse by power elites back east, but never was there an attempt to fly into the kind of convulsive hysterics that the Confederacy did. Rather, westerners founded the Populist Party (not the insane group using the same name today), the Grangers, and even radical labor organizations like the Industrial Workers of the World to address those grievances in a more civilized manner. Even the train and bank robberies of Butch Cassidy's Wild Bunch, and Bill Miner's gang had a veneer of political rationality, and were often seen as old west Robin Hoods. The point is, even if those tariffs the the cause of the war, succession was really an overreaction.
Oh? Then why did Lincoln actively campaign for a Constitutional amendment to guarantee that slavery could exist forever in those states where it already existed?
It's "whiny and bitchy" to object to paying for services that will only benefit others and that at the same time will do immense damage to your own way of life?
It is also not the case that westerners didn't rebel. If you don't believe me, read up on William Jennings Bryan. As far as Wobblies and Grangers go, the alien Wobblies were about as popular as rabies, though the Grangers was an American movement.
As far as secession being an "overreaction", you're going to see in the next few years that that battle is far from over; secession movements are returning, and with a vengeance, Bill. And I am one of them; it is impossible for Americans to coexist with predatory, post-American liberals.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,778
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
19 Oct 2013, 1:06 pm
Lincoln hadn't freed slaves in states within the Union just yet because he feared losing those border states to the Confederacy. His intention was to move slowly and step by step, till he could finally free all slaves when the Confederacy's defeat was certain.
And sure, the IWW was unpopular in many parts of society - but itinerant workers wandering around the western frontier from one dangerous low paying job to another - who numbered in the tens of thousands - certainly saw them as their last hope. It should be noted that more often than not, the Wobblies were the victims of violence by gunmen hired by businesses, rather then the perpetrators.
As for secession returning - I wouldn't hold my breath. And predatory liberalism? The ensuring of people's rights, and expansion of access to healthcare and voters rights hardly seems a worthwhile cause to wanting to kill in order to stop.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Thelibrarian
Veteran
Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
19 Oct 2013, 3:32 pm
Lincoln hadn't freed slaves in states within the Union just yet because he feared losing those border states to the Confederacy. His intention was to move slowly and step by step, till he could finally free all slaves when the Confederacy's defeat was certain.
Lincoln didn't have to worry about the border states being lost to the Confederacy. All he had to do was the same liberal countermeasures he did in Maryland, which was to lock up anybody who disagreed with him and throw away the key.
Lincoln didn't just want to free the slaves, but to destroy the South, which was exactly what he did. Had he just wanted to free the slaves, he could have employed much less draconian measures to do so. He was being a good liberal though.
And sure, the IWW was unpopular in many parts of society - but itinerant workers wandering around the western frontier from one dangerous low paying job to another - who numbered in the tens of thousands - certainly saw them as their last hope. It should be noted that more often than not, the Wobblies were the victims of violence by gunmen hired by businesses, rather then the perpetrators.
Even if you are right on the itinerant workers, tens of thousands of people in a country of a hundred million is insignificant.
As for secession returning - I wouldn't hold my breath. And predatory liberalism? The ensuring of people's rights, and expansion of access to healthcare and voters rights hardly seems a worthwhile cause to wanting to kill in order to stop.
Bill, right there you are practicing liberalism's dehumanization of anybody who dares disagree, the same as Lincoln did. Whether or not liberalism is a bad thing can and should be decided by the individual.
Thelibrarian
Veteran
Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
19 Oct 2013, 4:01 pm
Actually, what you are describing is a true civil war, which is where two or more factions vie for control of the country. The Civil War was actually a war of independence, the same as the American Revolution was. At the time Ft. Sumter was fired on, the South wanted its independence rather than any say-so over future states. There is a big difference.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,778
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
19 Oct 2013, 4:10 pm
Lincoln seriously couldn't lock up whole populations, and I really doubt he wanted to. And the fact remains, while he had always had anti-slavery sentiments, his first and foremost goal was preserving the Union. That meant keeping people copacetic with government policy in order to keep states in the country. While Lincoln is often mythologized to sainthood, the Neo-Confederate picture of Lincoln as this calculating, rights trampling tyrant is also equally as false.
As for use of draconian measures - in the first place, we were at war with slave holders, so taking kid gloved measures seems very unlikely. On top of that, the wealthy plantation owners were not about to give up slavery unless they were made to.
And as for Reconstruction being draconian - Lincoln had in fact been planning to go easy on southerners - till he was murdered by a cabal of Confederate sympathizers (and agents?) with white supremacist ideology. But the violent response by former Confederate reactionaries against freed blacks had elicited a hardline reaction by the Radical Republicans and the occupying Union army.
Tens of thousands was just a stab in the dark on my part. The number of itinerant labor was more like numbering into the millions.
And trust me, I'm not dehumanizing you or anyone else. I'm only being a realist. Civil wars are bloody and leave lasting scars. No one should wish such a thing on their country.
And I really ought to point out, the two of us are derailing the whole point of this thread. If anything, the discussion should be about the schism in the Republican party between the TPers and the Republican pro-business establishment. My apologies to AnonymousAnonymous who had begun this thread.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
19 Oct 2013, 4:31 pm
the civil was was not started by just once cause
it was basically because the federal government was trying to have more power over the states
the south wanted a state run government the north wanted a federal run. slavery was never really a huge issue there were more slave owners in the north than the south
owning a slave was for the very rich, the south had tons of free blacks going around there was even an entire regiment in their army of free blacks
Thelibrarian
Veteran
Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
19 Oct 2013, 4:58 pm
No, Lincoln couldn't lock up whole populations, but his destruction of the South proved he had no compunction about destroying that which was not raped or pillaged. But Lincoln did lock up the Maryland legislature to prevent them from voting on secession. He also suspended habeas corpus, one of our most cherished rights, along with freedom of speech and the press.
Yes, Lincoln's foremost goal was to preserve the union. Understanding Lincoln's position on slavery requires an in-depth understanding of the Dred Scott decision and the Somersett precedent. The problem is that since the federal government was a creation of the states, and not vice versa, the Constitution in no way authorized Lincoln to act in the way he did. Therefore, he acted unconstitutionally after taking an oath before God and man to do just the opposite. Liberty is being permitted to do all that is not expressly forbidden; tyranny is being forbidden to do anything except that which is specifically permitted. It is clear which one Lincoln was.
Sic semper tyrannis.
As for use of draconian measures - in the first place, we were at war with slave holders, so taking kid gloved measures seems very unlikely. On top of that, the wealthy plantation owners were not about to give up slavery unless they were made to.
So you think Southerners defending their way of life justified killing them and destroying all of their property? If I think, say, that the liberal position on abortion is just as bad as slavery, does that give me the right to do the same kind of things to you?
And as for Reconstruction being draconian - Lincoln had in fact been planning to go easy on southerners - till he was murdered by a cabal of Confederate sympathizers (and agents?) with white supremacist ideology. But the violent response by former Confederate reactionaries against freed blacks had elicited a hardline reaction by the Radical Republicans and the occupying Union army.
Gosh, do you think the violence after the war might have had anything to do with the fact that EVERYTHING was destroyed in much of the South, and the rest was pillaged? The South was destroyed worse than Germany during WWII; the difference is that instead of an aid program to rebuild, what little wealth that remained in the South was then stolen by carpetbaggers. Tell me, were the defeated Southerners all really supposed to lie down quietly and starve on the outside chance that liberals might say something nice about them?
Tens of thousands was just a stab in the dark on my part. The number of itinerant labor was more like numbering into the millions.
Actually, I think your first numbers were pretty accurate. And most of them were immigrants of the Ellis Island wave. In fact, most of that radicalism completely dried up after the Palmer raids, in which the US Attorney General Palmer deported every immigrant radical he could find; it's where J. Edgar Hoover got his start.
And trust me, I'm not dehumanizing you or anyone else. I'm only being a realist. Civil wars are bloody and leave lasting scars. No one should wish such a thing on their country.
Sorry, I have to disagree with you whether we are talking about Iraqis needlessly killed there because of US intervention or, yes, Southerners.
And I really ought to point out, the two of us are derailing the whole point of this thread. If anything, the discussion should be about the schism in the Republican party between the TPers and the Republican pro-business establishment. My apologies to AnonymousAnonymous who had begun this thread.
Actually, I think showing the reason why there is a split between the business, or traditional northeastern liberal branch of the Republicans, and the Southern faction is at least partially germane to this thread. I find it more than a little ironic that Southerners now look to the same party that was founded to destroy them to represent their interests today. It seems to me that such a thing requires a complete makeover.
Last edited by Thelibrarian on 19 Oct 2013, 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thelibrarian
Veteran
Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
19 Oct 2013, 5:13 pm
Yes, Southerners started something they couldn't finish just like the Indians did.
As far as "vote weight" goes, the Southerners were trying to leave the union they helped found. Do you think that was some kind of moral offense?
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Republicans Aim to Stop Noncitizen Voting in Federal Electio |
14 Apr 2024, 8:35 pm |
| Republicans Lash Out At Marjorie Taylor-Greene Over Threat |
22 Mar 2024, 3:21 pm |
| Starting a business |
29 Feb 2024, 7:35 am |
| Feels like everyone wants to start a business |
01 Apr 2024, 3:35 pm |
