Nixonland, Then and Now

"Nixonland" – that's Rick Perlstein's term for the political world where candidates win power by mobilizing people's resentments, anxieties and anger, where politics destroys is victims. Perlstein's new book is Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America.

Do we still live in Nixonland?

Yes we do. I don't mean that the political anxieties and passions today are as great as they were in the late sixties. But the way Richard Nixon used the sixties to define the ideological contours of American politics is still with us. On right wing radio today, they keep talking about how snobby and elitist the liberals are -- just like Richard Nixon did.

You are suggesting there was a time when the Republican Party did not win power by mobilizing resentment and anger.

In 1960, there was a strange creature called the Liberal Republican. When Richard Nixon ran for president in 1960, his platform wasn't all that different from Kennedy's.

A key turning point in the history of Nixonland is the invention of the "hardhat" as a political figure, which coincided with the rise of the flag as a partisan political symbol. We can identify that moment precisely: the riots on Wall Street following the Kent State killings in 1970.

On May 8, 1970, anti-war students rallied at the statue of George Washington in Lower Manhattan to protest the war and the Kent State Killings. Then 200 construction workers from the area marched in on their lunch break, wearing hard hats and carrying the American flags that topped off building sites. They complained to the cops that flags were not flying at Federal Hall. The reason in fact was that it was a drizzly day and the flag is not allowed to be flown in the rain. But they decided that the kids had taken down the flag, and started beating the protesters. Crowds of people from Wall Street cheered them on.

Nixon saw the hardhats on TV, like everyone else.

Nixon called a leader of the New York building trades union, Peter Brennan, and invited him to the White House, where Nixon put on a ceremonial hard hat. Eventually he made Brennan his Secretary of Labor. This is the beginning of the strategy where Republicans appeal to blue collar whites by playing to their cultural grievances, their anger and their so-called patriotism. The Democratic Party, enemy of the working man: that was one of the most important turning points in American political history.

Nixon had been slow in realizing the political opportunities that were opening up in the mid-sixties.

Nixon went to school on Ronald Reagan's 1966 gubernatorial campaign, which mobilized white resentment after the Watts riots and hostility to student protest at Berkeley. Nixon thought of himself as a master of American politics, and yet this actor, this neophyte, got elected governor of California after Nixon had lost his campaign for the same office.

In 1968 George Wallace ran on some of the same issues as Nixon, but he proposed different solutions.

Wallace would say that if protesters laid down in front of his limousine, they way they were lying down in front of Nixon's and Humphrey's, "that would be the last day they would ever lie down in front of a limousine." He would get a standing ovation for fantasizing about murdering protesters. Nixon instead used code words: "states rights" in the South, "law and order" in the North.

1968 was an unbelievably close election: Nixon got 43.4 per cent, Humphrey 42.7, Wallace 13. Nixon did only a little better than Goldwater had done four years earlier in a historic defeat. Why was 1968 virtually a tie between Humphrey and Nixon?

Kevin Phillips at that point said if you want to know the future of the Republican Party, of what he called "the emerging Republican majority," you add Nixon's votes and Wallace's votes together. They added up to a landslide against liberalism. And in 1972, Haldeman's diaries show, they basically paid off Wallace to run in the Democratic primaries instead of as an independent. And in 1972 Nixon got about the same number of votes that he and Wallace got together in 1968.

When will we leave Nixonland?

All I can say is it hasn't ended yet.

Comments (49)

1. Nixonland is alive & kicking, albeit shrinking, and Billary's campaign is the proof. At a loss at what to do when their inevitable return proved rather less so after Super Tuesday, the royal couple hit the gutter running. But Nixonland isn't as large as it used to be, the CheneyBush fiascos have done wonders in reducing its breadth. When President Obama is inaugurated, Nixonland will shrivel even further.

   Posted by sloper at 05/18/2008 @ 5:58pm

2. As everybody else knows, the KSU killings were in 1970.

   Posted by Alan2 at 05/18/2008 @ 7:49pm

3. Posted by Alan2 at 05/18/2008

   That's what the article says.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/18/2008 @ 10:19pm

4. When Rick Perlstein talks about a "political world where candidates win power by mobilizing people's resentments, anxieties and anger" - he is describing (even though he doesn't realize it) the modern Democrat party and the modern political Left. It is the political Left who is constantly on the bandwagon telling people every day that life in this country is lousy and that corporate America, Conservatives, and George W. Bush are to blame. It is fascinating to see "analysis" such as this, along with terms such as "fracturing" of America. The message - always implied and not directly stated - is that you are not to question or oppose the Left side of the political spectrum. That is "fracturing" the country. One is required to do whatever Democrats or others on the Left want, so we can have a "united" and "unfractured" country.

   Posted by sjchermak at 05/19/2008 @ 03:48am

5. Nixon was Nixonland lite.

   Now the US is in Bush Country, which has all Nixon's evils plus more!

   Posted by mikecope at 05/19/2008 @ 06:27am

6. Marybretbrad, I think that is a bad analysis. Both parties do just fine from fracturing the United States. Republicans scare and divide people about gays, religion, whatever terrorist threat lurks around the corner, black and brown people--choose your lines of difference. Democrats work different levers--and not very many of them seem to really give a damn about human rights, although I would argue that supporting free trade and taking back this country from corporate control is much more a citizen issue than a divisive one in reality, albeit it is often used as a wedge.

   The idea earlier that one must do what the Democrats want for unity is patently absurd. Maybe that is what one gets from the radio, and when everybody is out to get you paranoia is just good thinking. This President and his minions constantly attack Democrats for being anti-American (a type crime usually found in totalitarian societies) simply because they oppose their radical plans that shred the Constitution, which last I checked, is considered the fabric of our government. Not that Democrats have much stood up to this.

   What Democrat says life in this country is lousy (at least those in the political sphere)? I am not a Democrat, but I do say such things for sure. I get that way when I see people starving, people homeless, veterans denied benefits (whoops, there goes that anti-Americanism again), and soldiers being sent to die for no reason and those that survive often turned into animals because they are thrown into a war of aggression.

   Maybe if we started living up to our ideals instead of just wearing flag lapels and attending church for an hour a week, and then going out and committing actions so against god and country, I would not be so damned divisive.

   Posted by onthehelm at 05/19/2008 @ 09:36am

7. LvLiberty-In no way shape or form was Nixon a liberal,but your desperation to change him from conservative to liberal because he was a screw up is amusing.Any time a conservative screws up you guys claim they're a liberal.If a liberal does well you claim they're a conservative.Slick,but silly.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 05/19/2008 @ 09:59am

8. MBB-We can tell that America has shifted far to the right by how much support the war in Iraq and Bush have and by the fact that abortion is now illegal and that the constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage passed by a landslide and by how television has toned down the language,sex,and violence.Of course,people are,also,dressing more conservatively as can be seen at beaches and at the mall.We can,also,tell how far to the right we've moved by seeing how major corporations are now advertising themselves as being leaders in the environmental movement and by the fact that so many young people are enlisting in order to fight these wars.We can,also,look at the election results for 2000 and 2004 to see how Bush beat both Gore and Kerry in a landslide where neither could carry even one state let alone get the majority of votes or come close to defeating a war time incumbent.Yep,we sure have moved far to the right.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 05/19/2008 @ 11:11am

9. Ask any Republican where his "enemies" are and he will say Iran, Libya, Burma, terrorist training camps throughout the ME. All of his enemies are outside the boarders of the US.

   •••• ooh, the bogeyman!

   Ask a Democrat and he will say Republicans, the people control corporations, politicians who support free trade, union busters. All of his enemies are inside the boarders of the US.

   •••• maybe because these things are REAL threats.

   Posted by marybretbrad

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/19/2008 @ 11:21am

10. What's interesting is how McCAIN is running a "Nixon campaign".

    He's claiming he will "win the war" ...but only AFTER getting re-elected and re-inaugurated in January 2013 (his most recent "vision of the future").

    And this election, he's claiming that he would use "new ideas and different people" to get us there. This would be close to Nixon, who ran in 1968 on a "secret plan".

    The "secret plan" was of course to send Kissinger to Paris and start negotiations with the Vietnamese, while ratcheting-up the bombing to show the country "he was taking the fight to them."

    In the unlikely event of a McCain Presidency, we'd probably see the same thing. More troops in Iraq and a stepped up bombing campaign in Afghanistan....

    meanwhile....he'd NEGOTIATE.

    Back-door meetings with Iran and Syria (MUCH more ambitious than he accuses Obama of) and a play to get us out of Iraq ENTIRELY (no, not his "50 years, just like Korea" talk) by early 2013.

    He's sold out the Right on practically everything else...from global warming to immigration to campaign finance reform...

    why not Iraq...."win the war" (i.e. Nixonian "cut and running") and leave office with huge approvals from the Middle, maybe even some on the Left?

    Posted by Mask at 05/19/2008 @ 11:52am

11. onthehelm,

    Your views above are clouded by your perspective. The net effect of calls for unity is caving in to what Democrats want. I fail to see any Democrat moving towards what Republicans want unless they are forced to do so (Clinton going along with welfare reform, for example). Yet some Republicans cave in frequently the other way (John McCain, for example).

    Democrats and Liberals constantly harping on that everything is lousy does not help the very people the Dems claim they are fighting for. One can credibly argue that a lot of the Liberal ideas of the past 30-40 years have made things worse, for those people. Yet the Dems persist in pushing the same agenda and condemning anybody who dare oppose them.

    Terrorism is a threat, we have been at war for the better part of 17 years now but Dems say that if President Bush cites a threat, he is scaring people.

    And dare anybody criticize Barack Obama, they are condemned for the very act of doing so. If people have differing viewpoints in a free society, debate would be allowed, you would think, but it obviously is not.

    And no, I do not get these ideas and opinions from "radio". All one has to do is come here to this website, or the website of The Progressive (with an open mind) and they will see what I am saying. It is you Libs out of your own mouths, and computer keyboards, that validate what I am saying about you is correct.

    Posted by sjchermak at 05/19/2008 @ 12:29pm

12. we have been at war for the better part of 17 years now

    do it yourself history. just make it up. whattalunatic

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/19/2008 @ 12:38pm

13. Let's see...

    Nixon, a guy who raved about gay and jewish conspiracies, was a "Liberal"

    The failures of the Bushes and Reagan are the fault of "liberal ideas".

    "And dare anybody criticize Barack Obama, they are condemned for the very act of doing so"

    Perhaps because these criticisms are largely based on lies?

    Posted by johnny canuck at 05/19/2008 @ 12:45pm

14. So I have a different conclusion than the Mr Weiner or Mr Perstein. This just shows what happens when liberals get power.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/18/2008 |

    Haha your ridiculous. You are not willing to step up for the mistakes of your own party ever. If someone does something wrong in politics they are left! If someone on the left does something right it either wasn't actually right or they are actually a conservative.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2008 @ 12:49pm

15. "Democrats and Liberals constantly harping on that everything is lousy does not help the very people the Dems claim they are fighting for."

    Pretending everything is fine when it isn't actually harms people.

    Would you tell a man with cancer not to worry?

    Posted by johnny canuck at 05/19/2008 @ 12:50pm

16. So I have a different conclusion than the Mr Weiner or Mr Perstein. This just shows what happens when liberals get power.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/18/2008 |

    Rarrrghh I am a conservative! Rarrgghh only we know what's best and only we do the right thing. You are a typical talking point conservative. You tack the exact same way on every issue as your stereotypical conservative with no deviation. I can predict where you stand on almost everything.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2008 @ 12:51pm

17. Posted by sjchermak at 05/19/2008

    Hmm I could replace every word you said there with Conservatives and Republicans and it would make just as much sense. You spouting nothing but a generalizing opinion based on 0 facts. You say all you have to do is come here to the Nation. We criticize Bush because we don't like Bush we think he has done evil things. What should we collapse to his side because SOME people like him.

    In your flawed argument you are basically saying that the fact that liberals disagree with conservatives that means we don't want a free Democracy. Which is exactly what you are accusing liberals of doing. We are argue and you argue just as equally for your beliefs. Many of us don't believe unifying the party is about all voting the same way as you so wrongly asserted from your conservative talking points. Some of us think it is ending this bullshit politics of fear and subversion and actually debating ISSUES and not just voting along party lines. Doing what is best for America not what is best for our party.

    However you keep spouting your lies and branding yourself a hypocrite and a liar. It makes me laugh.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2008 @ 1:04pm

18. I fail to see any Democrat moving towards what Republicans want unless they are forced to do so (Clinton going along with welfare reform, for example). Yet some Republicans cave in frequently the other way (John McCain, for example).

    Posted by sjchermak at 05/19/2008

    I particularly like this part of your post. It shows such a stereotypical talking point mind. Republicans do things by choice and out of the goodness of their hearts. Democrats do it by force or political expediency. What about the Patriot Act which was put forward by Conservatives. I'm sure if I had the energy to refute your obviously biased claim I could find many examples. However because you are a talking point person you will just contend all those people were FORCED to cross over and they didn't do so by choice so why waste my time?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2008 @ 1:40pm

19. sjchermack, it's time to see your proctologist again; the natural curvature of your spine has pushed your head up your butt, again.

    Posted by brantl at 05/19/2008 @ 2:24pm

20. >>When Rick Perlstein talks about a "political world where candidates win power by mobilizing people's resentments, anxieties and anger" - he is describing (even though he doesn't realize it) the modern Democrat party<<

    "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!!!"

    There's your Great and Powerful Oz.

    >>modern Democrat party and the modern political Left. It is the political Left who is constantly on the bandwagon telling people every day that life in this country is lousy<<

    There's your Straw Man

    "One is required to do whatever Democrats or others on the Left want, so we can have a "united" and "unfractured" country."

    And there's your "cowardly lyin'"

    ...waiting for the tim man...

    Posted by Senhor Tambor at 05/19/2008 @ 2:53pm

21. Hello Cccomfo1,

    Two comments:

    1. You say "What about the Patriot Act which was put forward by Conservatives" - What are you getting at? (A retorical question because I know what you are getting at - you think the Patriot Act is wrong) ... but another question- what about it? Since the Patriot Act was put into place to help fight terrorists who want to kill us, and since it has not interfered with people's civil liberties, what is wrong with the Patriot Act? And you do know, don't you that stuff like that has been put into place during other Presidencies as well in time of war or emergency? And that Abraham Lincoln did say that the Constitution is not a death sentence?

    2. You talk about issues- well then, here we go, let's get into it. What about public education in this country. What about how teachers can not be paid on merit, instead paid by union rules thus good teachers are not rewarded, and education quality suffers. Or how modern educational theories like 2 + 2 = 5 is OK because you tried does not give kids the skills they need to compete in the modern world today. Or how there is now a concept of no discipline in the schools, how teachers do not dare discipline kids for being kids so some troublemaking kids do not learn how to stop that, and thus make it difficult for the kids who want to learn and also the troublemaking kids grow up into troublemaking adults.

    And you are aware, aren't you, that although these problems are present in public education everywhere they are more critical in lower income inner city neighborhoods, because the stakes are higher there. A kid in a wealthy neighborhood gets a lousy education, they can overcome that, but a kid in a poor neighborhood gets a lousy education then that can have a serious impact.

    And you are aware, aren't you, that these problems are NOT caused by lack of money - they are caused by those running public education and those people are almost always LIBERALS.

    In Kansas City, Missouri, a judge ordered the public school system to spend millions to improve infrastructure and then test scores went down!

    Yet the call from the left always is that we need to spend more money to "invest" in education, with no plan on how the money is to be spent or where money spent before went.

    So you huff and puff and mention that my words make you laugh. Well, while your laughing and promoting that people need to talk about issues, now I have highlighted one, one on which you can in no way defend the behavior of those on your side of the political fence, or blame Conservatives for. In other words, I have called your bluff.

    What follows next is you will just proclaim what I have said is lies, or talking points or "Fox News propaganda" or whatever, and put forth no ideas of your own other than raise taxes, spend money and blame Republicans, for the issue at hand (public education) that I have highlighted.

    Posted by sjchermak at 05/19/2008 @ 3:32pm

22. "they are caused by those running public education and those people are almost always LIBERALS."

    No child left behind - a great piece of liberal legislation

    Posted by johnny canuck at 05/19/2008 @ 4:01pm

23. Posted by sjchermak at 05/19/2008

    Uhhhh. You went off on some rant that I was not at all talking about. My point about the Patriot Act was in response to your assertion that Dems never ever cross over. I don't agree with the Patriot true but that had nothing to do with my previous point which was only in response to your assertion that Dems ever cross over insofar as to say that you are wrong and Dems DO crossover.

    I don't know where the education thing came from. However you must have never read my previous debates with Jom and other people on this site about education. I assert that yes it is true more money will not necessarily fix the problem unless that money is spent correctly and rules are changed in schools so kids CAN be expelled. Also parents need to be more involved in their children's education. I don't seek to defend liberals who say the solution to our education problem is spending more money. I think first the money has to be distributed properly. Suburban public schools shouldn't be able to afford tennis courts and baseball fields when urban schools can't afford books. No where did I talk about the right and wrong of bills.

    The reason you post amused me is because you are a talking point Republican. You assert that everything Republicans do is right and everything Liberals do is wrong and if a Liberal does something right it's because they were forced to by a Republican. You are stereotypical to the fullest degree. Everything you said in your response to my post was stereotypical and responses that were exactly what I would suspect. Your mentality is so self righteous you can't see past the end of your own nose. Maybe you should try staying on point instead of trying to turn this conversation into something it's not.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2008 @ 4:26pm

24. Your problem is that your bar has shifted so far to the left that what was liberal in 1970 is moderate-right today.-----Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/19/2008

    Can I just defend LVLIB here for a moment....if askanced.

    What many don't understand is, LL considers pretty much EVERYTHING done since Teddy Roosevelt went trust-busting to be "socialism" (ex NASA and the Interstate Highway System).

    So to alter his post..

    "HIS problem is that HIS bar has shifted so far to the right that what was conservative in 1970 is way out on the far Right/Religious Right today."

    Posted by Mask at 05/19/2008 @ 4:59pm

25. Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/19/2008

    So what? Because No Child Left Behind didn't work it was liberal. I'm sure if it had work you would be saying it was only the conservatives who pushed it through. It was Bushes brain child. JUST because a liberal signed on to it doesn't automatically make it a Liberal bill. But then again you probably think everything left of a complete privatization of public schools is Liberal.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2008 @ 5:40pm

26. "HIS problem is that HIS bar has shifted so far to the right that what was conservative in 1970 is way out on the far Right/Religious Right today."

    Posted by Mask at 05/19/2008 | ignore this person

    .

    Bingo.

    I was just sitting here trying to sift through that post from Larry and wondering where to start.

    I mean, OSHA wasn't exactly created by Nixon, was it? It was created by the Congress (both houses held be Democrats roughly 55% - 60%), and Nixon merely signed it into law (sparing him the indignity of a veto override.)

    And gas rationing and lowering the speed limit to 55 were responses to the Arab oil imbargo, wasn't it? How are those actions considered 'liberal' again?

    I guess you have to be pretty far out in 'wacko-right' territory to believe that cleaning up poisons in the environment and talking to the Chinese is a 'liberal' thing.

    Posted by Lillian at 05/19/2008 @ 6:42pm

27. Cccomfo1,

    You mention about staying on point. YOU were the one that started on about that people should be discussing issues, so I brought up one.

    Now, I brought up an issue that is very relevant to the liberal versus conservative argument, and one for which conservatives receive an unfair treatment and stereotype by both those on the left and those in the media (same thing).

    However, as part of Murphy's Law, this was in response to you and now it develops that you do not fit the same opinion that most Democrats or Liberals have on this issue. So now you invoke that I am stereotyping.

    I do not park myself in these blogs day after day. There are only so many hours in the day, and I have never seen your comments before. You need to understand that when comments are made in a venue such as this they are usually directed at the whole audience, and not specific individuals. We are not engaging in one for one back and forth emails or phone calls.

    And from that perspective my raising this issue is absolutely on point - the original article above about "fracturing" America - because on this issue (education) as well as other social issues, conservatives are wrongly portrayed over and over again as people who oppress the poor, or don't care about this, or only line the pockets of the rich, etc. And this rhetoric is done by the very people that say Richard Nixon and successors "fracture" America. You accuse us of fracturing America, but when you throw all these verbal bombs at us and we throw them back, then you say we are trying to deny your free speech. The message is clear: we are to shut up and not "fracture" America, but also we must not question your right to say whatever you please, because we are denying your free speech!

    You on the left don't quit! And you will say I am biased but you need to know that in days gone by I was a reliable Democrat voter, and got totally angered by the way the Democrats comport themselves in this manner. I am telling you, and you will not in any way believe me, but Republicans do not conduct themselves in that manner to the extent that you on the left do.

    Don't believe me? (And you don't). Then search the Internet and find the comments Mayor Ed Koch made in the past that were critical of his fellow Liberals for the very same thing. I got that in a book by Mayor Koch that I read, not from Fox news.

    And that is where you are engaging in the same type of stereotyping and using talking points that you accuse me of, because what I am writing is my own thoughts based on what I have seen in the public domain.

    You have caught me in a "catch-22" where I obviously do not know you and what things you have said before, but you do not know me either.

    Posted by sjchermak at 05/19/2008 @ 8:16pm

28. In a fairly irrelevant way (but not entirely), some years ago Jon Wiener wrote a touching piece about how Frank Sinatra was driven away from the open expression of his natural leftist instincts. Though I've searched a bit for it on thenation.com and via google, it eludes me.

    I found it a few months ago, but didn't securely save it. Does someone here (or the author) know when it appeared?

    There was a tragic quality to the article. I'd really appreciate knowing when it ran; or see a cyber copy of it.

    Posted by claude at 05/19/2008 @ 10:42pm

29. Posted by sjchermak at 05/19/2008

    Why is it any time someone brings up the negative things the right does it's nothing but slander to you people yet you will sit here and tell me that we are always the ones to throw the bombs first. Wasn't it Bush who started throwing the Bombs at Gore AND Kerry. Aren't the Republicans as well as our own Republican in Democratic disguise Hillary the ones who started firing at Obama. But no it's always the evil liberals who start it first.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/20/2008 @ 12:47am

30. You have caught me in a "catch-22" where I obviously do not know you and what things you have said before, but you do not know me either.

    Posted by sjchermak at 05/19/2008

    This is a fair assessment. I apologize. However your response was very typical of what I usually here from the conservatives on this site that's why I figured it must be another talking point.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/20/2008 @ 12:50am

31. So I have a different conclusion than the Mr Weiner or Mr Perstein. This just shows what happens when liberals get power.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/18/2008

    You really have been drinking from the village idiot's cup. Nixon ran as a republican. He was definitely a republican. It's just that the republican party has moved so far to the right, that Nixon now looks like a democrat in the rear view windows.

    In the days of Nixon, you would have been a Bircher....one step shy of being a Wallace supporter which was one step shy of being in the damned KKK!!

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/20/2008 @ 09:50am

32. But then again you probably think everything left of a complete privatization of public schools is Liberal.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2008

    Hey, Liverhead doesn't think he should have to pay for yours or my kid's education. Our children should be going to the Ronald McDonald School of culinary arts specializing in the use of deep fat fryers and using timers to flip burgers. Middle class and poor families children don't deserve the right to go to school because if they did deserve it, God would have had it to where they were born into families of wealth.

    So, to steal a line from Les Miserables, going to the opera is only a game for rich young boys. That's the way the neocons want it. They may say otherwise, but they're lying out their asses.

    Lib and his ilk are so afraid someone is going to get something or an opportunity they didn't get that they can't stand it. But they'd be the first to bitch if the police or fire department didn't show up on time for their emergency or if the roads to their house aren't taken care of. See, it's ok with them to spend tax dollars directly on them, just no one else....aside from maximium military spending of course.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/20/2008 @ 10:09am

33. Ask any Republican . . .

    Ask a Democrat . . .

    Posted by marybretbrad at 05/19/2008

    Of course, MBB hasn't actually had any of these conversations or gotten these responses. He just wants you to think that he somehow knows what "the people" think.

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/20/2008 @ 5:40pm

34. Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/20/2008

    Looks like a hit a little too close to home for Mr War and Godliness.

    So, I'm ignorant because I don't buy into your b.s. You and only you have the intelligence to decide who's to live and die and yes, after viewing your posts, your views are not far from being those of a Bircher or Wallace supporter.

    Having an interracial marriage hasn't stopped you from pretty much stomping all over minorities that you consider to be inferior, lazy, not worthy, whatever. So, call me an asshole if you must, but you might want to take a good look in the mirror at your self or at least read your own posts Mr Justify War and killing at all costs.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/21/2008 @ 06:56am

35. is my mom in hell?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/20/2008

    I don't know you about your mom Frosty, but the Rev. Nuke has decided I am heading there.

    I take comfort in that actually. His hell may very well be heaven to me and vice versa.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/21/2008 @ 06:58am

36. Hello Wolfgang1,

    Whoops! You just stepped into it, big time!

    Here's where - In your post to lvliberty1 above you said "Having an interracial marriage hasn't stopped you from pretty much stomping all over minorities that you consider to be inferior, lazy, not worthy, whatever. "

    Oh? You seem to have forgotten that Conservatives do NOT stomp on "minorities" nor do they consider them to be "inferior, lazy, not worthy, whatever."

    Conservatives look at everybody as equal capable people who can succeed in life.

    Liberals are always the ones looking at people through the prisim of skin color or gender, and pre-assuming that somebody can not succeed because of the same - unless they get help from the benevolent rich white caring liberals, while constantly reminding those people seen as needing liberal help that the deck is stacked against them because of the horrible wrongs of the past caused by everybody but the caring compassionate rich white liberals.

    Only through that "compassion" is "minority" success possible, at least as viewed by those in liberal-land.

    However, any conservative can make the argument that it is liberal policies over the last 40 years that have hurt, rather than help, the very people liberals claim they "care" about and are trying to help. And, if these ideas were well intentioned, you would think there would be new ideas from the left instead, since the left's original ideas have failed. But no, just the same from the left along with crucification and sterotyping from the left applied to those who do not agree with you.

    It is my belief that if Lyndon B. Johnson were alive today, he, since he actually wanted to cure poverty, would be saying that what was done before, even if it were his ideas, have failed and something else should be tried again.

    But modern Democrats and Liberals are not Lyndon Johnson who wanted to cure poverty - they are Democrats and Liberals who want to advance the Democrat and Liberal agenda of socialist utopia, while telling everbody they are doing so in order to cure poverty and right all the wrongs and slay all the dragons and create a world of happy, happy love and peace for all.

    Of course, these policies will produce the opposite, they always have.

    How to explain this further? The best way is to complete part of a post YOU made up above.

    You said earlier:

    "In the days of Nixon, you would have been a Bircher....one step shy of being a Wallace supporter which was one step shy of being in the damned KKK!!"

    But your Internet connection must have had a hiccup and thus the entire paragraph was not provided by you. The whole complete paragraph would be:

    "In the days of Nixon, you would have been a Bircher....one step shy of being a Wallace supporter which was one step shy of being in the damned KKK along with Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WVa)!!"

    Get my point? I am sure you probably do not!

    Posted by sjchermak at 05/21/2008 @ 09:40am

37. Everybody,

    In my post above, when I said "tried again" I meant "tried instead".

    Posted by sjchermak at 05/21/2008 @ 09:46am

38. is my mom in hell?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/20/2008

    LOL! Stop it. You are too funny! When I was attending a Baptist church( my father is baptist), a deacon told the Sunday school class that they're gonna be people in heaven that you didn't think would be there and some people not in heaven that you thought would be. I thought that was very interesting. I took it to mean noone knows whose going to hell or not, being it's not up to us anyway, so live your life right, love your neighbor regardless of their faults or what you perceive to be faults and you should be fine.

    On subject: I remember my mother telling me when I was in high school about how Nixon's "law and order" platform was code for keeping the negroes in line. I guess she wasn't too far off.

    Posted by k330k at 05/21/2008 @ 09:58am

39. MBB -

    You are the one trying to impress us with your vast knowledge of what "any" Democrat or Republican thinks by cherry-picking a few topics and then drawing a conclusion. Not me.

    Just typical blabbering about what "Democrats" or "Rebublicans" think as if they are some unified organism.

    Did you ask any of your Republican friends if their "enemies" include, apart from the "terrorists" and Axis of Evil, the labor unions, politicians who support welfare polices, illegal immigrants, or abortion doctors to name a few?

    Those are within our borders. So, I could say the same thing about what conservatives think of as "enemies" as you seem to do with Democrats.

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/21/2008 @ 12:08pm

40. Posted by Hman23 at 05/21/2008 | ignore this person | warn it

    Yep...and don't forget Republican enemies like...

    ...welfare queens, personal injury lawyers, judicial activists, environmentalists, hippies, tree-huggers, rap artists, teachers unions, 'pointy headed' acadamenics ('college professors' to the rest of us), civil rights activists, protesters, and basically anyone who is against the war.

    Good Americans All.

    So why DO Republicans hate Americans so much??!!!

    Posted by Lillian at 05/21/2008 @ 1:20pm

41. Lillian,

    And why do the group of Americans you refer to above hate their own country, America, so much?

    You will say they don't, and maybe some or a lot of them do not but the gut reaction from most of the Left, anytime one of the questions of our role in the world comes up or any world problem exists, is that America is to blame somehow.

    Or if there is not a blame or "right and wrong" situation, it is the belief of most of the left, it seems, that the European way of life or mindset or people are just better or smarter or more wise than we are. Everything they do is the way to go, everything we do is gluttonous or greedy or imperialistic or wasteful or less compassionate, etc.

    Separate from the question of America, one would have to ask after a trip through liberal cyberspace - just when did these people (Europeans or really anybody else other than America or apparently also Israel) become so smart or morally superior or blessed with such wisdom?

    And, by the way, there are people on the left who definitely do hate America or at least America as it now exists and how most Americans want it to stay. Howard Zinn, a "historian" with The Progressive, does not think there should be an America and that expressions of patriotism are examples of "jingoism" and "xenophobia".

    So, you need to understand that as a leftist you do not see the forest because the trees are in the way. You need to step outside of your perspective and view the left as those outside the left see it, and then maybe you will see how and why the conclusion and assumptions are reached that the left hates America.

    You on the left seem to give us outside the left every opportunity to conclude that much of the left either hates America or is at best of the "blame America first" mentality

    Posted by sjchermak at 05/21/2008 @ 1:40pm

42. And why do the group of Americans you refer to above hate their own country, America, so much?

    . . . . and maybe some or a lot of them do not

    Posted by sjchermak at 05/21/2008

    Precisely why the rest of your post (and MBB's earlier post) is nonsense.

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/21/2008 @ 2:21pm

43. You see most of the people that could be fit into these groups do not hate America or "The Country" or whatever large scale entity you want to squeeze onto the receiving end. They may disagree with (or even "hate") certain policies, actions taken by the government, or even particular politicians.

    But, I know, SJCHERMAK. Saying things like, "Labor unions hate America" rather than "Labor unions hate policies and laws that take away their ability to collectively bargain with management" makes it seem like you have a stronger point to make. It may even work to win a few converts among those who like arguments you can fit on a bumper sticker.

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/21/2008 @ 2:31pm

44. Hman23,

    And so my point went flying way over your head. As a general rule, which is not true 100% of the time but certainly a lot of the time, the left sees the bad in America rather than the good, and by that I do not mean that the left sees problems that need to be fixed (not that the left does not identify those because they do) but sees the bad in America as an institution in and of itself.

    And the left is more prone to have the knee-jerk reaction that somebody else's way is automatically better than ours. Now, America is not the 100% expert in everything all of the time, I know, but the left automatically seems to defer to others then we, almost 100% of the time.

    Don't believe me? Then let Barack Obama explain it to you. When asked about the controversy about his wearing an American flag lapel pin, he made a remark (about why he wasn't wearing it), that some others see the American flag as a symbol of oppression.

    And there it is! That is exactly my point. Barack Obama does not even stop and consider that maybe if someone sees America as an oppressor, then the problem may be with them, and not us. That their view of us as opressive may not be justified, but may be based on their own false perceptions, or jealosy of us because of American success and their failures blameable on themselves, etc.

    Barack Obama did what any liberal would do, automatically feel liberal guilt determine that the American flag must come off because somebody doesn't like us, and it must be our fault.

    Somebody who does not automatically assume America is guilty of whatever, no matter what, would not feel compelled to take off the American flag lapel pin just because it might make somebody mad!

    Posted by sjchermak at 05/21/2008 @ 3:16pm

45. kiss the flag!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2008 @ 3:36pm

46. . . .and maybe some or a lot of them do not . . .

    As a general rule, which is not true 100% of the time but certainly a lot of the time, . . .

    Now, America is not the 100% expert in everything all of the time, I know, . . .

    . . . but the left automatically seems to defer to others then we, almost 100% of the time

    Posted by sjchermak

    You ignore completely my second post. Yare talking in circles and generalities. You yourself cannot even keep it straight.

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/22/2008 @ 09:49am

47. Hman23,

    I am not talking in circles or generalities. If we step back, the real issue here is that the knock on some libs that we make is that they are not patriotic and some of them hate America.

    You on the left declare that is not true.

    The only problem is, that we Conservatives can quite capably show that many libs are not patriotic or seem averse to show patriotism, and some of you on the left hate America.

    If you think I am talking in circles it is only because I keep proving my point over and over again, but it is not getting through to you. And it appears that is something that will never be possible, given your viewpoint and ideology.

    Posted by sjchermak at 05/22/2008 @ 10:14am

48. Posted by sjchermak at 05/22/2008

    Try learning some history, before deciding if you are patriotic.

    I used to be a knee-jerk patriot no-nothing too. I "learned" all about how great America is. I learned about how horrible all that communist propaganda was. I wondered what the hell those lunatics were babbling about "American imperialism".

    Then I read some actual history.

    Now, I recognize I was lucky to be born in this location. But, I am no longer proud of the assholes who run this country.

    So, am I a patriot, because I still have hope of attaining the goals laid out in our constitution, via our democracy?

    Or, am I not a patriot, because I am no longer proud of my flag or most of the activities it flew over?

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 05/22/2008 @ 3:39pm

49. Hello Malcontent,

    What history did you read? History written by Howard Zinn of The Progressive, or history taught in High School and College, that "teaches" the same thing The Nation magazine/website "teaches"?

    This is where you libs go overboard with your reactions. Nobody ever claimed that America has a 100% clean record with everthing it has ever done. But on balance America has provided greater opportunity for it's citizens, and done more for others in the world, than any nation in human history.

    And where injustices have existed and do exist in America it is Americans because of our rule of law and free enterprise system that fix our problems ourselves.

    But libs never acknowledge that, and it seems most libs do not believe it to begin with. You do not- you say you are not proud of the flag and most of the activities it flew over, and no doubt buy in now to the argument leftists make that America is "imperialist"

    You are aware, aren't you, that the Soviet Union threatened our existence in the last century? A lot of world interaction on our part (and theirs) was driven by this "cold war" situation, a situation we did not create. Americans were by and large not too concerned about the world at large until World War I and then after that more prone to return to a concern with issues here at home, until World War II. A lot of engagement, interaction, and actions which you libs would collectively call "imperialism" was percipitated only because of the Soviet threat completely materializing, once World War II was over.

    If this is what has driven this new found "enlightenment" of yours, then you have been driven off of the mark. Did your learning teach you that Communism was OK? It seems it might have, from your comments. If so, you should go and talk to those who lived under communism and who do not now, and you would get a different perspective than what you "learned".

    I am wasting my time with these comments, because your recent "education" and "learning" of history has probably closed your mind after all those new "facts" were programmed into your head.

    Posted by sjchermak at 05/22/2008 @ 4:44pm