Posted under Election 2008 & NeoCons
The Hitchens brothers “get” the Iraq War. Both grasp the political and practical underpinnings of this continuing outpouring of blood and treasure. In a nutshell: Iraq is a war of choice. It is a war for globalism, and against culture, history, religion, and tradition. So Christopher Hitchens, who is a leftist and militant atheist, the author of God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, supported the US-British crusade from the moment it was first proposed.
For the same reason, his younger brother Peter Hitchens eloquently and energetically opposed the invasion of Iraq. Peter, whose political outlook is best described as paleoconservative, understood that the Iraq War would not only lead to an expansion of big government, but would erode the traditional values of Western society as much as it would weaken Iraqi society.
The election of Barack Hussein Obama is an assault on Western culture here at home, and once again, the Hitchens boys see it exactly for what it is. No surprise that leftist Christopher enthusiastically endorsed Obama’s candidacy. And in this must-read article, Peter Hitchens offers a heartfelt and blunt assessment of Obama’s victory for what it is: America’s suicide, knowingly assisted by the Neocons.
The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilisation. …
I was in Washington DC the night of the election. America’s beautiful capital has a sad secret. It is perhaps the most racially divided city in the world, with 15th Street – which runs due north from the White House – the unofficial frontier between black and white. …
As I walked, I crossed another of Washington’s secret frontiers. There had been a few white people blowing car horns and shouting, as the result became clear. But among the Mexicans, Salvadorans and the other Third World nationalities, there was something like ecstasy.
They grasped the real significance of this moment. They knew it meant that America had finally switched sides in a global cultural war. Forget the Cold War, or even the Iraq War. The United States, having for the most part a deeply conservative people, had until now just about stood out against many of the mistakes which have ruined so much of the rest of the world.
Suspicious of welfare addiction, feeble justice and high taxes, totally committed to preserving its own national sovereignty, unabashedly Christian in a world part secular and part Muslim, suspicious of the Great Global Warming panic, it was unique.
These strengths had been fading for some time, mainly due to poorly controlled mass immigration and to the march of political correctness. They had also been weakened by the failure of America’s conservative party – the Republicans – to fight on the cultural and moral fronts.
And now the US, like Britain before it, has begun the long slow descent into the Third World. How sad.
Sad, indeed. Banana republic, here we come.
roho on 09 Nov 2008 at 5:07 pm #
Be it Hussien Obama or Juan McCain, it was a win-win situation for the 3rd worlders. (And now we learn the “Star Bangled Banner” in Spainish.)
Plus…..We still have McAmnesty and Graham in the Senate!
fellist on 10 Nov 2008 at 3:20 am #
Phitchens’ “Abolition of Britain’ made me realise I’m a natural conservative, where I parted company with him was my willingness to embrace the only conservative party in Britain, the BNP, which Hitchens relentlessly attacks. For me their interest in my people’s survival is a positive, for him it’s anathema.
In 1965 Phitchens would have supported the ‘tolerant’ Hart-Celler Immigration and Nationality Act and called its (mainly) Southern opponents every puerile name under the sun. But it was LBJ’s signature on that document which said goodbye to America by its explicit rejection of the fact of the American people. Forty odd years later Phitchens is till banging the drum for ‘culture’, even as he SEES the divide is racial.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 10 Nov 2008 at 2:54 pm #
fellist,
LBJ was just another scallywag politician eager to please the powers that be by stabbing his own people in the back. Today, he’s praised for his “idealism.” Right.
roho on 10 Nov 2008 at 11:34 pm #
LBJ was “Scum” at best!……His personal “Specialty” was blackmail as he roamed the halls of congress with info on every sordid affair, homosexual relationship, and corrupt involvement of each “Dog S#^T” politician in Washington!(Rumor has it that the powerful senator Jim Wright of Texas had a homosexual relationship with LBJ’s brother, inorder to gain power in the congress?)…….He was so rotton in the sixties when “wiretapping” was in it’s infantile stage, that he even had the GAY “J.Edgar Hoover” of the FBI provide him with “Wire-Taps” of Hollywood actors and actresses for his listening pleasure, as it relaxed him at bedtime?..(Do you think he may have even had J.Edgar Hoover Blackmailed?)…..He then made sure that his secret actions as President and Vice President during the Kennedy assasination be placed in a “Time Capsule” protecting even his grandchildren from his involvement in sordid Washington compromises that would humiliate him and his family!………………..If the truths of LBJ ever surface in future generations, Americans should dig his body up and burn it in a public demonstration!!!!!!!………………………ONLY ABRAHAM LINCLN PASSES HIM AS THE WORSE PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY!
And his respose to the cover-up of the Israeli bombing of the “U.S. Liberty” was that “We must protect Little Israel from their enemies!”
His sicafant involvement with the “Civil Rights Movement” and affirmative action laid the groundwork for destroying what was left of America’s manufacturing base through court decrees that made it impossible for manufacturing to make a profit and comply with his F&^%#@D up vision for America!
Not normally this outspoken, if I ever encounter his gravesite, I will piss on it and pay the price for whatever penalty it is!
roho!
kneaddough on 11 Nov 2008 at 12:14 am #
It is truly sad that conservatives can’t see what went wrong.
All you have to do is look at the last two elections were you lost big time and your base shrinking down to a few small states. You didn’t even win Indiana a state that hasn’t gone for a dem. since 1964 and before that the 1930′s.
You put up the only republican that had a chance of winning this year and you burden him with someone who is incompetent and ham fisted, truly bush league.
I hope that you will become even more conservative
fellist on 11 Nov 2008 at 3:40 am #
kneaddough, the right-leaning base is still the voting majority. Even with a walking corpse like McCain – brain free, charisma free, and not well-liked or trusted – if the GOP had run a traditional conservative campaign more in line with Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin, I believe they would have won (barring election fraud).
Ron Paul was the GOP candidate most likely to beat the Democrats had his party selected him.
Frank Griglonis on 11 Nov 2008 at 5:12 am #
assfault, isrealies, ooomph!!ire, muti-cultural youdopeyas, and pour me a little more of that good ole’ pyramid bankster moola-hooch…time (out) for ww III or global pandemic as spaceship azure orb spins drunkenly out of kontrol ???
(excerpt from the keys to frank’s liquor cabinet)
kneaddough on 11 Nov 2008 at 7:08 am #
fellist, I think that you have it all wrong and I will tell you why in practical terms.
Your base is 100% in the tank for your candidates so it doesn’t matter who you run. It is the rest of us who don’t agree with a strict conservative agenda
who you have a problem with.
All you have to do is see how much support obama had during the race. He drew many more folks at his rallies than mccain and palin together. They also had an army of volunteers that could not be matched by the republicans.
Higher voter registration and higher voter turnout. They also had an articulate vibrant candidate. You were out matched
You might be competitive if you send up a Mitt, or a Tim P or a Bobby J someone with some intellect
roho on 11 Nov 2008 at 1:08 pm #
kneaddough……………………..I agree with your perseption that the true conservative base does not support the neocon, Rino, Cino, side of the GOP(Gutted Our Principles) party…..Real conservatives never will, understanding that these betrayers of conservatism is not what we are looking for in leadership. (We don’t even support Victories such as Lindsey Graham in SC.)
But, now it’s time for the left side of the Dems to feel the thrill of betrayal as they awaken to the real “War Monger” in their elected “Superman”? At the same time, the moderate side of the Dem Party will be seeing a shrinking wallet, taxes out of control, and billions of dollars pumped into lost causes such as Kenya and Darfur. War will be expanded in the Middleast, Pakistan, and Z-Brig will be calling Russia out for a gunfight…..As the “Fall-out Shelter” industry returns as a booming industry of the sixties, the Dems will say “We’ve been betrayed!”(Emanuel now runs your Whitehouse and he will make Cheney look like a kitten).
David Allyn on 11 Nov 2008 at 1:46 pm #
This election may be the final nail in the coffin of the USA as a white European dominated nation. Some of the earler nails were in 1870(the 15th Amend. allowing any race to vote) in 1964 under LBJ (the 24th amendment removing the brilliant device of poll taxes) and 1984 (the recognition of MLK’s birthday as a national holiday). Those are just some.
Since I came to this country from Britain in 1972, the Africanization of the USA has been exponential at times and at this rate, in a few years we could look like South Africa and Rhodesia. The elevation of Obaaama to the White House is an evil, very cleverly planned strategy, a sort of cout d’etat.
David Allyn on 11 Nov 2008 at 1:56 pm #
roho
– I agree with your sentiments on LBJ all the way ! I have studied this monster, “landslide Lyndon” for years and met personally with his nemesis, the late Evetts Haley, author of “A Texan looks at Lyndon”
But I have to say that, in terms of destruction of the republic, Bush Jr is even worse.
kneaddough on 11 Nov 2008 at 4:55 pm #
David Allyn
I know this may come as a suprise to you but we all came out of Africa as the genome project proves.
We all must find a way join as brothers rather than hold to old notions of racial superiority. It is the path to destruction.
fellist on 11 Nov 2008 at 5:27 pm #
kneaddough, I don’t know quite what you mean by a ‘strict conservative agenda’ so my response might not mean much to you. But I think you’re simply wrong on the numbers, the USA remains a fundamentally socially conservative society.
Pat Buchanan explains some of my reasoning in his Takimag article “How McCain Could Have Won”, but replace McCain with Ron Paul and I think the case is far stronger.
Paul was the guy who *really* energised the young and independent – and without the fawning assistance of the mainstream media and, unlike Obama, this support came when he ‘stood no chance’ not when he was a shoe-in; Paul was the *real* anti-war candidate; the man who predicted this economic crisis, and the guy who stood with the vast majority in opposing the ‘bail-out’; the man who stands with the vast majority in wanting strong borders; and the man who opposes the transfer of American sovereignty and industry abroad, just like most Americans. Unlike McCain, he could have attacked Obama on all these issues that were at or near the top of voter concerns. He’s also more in line with popular thinking on issues like affirmative action, abortion, states’ rights, and reform of Washington than is Obama.
If the GOP was a remotely conservative party it would have selected Ron Paul, given him its full support, and have seen its man win the Presidency.
Buchanan wrote:
quote/ Yet, McCain might still have won had he not, like his three fellow establishment Republicans Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, and Bob Dole, been inhibited by the Mainstream Media and his own Beltway beliefs.
Consider. In California, where a liberal judiciary had ordered the state to recognize homosexual marriages, voters, by 52 to 48, slapped the judges across the face and ordered the ban reimposed and placed in the California constitution. Arizona and Florida also voted to outlaw gay marriage, by landslides.
In Missouri, where McCain eked out a victory, a proposal to make English the official state language carried six to one. In Nebraska, a proposal to ban affirmative action carried 58 to 42, but lost in a 50-50 tie in Colorado.
Parental notification won 48 percent support in California, a far higher share of the vote than McCain got, while a measure to outlaw abortion except in cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother got 45 percent in South Dakota. Had McCain made an issue of Obama’s support for a Freedom of Choice Act that would eliminate all state restrictions on abortion, he could have forced Obama to defend what yet remains a radical and extreme view in America.
While Barack was locking up black America, McCain failed to hold onto Bush’s share of the white working class, though Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate and long associations with the likes of Jeremiah Wright and ‘60s bomber William Ayers.
Perhaps fearful his “good guy†reputation with his old buddies in his media “base†would be imperiled, McCain ruled Wright off limits and seemed hesitant even to go after the Ayers connections. Lee Atwater would not have been so ambivalent. Leo Durocher put it succinctly: “Nice guys finish last.â€
Ultimately, however, the Beltway Republicans are losing Middle America because they are ideologically incapable of addressing two great concerns: economic insecurity and the perception that we are losing the America that we grew up in.
Economic insecurity is traceable to NAFTA-GATT globalization, under which it makes economic sense for U.S. companies to close factories here, build plants in China and export back to the United States. Manufacturing now accounts for less than 10 percent of all U.S. jobs.
Social insecurity is traceable to mass immigration, legal and illegal, which has brought in scores of millions who are altering the character of communities and competing with U.S. workers by offering their services for far less pay.
These are the twin causes of death of the Reagan coalition, and as long as the Republican Party is hooked on K Street cash, it will not address either, and thus pass, blissfully addicted, from this earth. /quote
kneaddough on 11 Nov 2008 at 7:33 pm #
fellist it is apparent that most Reagan republicans urn for the past. This is a false illusion because America is no longer “leave it to beaver”.
Obama not only locked up the black vote he locked up the latino, and white working class who have been disseminated over the past 30yrs since the Reagan revolution.
The loss of manufacturing, the rise of speculation over real work, and the “me generation” are a reflection of were we are today.
If you think that lee atwater’s brand of politics is relevent today all you have to do is look at how it paid off in this election. People are sick and tired of the politics of personal destruction. Could there have been a nastier campaigner than Palin? In this political climate, the wicked have failed, and are becoming increasingly becoming irrelevant.
kneaddough on 11 Nov 2008 at 7:35 pm #
fellist it is apparent that most Reagan republicans urn for the past. This is a false illusion because America is no longer “leave it to beaver”.
Obama not only locked up the black vote he locked up the latino, and white working class who have been disseminated over the past 30yrs since the Reagan revolution.
The loss of manufacturing, the rise of speculation over real work, and the “me generation” are a reflection of were we are today.
If you think that lee atwater’s brand of politics is relevent today all you have to do is look at how it paid off in this election. People are sick and tired of the politics of personal destruction. Could there have been a nastier campaigner than Palin? In this political climate, the wicked have failed, and are
David Allyn on 11 Nov 2008 at 8:18 pm #
kneaddough – I am not interested in joining hands with blacks – that is my choice.
You cannot convince me that “black power” has been anything other than a source of violence and socialism. The black leadership through the years has consistly sought to use government to plunder the resources and skills of European-Americans. Sadly, they have found many fellow-travellers and racial traitors amongst ourselves. If you want to believe that all races are “equal”, that is your business but don’t try to sell it to the rest of us who understand otherwise.
David Allyn on 11 Nov 2008 at 8:27 pm #
kneaddough – what a truly ignorant person you must be to honestly believe that all races are “equal”.
I have no interest in holding hands with Africans and that is my choice; you may decide otherwise but don’t force it on the rest of us.
African power has always been based upon the use of government to plunder the resources of hard working European-Americans for the benefit of illiterate, violent, lazy Africans. Sadly, their movement has always found many willing accomplices amoungst ourselves.
fellist on 11 Nov 2008 at 9:11 pm #
kneaddough, I don’t think there’s enough common ground between us to profitably debate this. One of us is crazy.
kneaddough on 11 Nov 2008 at 9:55 pm #
Obviously this is a highly racist site and while I certainly can’t change your mind about race. I feel that I must clear up some misconceptions about black folks. Believe me I do not care if you want to “hold Hands with blacks” but you have to admit there are some very dumb white folks out there “joe the plumber comes to mind. The guy hasn’t a pot to piss in and yet he votes against his own best economic interest.
Obama is black and very intelligent as are many other people of all races who display this highly desirable quality.
Good luck with your bigotry
David Allyn on 11 Nov 2008 at 11:48 pm #
KNEADDOUGH – people with intelligence and common sense are not intimidated by silly,worn torn, invectives like “racist” and “bigot”. Nor are they fooled by the false promises of socialism which you obviously support.
If you knew anything, you would know that Obama is not “black”, he is a “mutt” -he said so himself
Weaver on 12 Nov 2008 at 6:50 am #
What is Obama’s IQ anyway?
Kerry and Bush were both idiots going by a Steve Sailer article.
Most recent Presidents aren’t too bright, though Clinton and Nixon were supposed to be intelligent.
Obama has got to be one of the most potent presidents ever – so many unwanted ties with even his citizenship being debated. A low IQ score somewhere would just be icing on the cake. I’m aware of his degrees, but even Bush went to Yale.
Weaver on 12 Nov 2008 at 7:02 am #
Why does Peter Hitchens say Britain has descended before America?
What is this about the Brits viewing America as somehow healthier than their nations? I suppose the grass is always greener…
—
An Obama presidency will give liberals exactly what they think they want, and once its monstrosity becomes clear and there’s no longer an evil right wing to blame for it, they’ll lose their hope. The global left is only powerful as a dream.
Once that bubble has burst, there’s just the old America waiting to renew itself. We’re the Soviet Union before the collapse, and hopefully a Putin lies in our future to pick up the pieces.
kneaddough on 12 Nov 2008 at 9:02 am #
david i know that you dont want to see yourself in an unfavorable light but when you say things like “I have no interest in holding hands with Africans and that is my choice; you may decide otherwise but don’t force it on the rest of us.” it sounds a little bigoted. I certainly dont care that you feel this way.
I just watched a program on Lee Atwater and even he, on his death bed confessed to himselfa and the world that he was sorry for acting like a bigoted racist, so there is hope for all.
fellist on 12 Nov 2008 at 10:45 am #
Weaver, even Phitchens’ selective examination of the American character (Suspicious of welfare addiction, feeble justice and high taxes, totally committed to preserving its own national sovereignty, unabashedly Christian in a world part secular and part Muslim, suspicious of the Great Global Warming panic) doesn’t help his argument.
You can’t help noticing that Mexicans, for example, are totally committed not only to preserving their national sovereignty, but also, as their presence in America confirms, to extending it by reconquering lost territory. They are also a much more militant people who support harsher penalties for criminals than do Americans and are much less concerned about their growing police state. They are also Christian, and the green agenda hasn’t even begun to sucker them in. On welfare and taxes, they pay less than Americans and only take more because its coming free of conditions from the gringos.
David Allyn on 12 Nov 2008 at 2:19 pm #
Lee Attwater was GOPper – so what do you expect ?
Weaver on 12 Nov 2008 at 4:27 pm #
kneaddough,
most are more principled than Lee Attwater.
Those involved in politics (especially democracy) must by necessity lie and manipulate. Those with honor are then turned away. The only exception is probably Ron Paul.
—
fellist,
much of America’s strength is but an attachment to a sort of classical liberalism, which is I think your point: our alleged strengths are but ideological.
Even our nationalism is but a distorted statism unfounded in common blood and spirit.
What Britain has that the US lacks is a deeper sense of nationhood, or nationhoods…
The single strength I would say America has is its Christianity, though mainstream Christianity has been partly overtaken by the globalist left.
We should be suspicious of the welfare state, centralised justice, and wary of global warming; but Suspicion isn’t enough.
While the Brits clearly, at least relative to America, see what they are embracing; America doesn’t. America’s view of the world is fuzzy and without a center. And so Americans are more easily manipulated I think.
I’m all for protecting the environment, though there are sane and absurd suggestions for protecting and restoring it. The easiest to do is: raise protective barriers which would, among other things, cause American grain to be more expensive in other countries, thus allowing foreign farmers to compete. And of course it would halt and even reverse globalisation.
That’ll never happen until the American elite is no longer globalist and desiring of world government…
Weaver on 12 Nov 2008 at 4:32 pm #
kneaddough,
I think this should jolt you into reality:
everyone here opposed the Iraq war, most everyone here is opposed to free trade (exceptions being those who favor Paul’s version of free trade), and no one here likes Bush or the Rockefeller Republicans.
We view Bush as far left, very similar to Obama.
You’ve heard the expression that the far left and far right are very similar I’m sure? Well, this site falls into the far right.
Bush AND Obama are both the same enemy. You may laugh, you may run away; but realise that we don’t worship Bush.
kneaddough on 12 Nov 2008 at 6:56 pm #
weaver i do realize that folks who frequent this site are very conservative and uncompromising. I dont have a problem with that I even like ron paul because of his opposition to the war and free trade, both of which i hate.
the problem with the extremes of either side is that they can never win an election for the president, most folks like the center status quo.
i would say this to all here to quote an old american icon, “Can’t we all just get along” for the common good
Weaver on 12 Nov 2008 at 8:13 pm #
Rodney King hit his wife (and tried to hit others) with his car, crashed his car into a wall another time, and at another time was found guilty of drunk driving.
He needs to practice what he preaches before I’ll listen to him.
—
No one here’s a follower of Hitler, but he won democratically. He’s an example of a radical.
Lincoln’s party began as a small third party that grew from the grass roots. He’s an example of a third party success.
Radicals can win. Obama certainly appears radical – the same could happen in the other direction, though I hope we do more here than cheer on elections.
You’ve taken to a globalist dream, and most people seem to adhere to some dream or other (desiring to be a part of something more than themselves and desiring to pursue good etc.), but with all due respect: the road to Hell is paved by fools with good intentions.
The “by fools” is often left out, but it naturally belongs in that statement since a prudent traditional Christian seeking to defend what is good could certainly achieve real good if extremely careful and humble.
Anyway, while I respect your good intentions, I don’t believe a global order is desired or possible. Man needs a place and a people to belong that are uniquely his, and man is a social being not an individual. Humanity is made up of families, communities, and nations – it’s the natural and right order.
The natural isn’t ideal, but it’s “best possible”. Within such groups man learns to love others and in so doing grows capable of seeing his loved ones in foreigners. Outside a system of families, communities, and nations; man is an animal.
fellist on 12 Nov 2008 at 9:27 pm #
Well said, Weaver (all of the above).
The idea that “most folks like the center status quo” is absurd enough, but when its proponent is a supporter of the guy who ran as the transformational candidate it’s simply baffling.
What’s really happening, and has been happening for ten years or more, is that more and more people are deserting the centre occupied by both establishment parties, and people from all political backgrounds are coming together around an anti-war, anti-globalist, anti-Federal Reserve and Wall Street, constitutionalist platform.
The media have kept the twin party system on track until now, but for eight years they’ve had Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage to keep the right-leaning folks in line, while the left were focused on a party political enemy whose policies they opposed so were self-enforcing. That’s all changed now, and the guy the right are supposed to hate is simply gonna continue the policies of Bush, while there isn’t a ‘populist’ liberal media to keep the disappointed leftists in the pen.
fellist on 12 Nov 2008 at 9:32 pm #
Naomi Wolf writing a book about how great the Founding Fathers and the Constitution were, that’s the future of the grassroots left, and it’s gonna meet in the *real* centre with traditional conservatives.
kneaddough on 12 Nov 2008 at 11:57 pm #
weaver you like linclon? is he your example of a successful attempt to reject the status quo and elect a third party.
Weaver on 13 Nov 2008 at 8:01 am #
I’m a Southerner so I don’t like Lincoln. However, I do like that his third party was successful.
You don’t have to like someone to learn from him.
kneaddough on 13 Nov 2008 at 3:05 pm #
Weaver now let me get this straight you like the idea of a strong third party but you don’t like the messenger.
“You don’t have to like someone to learn from him”. I guess that means by logic that you are willing to learn from the success of Obama’s incredible victory.
Maybe you can take some of the tactics used by the dems. this year to capture many southern states like North Carolina, and Virginia, and even the northern southern state of Indiana, and use those same tactics to secure a win for your choice.
Is the south the last bastion of conservative idealism? It would seems so when you look at the map of the country after the election.
Weaver on 13 Nov 2008 at 10:04 pm #
The South has some of the most conservative people in America, but I wouldn’t call it the last bastion because there are deeply conservative areas outside it still.
You’ve heard of the book Microtrends?
It’s written by the Clintons’ political strategist, Mark Penn.
Well, the right wing of the US is similarly divided into little groups.
—
Southerners tend to be less transient than other parts of the US. We missed many of the waves of immigration, so our people are more rooted. We also originated as farmers rather than merchants as in the North, and we were more divided about secession from Britain than they were. As a result, we have deeper roots – stronger ties to our traditions and ancestors.
There’s a lot of ethnic diversity within the US, more than simply “white”, “hispanic”, and “black”. You often read of how Cubans are more conservative than other Hispanic groups, this one example. Also, Catholics and Reformed vary, Scots-Irish and Italians, etc. Even older waves of Germans vary from later waves of Germans because the later waves supposedly came from the cities while the older waves were more rural.
Rural areas in the US tend to be more conservative.
The more education a person gets, the more he is exposed to the left wing ideas of the universities and so the more left wing he’s likely to be. This is similar to how in the Middle Ages universities used to turn out monks, and because of this some parents feared sending their sons there lest they choose a monastic life over bearing grandchildren.
Christianity is strong in different areas of the US. And it takes many different forms, though most branches are very liberal nowadays.
Diverse areas tend to create racial identity whereas less diverse areas tend to take better to the idea that race doesn’t matter. I live in an area divided along 3 main ethnic groups: Southern white, black, and Yankee white. And it’s a pretty poor area too, though the city I’m from is growing; I moved a little for job opportunity though.
Poor areas tend to be more racial. They also tend to want big government. The hillbilly Scots-Irish types, the conservative Democrats, voted overwhelmingly for McCain this election. I suspect they didn’t like Obama being black, though they don’t like Republicans.
The middle class tends to be more conservative and prudent (not as racial as the poor). They tend to want less government.
Areas dependent on military bases tend to be pro-military, areas dependent on a mill or factory that is being eaten by free trade tend to be protectionist, etc.
And there are loads of other tendencies – the above are largely overgeneralisations. The US is incredibly diverse – it just doesn’t realise it yet.
kneaddough on 14 Nov 2008 at 4:01 am #
I agree with most of what you said. I also live in a very rural area and I also live near a University. It is true the town that the university is located in is very liberal and the surrounding area is largely conservative.
This county voted largely for Obama as did most of the country. I think the reason for this is that there is a class struggle going on in this country that trumps conservative or liberal philosophies.
People are sick and tired of our jobs being sucked out of this country for the benefit of a few very rich folks at the expense of the masses. It is a very dangerous situation and must be corrected if we expect to survive.
I agree with the likes of a Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich they seem to know that the loss of the common man’s pride, his job, is the foundation for a strong america.
David Allyn on 14 Nov 2008 at 5:00 am #
Ron Paul and Kucinich are polar opposites – Ron Paul believes in the USC, he fights for the second amendment and the BOR in general, he is vehemently opposed to the FRS and would like to abolish the income tax. Kucinich is a hard core leftist.
Weaver on 14 Nov 2008 at 6:08 am #
Kucinich is protectionist though, and he’s far enough left that he starts having similarities with the far right on some issues related to the globalist elite v. the American peasants.
—
There is very much a class struggle going on in the US. However, those who claim to be fighting it aren’t always on the side they say they are on. Only a fool would proclaim to be a Rockefeller Republican here to exploit America haha.
The winning strategy: pretend to be a hero to the people while taking money and working for the elite in return. I will be shocked if Obama ends American wars, raises protective tariffs, limits immigration, and returns Federal Reserve powers to the federal government. I bet he’s the left’s Reagan: all show and little substance (Jack Hunter’s Reagan analogy). He’ll just continue the same old globalisation and exploitation as went on under Bush and Clinton and Bush and Reagan, etc.
David Allyn on 14 Nov 2008 at 3:05 pm #
Obaaama end illegal immigration ? You must be joking. This monster wants to do anything and everything to destroy America.
kneaddough on 14 Nov 2008 at 4:24 pm #
“The winning strategy: pretend to be a hero to the people while taking money and working for the elite in return”.
This was the winning strategy for much of the history of America, It is what I call “The salesman approach to governing”. When I was a salesman I used to sale people things they didn’t want, couldn’t use, and was against their best interest.
I live in an area where people are taking new paths to the future. They are committed to more”us”, and less “me”.
Today the internet is the truth machine, everyone who is connected can find their own truth, and their own reality. No longer do we have to rely on politicians to sell us on some bogus ideas that are not in our best interests.
David “a monster” what the hell are you talking about. The only people I see as monsters are folks that continue to express such vitriol. Is their someone who could make you happy being pres?
fellist on 14 Nov 2008 at 7:35 pm #
Kucinich is more concerned with poverty, civil liberties and anti-war issues than with anything else. After four years of Obama, he might start to see that Paul’s views on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the Fed and the economy are more than a little related to these issues. Heck, Naomi Wolf is starting to connect the dots and she’s a feminist Rhodes’ Scholar!
I don’t know if things will come to a head in just four years, but I’m pretty sure that when things do come to a head, the battle won’t be between Republicans vs. Democrats. The twin parties will be lined up in opposition to the coalition of forces that oppose globalism, the international kleptocracy behind the “credit crunch” and subprime scandal, and the end of America as a sovereign nation.
I can easily imagine Ron Paul, Denis Kucinich, and Ralph Nader standing together in that coalition.
Weaver on 15 Nov 2008 at 12:40 am #
kneaddough,
the Internet helps allow for freedom of information, thus bipassing the mainstream media. But, most people don’t have the intelligence, time, education, or desire to keep up with events. So, the internet only makes it more difficult to control them but not impossible. I’m not really a believer in universal democracy, because I don’t think everyone can keep up with events due to the aforesaid reasons. Democracy is however a potent tool of control. Universal democracy though is a rule by silver tongued demagogues who point to the election as a powerful source of authority. Democracy channels into the election process discontent that might otherwise boil over into violence or other political activity. After the election is over, the losers vow to run a better campaign the next round rather than pursuing their goals outside the election system.
My ideal is a more limited democracy, where only the most virtuous and capable are given the vote, though that’d never pass in America for fear of discrimination.
I’m sure the media masters right now are working on ways to squelch free speech on the internet, though they’ll claim they’re fighting “child pornography”, “hate speech”, or “terrorism”.
David,
Obama would never curb immigration (though he might fear granting amnesty lest he create a reaction – we’ll just have to wait and see if this becomes an issue, but it’s very possible), but curbing immigration is part of the American peasant v. global elite struggle. Immigration provides cheap labor and breaks down ethnic barriers within the US, making it more open to globalism.
I don’t think a global order could come about, Balkanisation is our future, but most every policy in the US today seems headed in that direction.
Weaver on 15 Nov 2008 at 12:46 am #
fellist,
I like Nader somewhat, but to be honest I don’t trust Kucinich.
I suspect Kucinich is defending the Constitution and protectionist trade because such things are popular right now. Remember, NAFTA was Clinton’s doing.
Bush violated the Constitution and promoted free trade, Bush is Kucinich’s supposed enemy, and so Kucinich wishes to defend the Constitution. And the unions and pretense of defending the common man force Kucinich, Obama, and others into pretending to favor protectionist trade. But they don’t really want it because protectionist trade slows globalism and is unpopular with big donors and lobbies.
However, under Obama if Obama wishes to violate the Constitution by fighting discrimination or protecting the rights of illegals or warring in Africa (for oil) allegedly to protect some group (think Serbia and fighting to prevent alleged discrimination); then he’ll drop the Constitution. Note: the Constitution is rather offensive to blacks, so the average liberals and blacks will never like it. They just don’t like the idea of Bush violating the Constitution for a war because war is bad and Bush is bad. They might even be open to adopting a new Constitution if the old one is made to appear as a serious obstacle to some good.
And then the Republicans will suddenly pretend to care about the Constitution haha because Democrats are bad, and Republicans don’t like Democrats.
It’s just a big game of make believe.
The Democrats are the Republicans and vice versa; it’s a one party rule with pretend battles. And it’s easy for this to come about under a no party, universal democracy system, especially since our voting isn’t even all that secure.
David Allyn on 15 Nov 2008 at 5:56 am #
kneaddough – first of all, it’s “there” not “their” you illiterate moron.
If you honestly believe Obama to be anything other than a liberty hating, committed Marxist determined to destroy this once great country, you are as ignorant as the millions who voted for him.
Most people posting on this forum have a fundamental grasp of the true issues before us, even though we have some vastly different ideas and solutions. Kneaddough, you sound like the typical American who forms the bulk of his opinions based upon the MSM.
kneaddough on 15 Nov 2008 at 7:18 am #
David it is idiots like you who try to keep the rest of us down. You use invective to try to get your point across.
To be honest you have no point. When you float terms like Marxist you sound like a little child, who has lost his way.
David Allyn on 15 Nov 2008 at 3:23 pm #
“Marxist” is meaningless to you because you lack any understanding of basic fundamental principles.
How can someone like yourself who screams “racist” and “bigot” have the audacity to accuse someone of using invectives ?
This forum was interesting until you came along. I shall not respond to anymore of your personal attacks except to tell you GFY.
kneaddough on 15 Nov 2008 at 4:19 pm #
david “gfy”, ? I guess I was right you are a little child