Archive for July 6th, 2009

2008 in Historical Context

I knew a whole cadre of young people who loved Reagan because he ended the political exhaustion of the 1970s. They are never mentioned in the press or by conservatives.

A person coming of age in the 1970s was raised on the idea that his world would see no growth. The Environmental Protection Agency and conservation were the focus of attention. No one but me seems to know where this left a young person.

He had nothing to look forward to. He was superfluous, particularly if he was a white male looking for a job.

In other words, it was just like today.

Back then the big political buzz on the right was that conservatives and conservationists should make common cause.

And, of course, the conservative buzz was also the old “to go after the minority vote.”

I have been this way before.

By definition, the buzz is set up by the establishment and its conservative tagalongs.

One of the most critical signs of 1980 end of the old buzz is, AS ALWAYS, the least remembered. Reporters were climbing all over Washington trying to find conservative contacts.

They didn’t **KNOW** any of us, and they said so. PBS even had ME do a couple of shows for them in the process of trying to find tame conservatives. What if the press in 1932 simply did not KNOW any liberal Democrats?

They would have been laughed at. The 1932 media was conservative, but they were also professionals. The 1980 failure was a professional humiliation, so no one mentions it now.

The 1980 media had been trapped in its own buzz, and “Republican spokesmen,” right up to Election Day, meant moderates.

The reality of the 2008 election is totally opaque to anyone who keeps up with the political buzz, which means anyone who makes his living commenting on today’s politics. If he worried about anything else he wouldn’t be published. This is not a conspiracy. It is just that every editor knows what people want to read about, and that is things like criticism or praise of Obama. They are publishing for today’s
audience, not for accuracy about the future.

Political reality is that the Democratic rank and file, which is hard left, almost always chooses someone who is too far left for political practicality. Nixon was very unpopular in 1972, but they chose MCGOVERN to oppose him.

It was HILARIOUS to watch Democrats nominate one MASSACHUSETTS lefty after another and get crushed at the polls. In 1988 Bush Sr. was so far behind Dukakis in the polls that National Review declared Dukakis’ election absolutely inevitable.

I said, “He’s a Massachusetts liberal. He’ll lose.”

Whitaker Basics again. Simplism.

The Democrats who do the nominating did not like Carter’s image and they did not Clinton’s image. They wanted a New England liberal. This time they hit jackpot.

McCain, like Obama, was incidental to the BUZZ Process. McCain was the Republican who had made himself beloved by the Buzzers. What astonished me during the campaign was that the media actually REMEMBERED they had once loved McCain.

Usually that sort of thing is simply forgotten by everybody, but a number of commentators actually DID mention that the McCain the entire media was damning had recently been beloved of them as the perfect liberal’s conservative.

The present administration is a return to the 1970’s abandonment of any real future. I came up with the certainty that space exploration and new technology would lead into an unimaginably exciting future. Older people were jealous of the great things in store for the young. Precious few older people are jealous of the young ones now.

The buzz has replaced the old time future of a Heaven of Progress and space colonization has been completely displaced by a lifetime dedicated to avoiding the Hell of the Moment. You are now a Carbon Emitter, an Earth Destroyer. If you are young, your life must be devoted to sacrifices to make up for your Original Sin of being human.

We are back in the 1970s.

So Where do we go from here?

When the 70s came, I had spent a lot of years getting ready for it. I had my fifteen minutes of fame getting Reagan elected.

I am more ready for today than anybody else, so I will START addressing that next.

A hint: the 70s malaise came from the politics of self-hatred. We’re back to that.



Political Reality

Herbert Hoover went from overwhelming victory in 1928 to total defeat in 1932 because there was an economic collapse on his watch. The Democrats went from one of modern history’s most crushing defeats because they had gotten America stuck in an unsinkable war.

By 2008 George W had accomplished BOTH. What is astonishing is that, having done what Hoover did in 1932 and Democrats did in Vietnam, Bush’s defeat was not even close to the drubbing his two predecessors got for half the reason.

Political logic says that a Vegetarian Party ticket with an Australian bushman on the ticket could have beat Bush in 2008.

What is astounding is not the new black president, but the fact that Bush got a single electoral vote.

And the blacks are perfectly correct. If Obama had not been black, he would wiped Republicans off the map.


No Comments

Are Stalinists Conservatives?

The bewildering and contradictory set of groups that are listed as “conservative” is easily explained.

Any group that opposes established liberal doctrine is defined as conservative. They can be libertarian and militantly atheist like Ayn Rand’s Objectivist or they can be fanatically theocratic, like Islamic militants. They can be fundamental Protestant or Tom Fleming’s total papists. All are defined as conservative or rightist.

One of the funniest examples of this was when the media started declaring old-line Stalinists in Russia as “right-wingers.”

As usual, conservatives bitched about the people they had fought almost alone to the death being defined as belonging to conservatism, but they MISSED the critical point they could have made from it.

One thing that the media let slip here was that Stalinists were now conservatives because old Communism was no longer as a part of “progressivism.”

Such is the cost of failure.

The one thing the established religion monomaniacally hides if the obvious fact that there IS “an established point of view.” There is absolutely no other way to explain the sudden change of Marxist-Leninists to conservatives except by the fact that they no longer fitted into the ESTABLISHED “progressive” framework.

Conservatives did not make that point. Conservatives did not even REALIZE that point.

That is why conservatives are so useful to the establishment. They NEVER see the POINT.

I have said many times that I am the least conservative person you are ever likely to meet. The MOST conservative people you could possibly meet make the editorial board of the New York Times.

They like the way things are going. The kept opposition thy call conservative represent a few bumps on the road, and very small bumps at that, as we can see from the 1994 Contract With America and the results of the Republican Ascendancy until it totally collapsed in 2008.

In the real world, “conservatism” is a way to make a living. Professional conservative pimps like this writer was spend most of their time finding out what the establishment opposes and then getting checks from people who want to object to it. Their only function is to provide people who don’t like the way things are going with the illusion that they are opposing it.

That is reality I find it very heard to get across.

It is the ONLY important reality. To get anywhere, you have to start with hard reality.

Not with wise-sounding analyses of what was just said in the newspaper, but with time and hard thought dedicated to the real world you are trying to redirect.


No Comments