In This Issue: New Dominion Podcast; Can Local Democracy Survive the Local Demagogues… and MORE!
New Dominion Podcast – Meghan and Cori on Affordable Housing
Meghan Samples and Cori Blanch join Shaun Kenney discussing the outcome of the GRWC Regional Housing Summit and some critical first steps, as well as an in-depth conversation regarding the Fredericksburg community’s reaction to events in the Gaza Strip.
Quick — name the last great United States Senator.
For too many, we have to pluck back to the early days of the institution itself, when the Senate was a bulwark against partisan contagion meant for those who had survived the political — former governors, former ambassadors, and former congressmen who had transcended the factional and the vulgar. Daniel Webster comes to mind.
In the modern era, Senator Robert Taft and Henry Cabot Lodge dominated the early 20th century, with men such as Lyndon Baines Johnson, Everett Dirksen (who has a building named after him), Jesse Helms, Phil Graham, Bob Dole, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Strom Thurmond and Paul Simon revered as lesser yet still statesmen in their own right.
Few will remember Tom Daschle, Trent Lott, John Kerry, John Warner — the last of the Virginians to properly represent Virginia — John McCain and even George Mitchell as revered statesmen.
Yet it is Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) who should earn the crown as the last great United States Senator, known not only for his principles but for his enduring bipartisanship in an era which spat upon such nuance — and sadly still does today.
“The central conservative truth,” said Moynihan during his Harvard Lecture in 1986, “is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.” Classical liberalism in the tradition of Jefferson and Adams at its finest.
One of the most admirable traits of the Fredericksburg Advance is our commitment to a multipartisan stance — one that has shocked a fair number of readers and pleased a great many others. Yet when the shock is more of an electric current which would rather trade an open and healthy public square for a sterile and lifeless non-partisan viewpoint which seeks not to offend precisely because it is in service to those in power?
That is something I cannot and will not abide. Nor — and I say this as a warning — is it something that the other half of our community will abide.
Democracies Invite Demagogues For Reasons You May Not Want To Hear…
In short, I am a little bit sick and tired of how narrow my Democratic friends have become — and I’m angry about the way our discourse has devolved due to that narrowness.
Yes — I am placing blame.
No — it is not the fault of Republicans.
Yes — there is a reason why.
No — I doubt Democrats want to hear it.
Moynihan isn’t exactly a household name anymore. As time wears on, whether by our tastes or for lack of achievement, all the great statesmen of the last 100 years have either dissolved or been discarded.
Yet for those who admired the man and the institution of the US Senate? Moynihan’s legacy as a statesman, academic, professor, ambassador and bi-partisan charm remain an omnipresent feature of what an American Senator — and what American public discourse — ought to be.
Unfortunately, we have traded Moynihan for the muddle of our present-day leadership on both sides of the aisle and at virtually all levels of government — because that’s what the public rewards.
Two weeks ago, I was criticized by a Republican friend of mine for even exploring the idea of multipartisan perspectives, as it would give succor and aid to our enemies — our neighbors! — as I was told point blank:
“We are at war!”
Of course, for daring to point out that precisely half of our community was being walled out from our public education system and that the self-described proponents of democracy were behaving as anything but democrats, Spotsylvania Republicans were compared to Hitler. Nazis. Fascists. Segregationists.
Really?
Really???
I mean look — I’m no fan of banning books. I’ve gone on the record as opposing it, I have a long history of opposing book burning. Yet the very idea that the Spotsylvania School Board has to be hamstrung out of the gate rather than be allowed to fail or succeed on their own merits strikes me as utterly un-democratic and a total repudiation of what self-declared defenders of democracy claim themselves to be.
Does this make me literally Hitler! (TM) for pointing this out?
Apparently so — and I’m not so sure that makes me the bad guy here.
Even within these pages, Clay Jones compares Stafford supervisor Crystal Vanuch to the Ku Klux Klan and the Citronella Nazis in Charlottesville for the crime of opposing affordable housing. Never mind the merits or demerits of the type of housing Stafford might be tempted to build. Never mind the nuance of how housing impacts community. Never mind the old H.L Mencken remonstration against crime being caused by poverty as a certain type of slander against the poor. There is plenty to criticize, yet somehow, we lose something in the reduction of the question to open racists vs. open borders.
How dumb is this argument? And if this is how dumbed down the argument is, how dumb are the answers going to be if we allow the discussion to be dumbed-down to this sort of anodyne reductionism which should embarrass any middle school cafeteria yet presents itself to us as politics?
Here’s how dumb the answers are going to be: Nick Ignacio, for handing out sample ballots designed to deceive otherwise well-intentioned voters who simply want to vote by crayon according to party line.
That’s how you get Nicked. That’s also how you get Trump, Obama, Biden, Youngkin, DeSantis, Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, and a whole host of demagogues who pretend to give a damn yet fix absolutely nothing. And why? Because they fight against institutions — held in thrall to the political left, mind you — too numb and too unfeeling to remember they represent the common good and not some artificial conception of the highest good.
Tough medicine?
Tough luck.
So how do we fix it?
Can The Center Hold Out Against the Extremes?
Yascha Mounk writes in “The Identity Trap: A Story of Ideas and Power in Our Time” how liberals — not conservatives — owe the nation a bit of a pause. Cancel culture is not a facet of the right but remains distinctly one of the left, where dissent becomes betrayal and the “short march through the institutions” has exposed corporate America as well as education, academia, bureaucracy, media and entertainment to the values of the progressive left — best expressed through “diversity, equity, and inclusion” training (DEI) or Critical Race Theory (CRT) professionals.
So how do we fix this predicament? By tending to our own gardens. Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott write in “The Cancelling of the American Mind” that the far left can only be beaten by the left, and the far right can only be beaten by the right. Institutions and corporations have a moral duty towards investing in intellectually diverse workforces; the post-liberal left and post-liberal right having more in common than either camp realizes.
Yet the catch here is that the political left — not the political right — holds the institutions in thrall. Which means there is a power relation at play where Democrats — if they are truly defenders of liberalism rather than democracy — have to make the first moves towards the ideals which they claim to aspire.
Democracy is a fragile thing, one that is prone to invite demagogues when mishandled. Pericles had his Cleon and Alcibiades; Biden — if he could be compared to Pericles — gets Trump and Hunter Biden. Insofar as the institutions have been weaponized against the other half of this country, Democrats have a solemn duty to wind that back and understand that this is not a both/and dynamic, but rather a cart/horse dynamic which is inimical to the very idea of liberal values.
One cannot pound the table hard enough on this point.
Failure to have the empathy to see this problem is to convince the political right in this country that we are indeed at war. That the left for all its pretenses really does hate us. That for those of us who are resisting the rise of the post-liberal right, that we are really fighting on two fronts against a post-liberal left who got the memo 20 years earlier.
I am assured this is not the case, yet it is awfully hard to reconcile when the mere criticism of left-leaning institutions is to compare Republicans to anti-Semites, Nazis, fascists, racists, and segregationists. Such rhetoric is familiar to anyone who has cracked the spine of a history book (provided you can still find such things in Spotsylvania libraries):
To vanquish is not to convince. To conquer is not to convert. You will conquer because you have brute force, but you will never convince, because in order to convince you need to persuade. You will conquer, but you will never convince.
I have spoken.
Convince me — don’t berate me — with an argument.
Not rhetoric or sophistry, but an argument which recognizes the valid claims of the other and then attempts to either incorporate or address those claims as a rational, thinking, empathetic and intellectually inclusive soul who doesn’t view every criticism as literally Hitler! (TM)
Otherwise, you will convince me and many others that there is no center — only that the extremes are your argument. Or as Bari Weiss has concluded over the last three weeks in the wake of left-wing protests defending Hamas — protests which began long before the bodies cooled and the Israeli Defence Forces responded to the single greatest loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust — that this is all about raw power.
Facts are, local Democrats have some soul-searching to do as we talk about what truly matters. No — this is no excuse for the extremes and we should pledge to fight them in turn. Yet the power dynamic in our local institutions has to be recognized for what it is — and Republicans simply aren’t equally or fairly represented if we are constantly being compared to literally Hitler (TM) every time a question is raised. Or an election is won. Or an idea is expressed.
It’s old — and it is no way to talk to one another.
For myself, I will continue to fight for the honorable middle even at the expense of name-calling and especially as it concerns the local, and especially against the cheap off-brand local demagogues trying so desperately to matter by imitating national brands.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan remains the last of the statesmen who could work in a bi-partisan fashion to address the needs of a nation. Moynihan barely survived during his day and age for doing so. How many, I wonder, could imitate his example today and be rewarded with the honor of public service? Echoing Winston Churchill, if democracies elect the leaders we deserve, would we even recognize such leadership if offered for public consideration?
We used to be able to.
Odds & Ends at FXBGAdvance.com
The Fredericksburg Advance continues to bring local coverage of the November 2023 elections. For our 2023 Voters Guide please click on the link below:
To view local obituaries or to send a message to family and loved ones, please visit our website by clicking on the link below:
Support Local Journalism
The FXBG Advance is off and running, but we can’t do this without your help. You can support local journalism here in Fredericksburg by donating $8 a month. Your dollars will go toward hiring journalists so that we can broaden our reach and strengthen our coverage.
The content is now, and will continue to be, free.
Help us bring aboard the journalists who will elevate our coverage and strengthen the community we all share.
Consider joining for $8 monthly, $80 yearly, or becoming a supporting member for $200 or a Founding Member for $500.
Thank you for reading and supporting FXBG Advance.
-Martin Davis, Editor
Perhaps I’m a little dull but I’m scratching my head about this paragraph. “I’m no fan of banning books. I’ve gone on the record as opposing it, I have a long history of opposing book burning. Yet the very idea that the Spotsylvania School Board has to be hamstrung out of the gate rather than be allowed to fail or succeed on their own merits strikes me as utterly un-democratic and a total repudiation of what self-declared defenders of democracy claim themselves to be.”
1. How is the school board being “hamstrung out of the gate?” It seems to me that those whose rights have been violated are the many parents who have asked for the books that were found by committees of parents and citizens appropriate to remain in our high school libraries but were removed by Mark Taylor are those who have been hamstrung.
It seems to me that the three women who sit on the minority and cannot even add items to the school board agenda and their constituents who, in fact, no longer have representation on the school board because of the way policies have been enacted are hamstrung.
Please humor me. How has our school board been hamstrung? Or am I totally missing your point?
2. How many Spotsylvania County Public School Board meetings have you attended in person the past two years?
So here’s what I am taking from this critique:
1. That it is okay for Democrats to behave like Democrats, provided that Republicans never behave like Democrats.
2. The answer is precisely zero… but I’ve watched (or struggled to watch) plenty.
Bear in mind that the conservative majority on the school board is behaving precisely as the left and the institution did towards conservatives for the last 30+ years. This is nothing new.
As for the failure to adhere to Roberts Rules of Order? I’m struck that no one in the SCPS administration offered to hold a work session to train the board on RONR (as most newly elected board members are offered). Instead, they were set up for failure knowing they would fail… which again, strikes me as utterly un-democratic to the core.
I have a long list of gripes with the actions of this school board, believe me. Yet in any democratic system, they should be allowed to fail on their own merits and demerits, not hamstrung by the institution itself. We talk a good game about civility in politics… yet when this sort of reality presents itself? It becomes clear that this is about raw power, not education.
That bothers me. Bothers a whole lot of other people, too. Can you see why it would bother the rest of us?
You’ve used a lot of words to but have not answered my question. Exactly how is the board’s majority hamstrung. Only they bring items to the agenda. All significant votes pass or fail 4/3? I’m typically not a dense person. How are they hamstrung? Examples!
So you are unwilling to see how it bothers the rest of us.
That’s a pity — and yes, a lot of words on your behalf, but the unwillingness to even consider the opposition? That’s a moral failure indeed (unless, of course, you’re willing to give it a try?)
I simply asked you to explain exactly how the current Spotsy school board majority are hamstrung. I can accept that you agree with their philosophy and/or ideology. I may not agree but I support your right to your views and opinions. What I’m asking, and what you seem unable or unwilling to answer , is how are they hamstrung, with examples. They’ve managed to hire a superintendent and other highly paid staff, change policy, win every significant vote with a 4/3 majority, and remove dozens of books from school libraries. My point isn’t whether it bothers the opposition. My question is, how is this school board majority hamstrung?
So still — you remain totally unwilling to see it from the other side?
That’s a shame.
Actually you are dodging a very straightforward question. That’s a shame and very telling.
I answered your questions. Extend the courtesy of answering mine.
Follow up question to your response here, which I think aligns with what Ms Murray is asking.
Again, if this is common knowledge to you, please forgive my ignorance – as a newcomer to the area and the issue.
I won’t even get into how exactly you feel in this issue that “Democrats …behave like Democrats…” – though I’m sure there is a perceived grievance(s) implied. Let’s just take that as a given, just to move the conversation along. That is your perception, whether it is true or not.
My question is this, and I think it aligns with Ms Murray’s. If there is or has been a failure to follow Roberts Rules of Order, what has prevented this Board, or it’s members from correcting that problem on their own – without it being someone else’s responsibility to train them on it?
Isn’t true conservatism about personal accountability and responsibility?
If they learn that they are, or may be, committing an error to correct that error when brought to their attention?
For a man who complains of others making presumptions when criticized, you seem to be awful spare in specifics to support your own statements.
Did the left (whatever that is) also prevent minority board members from speaking, etc? How so?
Serious question. Please elaborate. With specifics, not hyperbole.
You want someone like me to listen to you, lead with facts and allow me to draw my own conclusions based upon them – rather than your conclusions without facts to support them.
I consider that a reasonable request. Which appears to be what Ms Murray is also requestion.
HOW is this majority board “hamstrung” by the institution itself. I see your claim. I do not see what facts you have to support it.
Where’s the beef?
The answer to that question was properly explained in the op-ed. The problem is that some readers go so blind with rage they stop considering and start emoting.
Which begs the question. Is it really that impossible to consider the opposition’s view? I’m afraid the answer for some is yes… which bothers me tremendously (and is not a disease of one party or the other, but most certainly that of the extremes).
Is it possible that some writers are so convinced that their definition of those they would talk down to is so correct, that THEY/he, refuses to answer their questions and starts emoting, rather than the other way around?
Again, as with Ms Murray, I am unable to see how any majority is hamstrung in a governing body, much less one which appears to give so little respect or credence to their minority.
Again, when they are not a minority of one, but a mere majority of one. Which until recently, apparently has only ruled rarely, and seems to be clearly showing why that was/is the case.
You insist that others (Democrats) should convince you, not berate you, with an argument – yet are unwilling to extend others the same courtesy.
Why?
You complain of the muddle of the current state based upon it being what the “public” rewards, yet who in the last 40 years, and particularly since the days of Gingrich and Roger Ailes, has embraced it more completely, more devoutly than Republicans?
Who? How?
It’s not poor folk or the common man buying those big signs that have been posted throughout, supporting Tara Durant, is it? Might want to check out Mr Davis’s article today, before answering. Though I suspect you already knew.
Money is free speech, Newtown was a hoax, corporations are people, if you give an RV to a judge, it’s not a bribe, you can’t lead the Republican party unless you denied and continue to deny Biden won in 2020.
You see those as positions that Republicans are rewarding more, or Democrats?
Who’s benefitting from the muddle?
Again, both the lady and myself asked you to explain a fact, which to me at least, having reread your column – I have still been unable to determine.
From which, you conclude can only be asked if it is based upon rage, a deficit upon my part, which makes me unworthy of any receiving any further clarification.
That’s your definition of meeting in the middle?
I freely admit that I am often not the swiftest duck in the pond. So mightn’t it at least be possible, that my question is due to genuine befuddlement (again, freely conceding that such befuddlement can only be due to my complete lack of upbringing, knowledge, or proper education – rather insinuating in ANY way as to be impugning your obviously perfect written expression of the English language)?
And if that is even a possibility, (again, acknowledging aforehand that at least I, as I would not presume to speak for Ms Murray, am not worthy); is it too much to ask for you to clarify that remark?
Maybe not in Hamlet-like soliloquys, Chaucer poems, or Socratic riddles; but in plain, old 21st century American English. To steal a line from Denzel Washington, if I dare, “To explain it like you would to a 5 year old?”
Or how you would when filling out a warrant for a magistrate. Who, what, when, how, why, where?
Because as I have mentioned before – if you are of that part of the Republican Party that has and is attacking the laws and Constitution which I swore on and with my life to defend, you ARE my enemy.
And though, even then, I wish it weren’t so, and I hope there can be someday be a reconciliation, accommodation, and resolution – I do take you or them at their word when they say and do accordingly.
Yet, what continues to befuddle me, beyond the straightforward question raised above by Ms Murray, and again, by myself regarding this little brand of Republicanism/cultism in Spotsy County – is how – time and again – folks such as yourself – who claim to oppose the excesses of such folk at least as much, or not more than me – continue to be willing to align themselves with them.
Why? How? Is there any excess you won’t excuse by them? Because I haven’t seen it yet?
Is there anything they can do, to which you would say, “No more?”
Is it possible THAT is the solution, rather than blaming me for their actions, in someway, again – I truly do not understand? And then demanding that I change, when for 40 years, it seems like all we have done is change to accommodate conservatives?
We don’t fund education like we did 40 years ago, particularly not higher education. Wealth inequality, inequality in CEO vs worker pay, tax rates, corporate power, etc. We are a poor nation with rich people living among us. OECD rankings, longevity, etc. It hasn’t trickled down as promised. The immigration policies of H Bush and Reagan would get you run out of today’s party as quick as supporting gay marriage, or rule of law.
So maybe the refusal to accept it any longer, to say “enough” to your party’s lies, excesses, and promises – that rich people need welfare – IS the solution.
I see it at the national level in there being a Speaker Johnson. That doesn’t happen if folks such as yourself do not agree to it. You made a conscious choice as a party – Rob Wittman’s vote counted just as much as Bob Good’s – that you would empower someone who did and does take an active part in that event. In fact, the only 5 people on the final ballot were election deniers. That was your party’s choice. Not Hakeem Jeffries, not Nancy Pelosi’s.
Yet, having empowered them, you want to know why the 50+% who choose against Trump, and the even higher percentage when you consider Republicans who vote in private against him – that know he is unfit – choose not to trust you.
And when they ask you to explain yourself, giving you that courtesy, that respect, that opportunity – as Ms Murray did here, you choose not to answer. As a party, or as individuals.
And yet, you see the problem as being totally the fault of the emotional “rage” of those asking?
Really?
I promise you, it’s not rage – disgust, befuddlement, confusion. While doing my best to cover it with courtesy to allow a response, even if when that response is inadequate, or unsatisfying. To ask, yet again.
But when you cannot deign to do that, to clearly answer when asked, I would posit that maybe others aren’t as big of the problem as you presume.
Still, at this point – moving on. Things to do, people to see.
Again, monologue not dialogue. Again, presumptions.
Hard to have a conversation when one person does all of the assuming and talking and presuming without really considering the ideas of the other person.
TLDR.
Actually, I tried. Faded when we got to the always there Greek reference. I suspect even folks living in Athens don’t visit the Parthenon as often as Mr Kenney.
Though before fading, I did note some interesting twists and turns in his Sophistic logic. That he, of course, exists in the precise, exact middle of modern life. And anyone not revolving around his Sun is wanting. Lacking in moral fibre, so they say….
And if only everyone will recognize that, at that time we will all live in a land of plenty and of peace.
Huh.
Somehow, Biden, Obama, Hillary are all on the same moral level as Trump.
If only we Democrats were all more like Moynihan. But Moynihan dealt with Reagan and HW Bush. Both honorable men. I don’t recall either of them being charged with felonies, many of which involve either flagrant disregard for national security – or direct attempts to overthrow the Constitution. Did I miss something?
I can’t help but wonder if there is anything in which he accepts personal accountability. For himself, or his avowed party.
It is the Democrat’s fault that they won’t continue moving to the right to accommodate ever more outrageous demands? To the point of defaulting on debt? Ignoring violence? Torture? Trampled rights?
Democrats and really, everyone not in the midst of this cultish nightmare has realized that eventually, if you continually compromise with someone who never compromises with you, you’re no longer in the middle.
So you’re against book burning, are you?
Not so much to disavow the party you belong to when they do it; but enough to not be happy about it?
Wow, way to take a stand…get that man a Nobel prize. Gandhi ain’t got nothing on him.
But I guess my favorite part – was this little tidbit.
“Cancel culture is not a facet of the right but remains distinctly one of the left, where dissent becomes betrayal….”
Oh really?
Really?!?
Want to explain that to Liz Cheney or Denver Riggleman? They should have plenty of time to listen, after being primaried out. All of the Lindsay Grahams and Kevin McCarthys who suddenly decided they didn’t mind being attacked, if it meant they could stay in power a while longer. DeSantis going after Disney for popularity points in the culture wars? Youngkin pardoning an accused criminal before he went to trial in Loudon County? Another to appease the no-mask groups? (You know, in beloved Spotsy?). Trump and Gosar calling for executions of those who stood against their excesses? Michael Fanone ostracized by his fellow DC police officers after standing against the conspiracy? All of those you’ve doxxed, threatened, attacked on right wing media thru Tucker, and Hannity, and Alex Jones, and Bannon, and Gingrich?
Dude, check the meds.
No one, but no one does cancel culture like today’s Republican party.
NO ONE.
Joe McCarthy would hide his head in shame, not out of morality – but realizing his efforts – as arrogant, ignorant, and hateful as they were in the day – were like a child’s random scribblings compared to Michealangelo’s Sistine Chapel.
Then again, the fact that is true, and yet you seriously show up here claiming that somehow – you, through your party are a victim, and insist that everyone else change to suit you, THAT shows how far we have devolved.
Again, wow.
You want to save us from demagogues.
Fine.
You first.
Donald Trump is currently approved by the majority of the Republican Party to be President in 2024. A man charged with over 90 felonies, who has promised to overturn many Constitutional protections, after a serious attempt to do so in 2020.
Here’s a simple question for you, Mr Kenney. Answer this one, if no other.
If he is the Republican Party’s nominee, will you support him?
A couple of times you’ve brought up the idea that the “government” is bad. (Except, for some reason, when Republicans are in charge).
Go figure. That we should rather, depend upon “culture” to lead us, rather than laws. I wonder whose, perchance? Somehow, I’m guessing your own. With a healthy dose of Pericles?
In a representative democracy, our government is us.
The school teacher making less than she could in the private market to teach your children does so because she cares, as much as for the money. How dare you presume otherwise, without proof beyond your own prejudices.
Likewise the lawyer defending the accused, the inspector checking for fire code violations, or the chemist inspecting the water. They are us.
And just about every law or rule they are enforcing, every standard – is due to there being a need. Usually because someone took advantage. It seems like it is only those enjoying those unfair advantages, who are profiting at their neighbor’s expense who would object to there being limits.
And our Constitution was not written in stone. It was a great document, but it has and has needed to evolve from an idea that it was revolutionary for landed white gentry men slave labor camp operators to be considered equal to English nobility; which has evolved to the idea today that ALL people are created equal.
I admit freely that I like the idea of laws, knowledge, Constitutions and ideals, administered by those who dedicate their lives to service of our people being our mechanism for government as being how we choose to live as a people – rather than something as ephemeral as “culture” administered by those who make their decisions based upon whether it keeps up with the Kardashians, sold shoes on the Apprentice, or became a chant at a Nascar race.
And I think that guy plowing the road so you can get to work or writing up the supermarket for selling your kids bad milk have value as well.
Our government is not some vast conspiracy looking to hold us back. Rather it has been the instrument under which our capitalistic society has thrived. With a stable money, stable until recently – due to you – governments, investments in technology, learning, security, health, wealth. It ain’t perfect, that I’ll grant you.
But before you throw it out, to be replaced by your cultural theocracy, I think I’d rather follow the advice given by Churchill:
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’
In summary:
Republicans don’t believe in cancel culture, and we can all be in the middle – once those believing in democracy agree to compromise with us a little more…..just like last time. And the time before that, and the time before that, and…..
Man ol’ man. There’s a chuckle for the day.
Thanks.
TL;DR… and yet you read the entire thing. Congratulations!
You ask the question whether or not I have or will support Donald J. Trump for POTUS. I am sorry to disappoint you… but I have been remarkably consistent on this question for years longer than most Democrats:
https://bearingdrift.com/2016/02/19/a-closed-and-contemptuous-letter-to-trump-supporters/
Also pretty firm against book burning and have been since the controversy started:
https://fredericksburg.com/opinion/columnists/commentary-american-illiteracy-not-books-is-whats-to-fear/article_e6e4a201-5644-5bea-bd95-061db1faa60f.html
Typically I’m not a fan of exposing ignorance, but Leo… c’mon, dude.
No, I’m afraid I did fade when you drifted into the Aegean Sea once again. We used to play kultklan bingo back home, waiting to see when one of the faithful would invoke Hillary, Soros, LIV, or whatever the Foxspeak of the day happened to be.
I’m thinking of starting a new one. If you ever avoid mentioning the Peloponnesian peninsula during one of your articles, I expect I’ll lose. Anyhoo.
So, as with so many of your other presumptions – you are, sadly, wrong.
I AM happy to hear of your positions on both Trump and book burnings. So thank you for providing. Though I do find your stalwart defense of those engaging in both to be puzzling.
Though with that being the case, I would argue whether you truly are “The Republican Standard” as you insist.
I did agree and do agree with your comment in 2016 that Republican and conservative are no longer synonymous.
” That many of our elected officials do not have the moral backbone to stand up to the populist wave is disappointing indeed, but from the rank and file conservatives?”
I don’t know who wrote that, but I certainly agree with it. Personally, I feel that I am more conservative than most Republicans – and yet in their eyes, I am as exteme a leftist as there is. Go figure.
The Republican Party of today is a personality cult, built upon fear, uncertainty, and doubt. No platform, fungible morals, etc. In essence – it has evolved to represent many of the traits that you and I both despised in Trump in 2016. And it shows every indication of keeping those traits when he is gone.
Personally, with the possible exception of Ted Cruz, whom I saw as the Republican version of Hillary, willing to say anything in order to get elected – I would have voted for any of the Republican potential nominees over Hillary in 2016. With the exception of Donald Trump. For many of the reasons you yourself noted. Easiest choice I’ve ever made. As much as I saw her not being as good as say, a Jeb Bush, she was light years ahead of the draft dodging bankrupt slumlord from Queens. On every level.
So now, in 2023, the majority of Republicans having already decided that he is their choice for President – is it really any more than wishful thinking to claim that YOU are the Republican standard?
The numbers say otherwise, if your opposition to Trump remains. You are not.
So when you have so studiously avoiding mentioning that opposition, up to this point, while purporting to be “The Republican Standard” I found it worth asking.
Because again, the party that you purport to represent – clearly sees it differently. I guess I could have done internet searches, etc. But I figure the best way to get a question answered is to ask it.
FWIW, and realizing the feeling is unlikely to be mutual – having been so informed – I am willing to discuss matters with you when you write your columns. You have much more of my respect than you would have otherwise.
Whereas, those who did try to violently overthrow our Constitution and would do so again, thru Trump – I do take them at their word when they say I am their enemy. Based upon their words and their actions. I swore to protect that Constitution. How could it be otherwise?
I’m just not so sure that you do represent them as you claim.
Personally, I am a fan of exposing ignorance, in myself as well as others. I call it learning.
I’ve heard of lot of teachers take an active interest in the process. Even encourage it.
Is that wrong? (That’s my Socrates for the day….) GTG.
You really don’t like the title of my publication, do you? LOL.
More than happy to discuss things. Appreciate the respect in turn.
Would love to see more of a turn from left-right towards the center fighting the extremes, but that seems awfully hard for folks to do nowadays. Maybe we will figure it out?
False advertising to the 1st.
Probably not to the last – but still – passes the time.
FWIW – to further my claim – the latest “mainstream” (I use that term tongue-in-cheek) Republican who was nominated to lead the House went down in a blaze of flames.
His crime?
He was one of the few Republicans to stand against Trump. Trump vetoed him by text message. He wasn’t “loyal” enough.
You know, sorta like yourself.
Again, I admire that of you. I do. But to pretend that your view is the “Republican” view is just that, pretending. The sooner you accept that, the better we’ll all be.
To me, I’d say your choice is either to continually compromise your ethics in some Devil’s bargain, as so many former Republicans have done over the last 7 years. So eventually, if it hasn’t already happened, you’ll have compromised them to the point of non-existence.
Or to admit today’s Republican party is not conservative. If it ever was.
I mean, y’all talk a good game, but I’d also say that the fact you never follow thru is probably what led to Trump. Good politics, bad governance.
You want term limits, balanced budget, less government, abortion outlawed, yada, until you get in power. Then you get amnesia for some reason.
The reason being that you know that no one will stand for it.
Why didn’t we get term limits proposed in 2017, when you had complete control of Congress and the Presidency? The same reason the budget didn’t get balanced, or a national abortion law.
You knew you’d pay at the polls.
So again, your choice is to serve the cult, because even if you personally “object” to their many misdeeds – if you are empowering them, you are culpable. Or to abandon and reject them. Either by joining Democrats who are doing so. Or by creating a new party, free of their taint. Much akin to how the Republican party itself was born.
Fact is though, you are no more Republican than me. Donald Trump is running that party from his trial bench.
If you continue to pretend otherwise, what does it say about you?
Matthew 6:24
Oh I dunno… I’ll take the party of Jefferson and Reagan over the party of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, Massive Resistance, welfare and abortion-on-demand any day of the week.
The Democrats have been wrong on every major social justice question from Andrew Jackson to Chuck Schumer. Hard to scold the rest of us on social justice on a pile of dead babies… and even if Republicans need to rediscover Jack Kemp, there is a totalitarian problem inside the modern-day Democratic Party which I am not entirely convinced they are even aware of or care to fix.
Even their progressive wing is starting to push back — and once conservatives and progressives realize that they are fighting for the same things against the institutions? Well… Teddy Roosevelt might have had the right idea after all, eh?
Would be more than happy to discuss my own political viewpoints over a cup of coffee, if you’d prefer. Seems like a better venue for our discussions than here anyhow!
Don’t mind coffee, thanks for the offer; but writing is my preference when discussing things of note.
Besides having a face made for radio, and a voice made for print (I often have felt that if they made a movie about me, I should be played by Patton Oswald. You know, if he let himself go, picked up a few pounds, had a flat affect that ranged on the autism scale, and were capable of speaking like Elmer Fudd with a Southern drawl – you know, like Patton (not George C Scott of Scott County with his fine baritone – but the real Patton.)
I’ve often felt that was part of his charisma – that his men didn’t mind him cursing them so much as they would others, because it was funny. Men tend to be perverse that way. One of our many faults, I’m afraid) –
Further, based upon experience – when speaking – I tend to give offense, particularly when discussing issues, even when there is no intent. When there is intent, it’s worse.
Besides all of that, I like having time to think of what I want to say, and to write as completely as possible.
So if you ever care for coffee, sure – why not?
But I ain’t got all the answers. Just like to fret those who act like they do. Something to do…..GTG. Need to at least pretend to be productive today, though I just finished the latest Arnaldur Indridson novel, and now am burning through the latest John Sandford like a crack addict with a gram bag, so probably won’t get as much done as I ought. Don’t tell the Missus…..
I find that I go the other way — writing, while sometimes more intentional, tends to be misunderstood based on the reader’s opinions, background, biases, prejudices, hopes, dreams, schemes, etc. Talking to and listening to another person, you pick up on so much more… so in this, I am much more Levinas than Sartre.
Definitely game for coffee. Certainly don’t have the answers… but I’m always game for listening to how others are trying to tackle the world. Good luck with the novels!!!
Ay, there’s the rub.
As happens so often in history.
You see yourself as nobly fighting against slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, Massive resistance – we’ll circle back around to the last two – as they are dissimilar enough (at least to me, so I beg your indulgence) to deserve their own discussion.
That Republicanism is a fight against slavery and racism in all its forms. I’ll grant you, that was its history. Under which it did noble things. Though possibly not for as noble of reasons as they or you would admit.
Were Northerners fighting the Civil War to end slavery? Some were. No doubt. Just as many, based upon extant maps showing the “Interior United States” or the Northeast textile mills dependence upon King Cotton would say, like most wars, their willingness to fight had an economic basis as much or more than a moral one. VA was the only state to lose territory as a result of the war. 1st thing the Union did was carve off the two counties that had the C&O RR running through it. Lincoln didn’t feel politically capable of issuing the Emancipation Proclamation until after the horrid losses of Antietam made it clear there was no turning back. Even then, he saw a return to Africa as more palatable than living alongside Frederick Douglass as his fellow citizen.
The Compromise of 1876 doesn’t happen if the Republican Party isn’t willing to sell its principles regarding equality for political expediency. Dred Scott may not be a Republican ideal, but Plessy v Ferguson certainly was.
The point being, history isn’t as clear as you prefer. Or state. Where you see only black and white, with certitude and righteousness; I see a multitude of colors, which gives me pause. We all live within our own closed box, sensing our own umwelt.
And more recently, it is true the Republican Party as a whole stood against Jim Crow. Though even in the 30’s, an argument can and should be made how much of that was based upon morality, and how much upon needing to have another labor force to pit against poor whites lest they unionize.
Desegregated schools happened much later in Northern/Republican strongholds than they did in the South. Redlining, housing covenants, etc. Those things happened and happen as much in Minnesota or Iowa as they do in Atlanta.
So you presume by being a Republican in 2023, that, in and of itself is proof that you are against racism.
How do you reconcile that with someone like Barack Obama becoming President as a Democrat? Kamala Harris? Jennifer McClellan? Did they, or do they not know that is the party of the Klan?
Or is it possible that they aren’t as stupid as you presume? And they’ve noted little things like white flight, cities losing annexation power, or how often the Republican Party’s policies align with those of white supremacy? Nixon’s Southern Strategy. The actual Klan filing for celebratory parade permits when Trump won. That there were good people on both sides of a tiki torch parade.
Could it be possible that they are capable of, (dare I say it)…..READING, THINKING, INDEPENDENT THOUGHT? Or that “they” as a group or as or individuals, same as everyone else, also are capable of making decisions based upon their own best interests?
Is it possible that you are NOT saving them from their ignorant selves, as you seem to presume?
I believe so.
And yet, no one can talk about our children about Saint Jefferson running a slave labor camp until those children are 18 and have spent all of that time up until then never discussing the fact, or worse – if they choose (which you posit is the holy parent’s right) have been indoctrinated into believing that either it didn’t happen – or it wasn’t that bad?
We hide truth from children for the parent’s convenience? Why?
For who?
How you reckon ol’ Saint Tom’s DNA got into Sally Hemmings bloodline?
Osmosis? And yet he still saw a 4% return per annum on his “investment”? That’s your ideal?
Look, I’m not saying those things to bust your chops. Including by Jefferson. But he was not a god. Merely a man, doing the best as he could in the context of his era, belief, and knowledge. But if we presume that was the end for either the capability or the need to evolve, I would say you do neither him nor us and good service.
There have been good things achieved by Republicans and your party. Eisenhower was underrated. Nixon did some good. And Reagan, HW and GW Bush all served with honor. Though I would posit that the Republican party of today is a far cry from that of the 1980’s, much less the 1860’s.
Noel C Taylor comes to mind in my city, as well as Holton and John Warner. Really didn’t have that much issue with McDonnell.
That is my point.
This is not that party. You can’t bring yourself to find any good in democracy or Democrats? So be it. That doesn’t mean you have to remain in lockstep with Trump. Have him decide who leads you, who speaks for you, even when he is not the President.
Do you really think that will improve, should he return to power?
Like you once said, his principles are not conservative principles anyway. Never were. Even less, now. Yet his are the ones leading the party you claim as your own. Such as they are. As easily changed by circumstances or impulse as they are by any core principles, beyond self preservation, self promotion, corruption, or greed. Pretty much like YOU said, not me.
If you accept that, and yet choose to empower him – rather than either forming or joining a party which does align with your ideals, you are enabling him through your support. Whether you like it or not. Whether you admit it or not.
BTW – before you go to put ol’ Teddy’s face on a mountaintop, you might want to read River of Doubt by Candice Millard.
Certainly more ethical than Trump, but he had more than a touch of the racist megalomaniac in him as well…..” In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure-dome decree:”
You do an awful lot of presuming, I’ve noticed. It’s hard to have a conversation with someone when they have presumed what you are and who you are in advance — yes?
I just know what I read in the Fredericksburg Advance……: )
HA!!! Well played, sir…
Shaun,
Surely you know that the Democratic Party that gave us the Civil War has evolved into the Republican Party. That shift occurred back in the 60s after LBJ got the Civil Rights Act through and Nixon followed up with his Southern Strategy. If you know this and make this statement anyways, shame on you. If you truly don’t know your history, then how does any argument you make hold water?
When precisely did the Democrats make this transition again? The 1924 Allan ale at the DNC Convention? The Dixiecrats and Massive Resistance? When did that old Byrd Machine guard surrender power precisely after 1975? Chuck Robb? Ralph Northam?
I would submit that the old paternalistic Democrats never went away.
The key event is the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and the Voting Rights Act the following year. Fox news (not really news reporting but news assertion) very skillfully plays on its audience’s s fears of minority voters and minority power that are an outgrowth of that legislation. That is not something I figured out on my own but is widely documented in books about Fox and its foibles. You tend to parrot some of their points, which you should stop doing. Insulting people is not the same as engaging. And quit saying that someone else started it. Only one party is actively engaged in trying to bring down the republic.
I would deeply agree that insulting people is not engaging. I would question whether you are living up to your own standard, and whether pointing it out is really insult or critique.
As for “someone else started it” all one has to do is point towards the 1924 Klanbake at the RNC Convention. Or where the Republican Party in the 1950s thru the 1970s engaged in a campaign of Massive Resistance against desegregation. Or point to precisely where the Republican Party refused to slough off its own version of the Byrd Machine and emerged into the light of day.
To point out that this has never happened — and that Democrats themselves rallied around Ralph Northam and Mark Herring as recently as a few years ago — is fact, even if it might be insulting to our ideals. Yet it is indeed open, undeniable fact (as many progressives seeking power and representation in their own party will attest).
You are not making sense. I’m done.
That’s because you aren’t extending the courtesy you demand from others.
Good luck.
You have not answered how the board’s majority is hamstrung. ( Hamstrung: to make ineffective or powerless – Merriam-Webster). Examples? So far zero
That’s not how this works. Educated people can express the arguments of their opposition in their best possible light precisely for the reason that if you do not understand the argument, then you do not have the right to hold a counterpoint of your own.
So again — let’s demonstrate that this is a dialogue and not a monologue. You don’t get to start a new thread in order to avoid the conversation either.
I answered your questions. Now extend the courtesy of answering mine.
Wow. What a disrespectful response. As an early paid subscriber I may consider this when it’s time to renew.
I’ve always found it hilarious when the definition of “disrespect” is not surrendering to a monologue.
So again — let’s demonstrate that this is a dialogue and not a monologue. You don’t get to start a new thread in order to avoid the conversation either.
I answered your questions. Now extend the courtesy of answering mine.
Please don’t give up your subscription just yet. I once knew an instructor who reveled more in causing his students’ confused looks than in facilitating their comprehension. It said a lot about him. Let’s just hope some personal growth eventually takes place.
Must have been a Jesuit!!
Harder still when the other refuses to answer questions that would allow others to understand what he is trying to say…..based upon his own presumptions.
Like I remind my students… you have to read the text first.
And maybe that’s it. In that you see us as your students; like some guru, saint or martyr imparting wisdom to the benighted masses.
Rather than a discussion.
I guess that’s the difference between adult learning and the methods of pedagogues.
Huh.