More scary neo-Confederate ideology among presidential candidates

I think they have become stunning in their anti-intellectual positions. I know the country has always had a streak of that but don’t people feel they deserve leaders that are on a higher plain.

As someone said it is like a new ‘Know Nothing’ party. I find it strange that someone who wanted to secede from the Union now wants to be President of it.

I almost believe that my three favorite Republican Presidents: Lincoln, TR, and Eisenhower would be thrown out of their own party now.

Chris

I put allegations such as this in the same bin as those who claim President Obama is a Marxist/Socialist/etc. Until someone comes forward with facts that link a political figure to one of these distasteful ideologies, then such claims are little short of gossip. None of us would cite such sources when writing about the Civil War. I say we also hold our current event discussions to the same standard.

Paul,

You do have a point there. Fortunately, most states have balanced budget amendments on the books which prevent them from spending like drunken sailors. Those that do not can spend until they go broke. I doubt that there will be a lot of forthcoming bailouts if the Federal government brings in its spending.

I don’t think Eric wants us to have a modern political free-for-all on his blog, so we should be careful. That said, let me offer two comments:

1. The connection of Bachmann to Rev. Wilkins is apparently based on her listing of his book on Lee as one of her favorite books. I suspect she liked the book for its embrace of Christianity, and gave no thought to (nor had any appreciation of) the author’s association with extreme views.

2. There are numerous studies and reports out there showing that current effective tax rates in the US are lower than they have been in 60 years. I would say that suggests we do have a revenue problem.

“I do believe they want to take this country back and get the Federal government out of our homes, counties and states”

I think this *is* neo-confederate lost cause stuff, though.

The GOP lost a couple of elections (2006-2008) and all of a sudden it was all “take our country back!” and far more inflammatory stuff. You didn’t lose your country. You lost a couple of elections (and have subsequently won one).

As for the scope of the Federal government, I think Grant explained it rather well actually in his memoirs. In the beginning, the states were practically seperate countries. Travel and communication took days or weeks. Politics and economics reflected that reality. By Grant’s day, there were railroads & telegraphs. Now travel took hours or days, and communication was even faster (now, those are faster still). This bound the states far closer together, and I think that leads inevitably toward increasing centralization/standardization. In Grant’s day it also made papering over the divide over slavery increasingly difficult and ultimately impossible. Thankfully I don’t think our current divisions are so deep.

Tpday things are interconnected in ways that would’ve been unimaginable when the Constitution was written. This has led, over time, to the Feds taking on more. The march of technology isn’t the only driver there, of course. The civil rights struggle is another example of the Feds throwing their weight around (to require recalcitrant states to comply with the Constitution*).

I draw a distinction between arguing for a certain preferred level of spending and/or taxation on the one hand and arguing that our current status-quo is a perversion of some perfect past condition (usually defined as “as set forth by the [presumably perfect] founding fathers” on the other. The first is fine by me, though I might argue otherwise.

The second is what sets me off. That perfect past condition is mythical. It never existed. The USA of 2011 is far, far, far more free than the USA of 1800 (or 1865), and the Federal government is a large part of why that is.

* on that note, the opponents of the Civil Rights movement were all about “states rights” and keeping the Federal government out of their states & towns. The Confederate Battle Flag suddenly made a comeback. There was much discussion about tyranny and socialism. So you’ll have to forgive me if I view all the present-day talk about taking the country back and reducing the scope of the Federal government with deep skepticism, particularly because it was utterly absent from 2001-2006.

I’m sorry, but I have to take issue with the Ron Paul link. First calling him a wing nut shows there’s no objective reporting here. Second, it doesn’t quote him saying anything much less espousing neo confederate sympathies. It’s simple quilt by association. That wouldn’t fly any where else.
BTW don’t take this as support for Dilorenzo, I believe he is full of shit as far as Lincoln is concerned.

I enjoy this Civil War blog. But it should be exactly that: a Civil War blog and not a platform for political partisanship. If I had my own Civil War blog, it would not espouse any political party, candidate, or ideology. But that is the owner’s business and not mine.

I always find it interesting that the “Know Nothing” comparison is made for the “religious right” or some other conservative element of the Republican party. If one is a Christian and a conservative, then the stereotype exists that he/she is brainless, racist, a clone of Rush Limbaugh, etc. This is infrequently the case, albeit sometimes true (just as it is with liberals).

For the record, many Christians are conservative and well educated. Take it from a somewhat libertarian one with a Master’s Degree in political science and who is an administrator in a county government office. And we can articulate our positions quite well, thank you.

I can continue to read and enjoy Eric’s books, so keep up the good work. But as for the blog, I have noticed one too many anti-Christian and anti-conservative remarks for my liking.

Tom,
I’m trying to understand the comment you made about how you having lived most of your life in New England and that you now live in MS makes you “uniquely qualified”. One of the reasons that I don’t understand it is that I too am from New England having lived in Massachusetts for 40+ years and then Rhode Island for 13+ years and now I live in southeast Tennessee. I just don’t understand how that alone makes one uniquely qualified on freedom and the federal government. I don’t see New Englanders thinking they are any smarter, any more enlightened than others. I also don’t think New Englanders regard themselves any less bigoted or even think of themselves as anywhere close to being perfect.
What I also want to point out is that you cannot paint New England and the northeast with one broad brush like you have. I know many New Englanders who would agree with some of your points, not all of them. Also, you need to look at some of the proponents of the very points you’re so against. First there’s my absolute favorite, Albert Arnold “Al” Gore, Jr. from Tennessee, next you have William Jefferson Blythe III aka William Jefferson “Bill” Clinton from Arkansas and his wife, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, although from Illinois spent plenty of time in Arkansas with Bill, let us not forget James “Jimmy” Earl Carter, Jr. from Georgia, these are but a few but there has long been the southern liberals you seem to be so against. So you see there’s plenty of blame to go both North and South and we can’t be blind to that fact.
One of my favorite phrases is “Dependency is slavery”. I think that is what you were trying to say in a much more condensed version.

We have family in Texas who are die-hard Republicans. They echo a sentiment above that they want him out of Austin, but not in DC. He won’t be getting their votes.

What bothers me is that candidates across the board seem to worry more about the sound bite than about sound thinking.

Regards,
Dennis