• Introduction
  • About Ruby Red Republic
  • Contact
  • Blog

Ruby Red Republic

~ Thoughts on Red States and "Deplorables."

Ruby Red Republic

Monthly Archives: December 2016

When Rooting for the Crimson Tide Was an Act of Southern Patriotism

21 Wednesday Dec 2016

Posted by Jim Langcuster in Southern Athletics, Southern History, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

1926 Rose Bowl, Alabama Football, Crimson Tide, Jim Langcuster, Nick Saban, Paul "Bear" Bryant, University of Alabama, University of Washington

paul-bryant

Coach Paul “Bear” Bryant

Almost a century ago, the Alabama Crimson Tide football team, representing an economically prostrate state and region derided by the rest of the country as a cultural backwater, undertook the long transcontinental journey to compete against the University of Washington Huskies in the 1926 Rose Bowl.

The Tide was widely regarded as the underdog. The sports pundits of the time expected those Deep South provincials to return to Alabama as “Tusca-losers,” the term Will Rogers invented to emphasize the low regard in which the team was held.

The WSJ article posted today about about that epic match underscores two vital truths: first, how far Crimson Tide Football and the University of Alabama in general have traveled in the 90 years since the first Alabama/Washington  match in 1926 and, second, and even more significant, how a rising Crimson Tide has lifted Alabama and Southern fortunes more than once in the last century.

Alabamians and other Southerners at the time regarded the Rose Bowl as a sort of Civil War rematch.  The subsequent upset not only marked the resurgence of Southern pride but also the ascent of a Southern football tradition that would dominate so much of college football, with the Crimson Tide in the forefront.

But the Rose Bowl upset was only  the first of many notable examples of how thr  Crimson Tide has lifted both Alabama and Southern fortunes.  As a middle-aged man, I can remember how a racially integrated Crimson Tide under the tutelage and inspiration of Coach Paul “Bear Bryant” captured the imagination of black and white Alabamians and Southerners during a troubling juncture in history when my native state and the rest of the Southland was subjected to merciless derision by national elites.

To a significant degree, I remain that odd thing in Alabama: a man of divided loyalties. I spent 29 years working for one of the greatest Cooperative Extension programs at one of the greatest land-grant universities in the South and the country: Auburn University, which remains Alabama’s biggest athletic rival.

I love Auburn.  I love her traditions, and I dearly cherish her remarkable educational and athletic legacy.

But I’m a congenital Alabama fan. According to family legend, I was conceived in the Tutwiler Hotel in Birmingham after a big Alabama 21-6 upset over the Georgia Bulldogs in the fall of 1960. (Actually, given the date of my birth, that doesn’t seem right, but that’s another story entirely.)  I’m a proud alumnus of the university (MA, 1985) who also grew up as the son and grandson of former former Alabama students.  I can still remember feeling a rush of pride, if not a measure of reverence, on autumn Sunday afternoons listening to the tolling of the Denny chimes marking the start  of the Paul “Bear” Bryant Show, featuring Bryant’s play-by-play analysis of the previous day’s game.

Every Alabama home that was not deep-dyed blue and orange (Auburn’s colors) tuned in faithfully to those broadcasts. For millions of us, a connection with the Crimson Tide was inextricably bound up with a sense of being an Alabamian and even a Southerner at a time when those identities were not held in universally high regard.

Needless to say, the  University of Alabama and Crimson Tide Football have come an exceedingly long way since 1926.  The university is now deeply invested in becoming a national university, even competing favorably with elite universities such Stanford University and the University of Virginia in attracting cognitively gifted out-of-state elites into its Honors Program, partly by assuring these students and their parents that Alabama-born and bred students now comprise only a minority of the school’s enrollment.

Like most Southern flagship universities – Georgia, South Carolina and, most assuredly, Florida – the University of Alabama increasingly seems less and less discernibly Southern with each passing year.  And so, for that matter, does Crimson Tide Football.

To be sure, what self-respecting Tide fan isn’t proud of the program’s remarkable fortunes under Saban’s leadership? Saban is a profoundly intelligent and gifted individual and coach – not at all surprising considering that he majored in physics as an undergraduate. But there has always been an ersatz quality associated with the Saban legacy.  His whole demeanor is that of a polished CEO presiding over a well-established, well-heeled corporate enterprise, which, after all, is what the Crimson Tide Football has become.

As for the university’s host state, Alabama, well, it’s still dealing with a troubling historical legacy and, with it, the derision of the elites who frankly have never devoted so much as a millisecond trying to understand its immensely complicated historical legacy. It is an an enduring burden that has been felt all the more acutely recently in the aftermath of the Donald Trump upset.  Indeed, I’m still rather incensed after reading an article about the outrage that spontaneously erupted in an upscale Brooklyn organic market several days after the Trump victory when Sweet Home Alabama was played over the loudspeaker.

It’s partly the derision of these elites, I suppose, that has bonded me permanently to the University of Alabama and its hallowed football tradition. Despite the loss of their cultural moorings, the University of Alabama and Crimson Tide Football will always remain both Alabama and Southern icons to me and countless other aging Southerners.

They will always be inextricably linked with the fortunes and culture of the Alabama and the South, even if they no longer want to be.

 

Of Electoral College Coups and Popular Uprisings

19 Monday Dec 2016

Posted by Jim Langcuster in American Federalism, Mainstream Media, U.S. Politics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Donald Trump, Electoral College, Jim Langcuster, Mainstream Media, Political Uprising, Ukrainian Revolution, West Coast

ukrainian-uprising-2014

2014 Ukrainian Revolution. Reference Photo Credit 

There are a few things associated with this media-driven Electoral College spectacle that really intrigue me.

First, the electors who vote today in their respective states  have been verbally harassed and, in some cases, even threatened with bodily harm.

Imagine if electoral fortunes were reversed and Hillary had won under identical circumstances – an Electoral College victory but a popular vote deficit.  Likewise, imagine that red state Americans were engaging in the same sort of angry behavior, bombarding electors with harassing e-mails and even threatening physical harm. The Obama Administration, characterizing all this outlandish behavior as a full-blown crisis, would have fully mobilized all of the resources of the Justice Department.

Within this electoral reality, however, the President has  focused solely on the specter of Russian interference in the presidential election, which remains more speculation than hard fact, while entirely ignoring what, in constitutional terms, should be his first priority: to ensure a safe environment for the 538 individuals charged with undertaking one of this country’s most critical constitutional tasks.

Second, who among thoughtful conservatives isn’t amused by the newfound affinity of Hollywood for the Founding Fathers and the hallowed institution of the Electoral College.

Ponder this irony for a moment: The Electoral College was conceived roughly a quarter millennium ago by these reactionary white-privileged WASPS to thwart the unbridled democratic impulses – the very impulses to which the vast majority of glitterati have paid such perfervid lip service for generations, certainly since the advent of FDR’s New Deal.

Talk about elite political discourse turning on a dime!

Third, I’m shocked that mainstream media are actually indulging talk of incipient revolution – a popular uprising that could topple Trump, much the same way that Ukrainians deposed ex-President Viktor Yanukovych.

Red state Americans raised similar concerns about what could follow a Hillary Clinton presidency throughout the election cycle, and many of their arguments were valid. Clinton Foundation shenanigans, the underhanded dealings of the Democratic National Committee to throw the nomination in favor of Hillary, and the Obama Administration’s politicization of the Justice Department and intelligence gathering apparatus really pointed to a regime resembling far more a Latin American banana republic than the historic Anglo-American republic bound by an ironclad commitment to the rule of law.

Yet, imagine the outrage within the mainstream media that would follow if the the specter of an popular insurgency were raised by right-leaning news sources and opinionators in the aftermath of a Hillary victory.  And to add an extra layer of irony to all of this: These are the same people who are devoting serious discussion to the topic secession, now that West Coast progressives have evinced an interest in the topic.

Fourth and finally, I am no less intrigued by the lengths to which the New York Times and other elite media have underscored the smallness of the Trump win.  Quite conveniently, as as the Electoral College meets today in state capitals throughout the country,  the New York Times posted an article with considerable graphic enhancement illustrating that Trump’s electoral victory ranks 46th among 58 presidential elections.  The Times stresses that among presidential victors Trump edges out only the rock-bottomed ranked Rutherford B. Hayes and John Quincy Adams in his popular vote share.

Yet, there is really nothing small at all about this election outcome when one considers it within the wider context of American  political history.  The biggest political maverick among all presidential contenders, minimized, scorned and denigrated by elites as the mouthpiece of the most socially and culturally marginalized segment of the electorate – Flyover Americans – overcame a series of what were considered at the time mortal blows to win what will likely be recalled by historians as the biggest political upset in American history.

In that respect, Trump’s victory was not a small one, not by a long shot.

The only other presidential maverick/victor who comes anywhere close to this electoral upset is Andrew Jackson.  And almost two centuries since Jackson’s victory, we still recall how he completely re-sifted the American political and cultural landscape.

Donald Trump presents an immediate, perhaps even mortal, threat to the interests of the American ruling class.  And I believe it’s this existential threat that accounts for all this talk within Establishment media of Electoral College coups and popular uprisings.

Richard Florida’s Nine Precepts of Devolution

17 Saturday Dec 2016

Posted by Jim Langcuster in Devolution, Federalism, Localism, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Devolution, Donald Trump, Federalism, Jim Langcuster, Localism, Richard Florida

richard-florida

Richard Florida, urban studies expert and best-selling author.  Photo: Courtesy of Jere Keys.

I’ve maintained for some time that American devolution will not be taken seriously until prominent public intellectuals on the left endorse it. One of my decentrist liberal friends in New England,  (@ethnobot), pointed me to a series of tweets by Dr. Richard Florida (@Richard_Florida), an urban studies expert and best-selling author who has written extensively on the nature and promise of the urban creative class.

Florida recently tweeted what could be accurately described as 9 precepts of devolution and localism.

Note that Florida, too, perceives the divisions between red and blue America as being essentially intractable, though he still holds out hope that some form of peaceful coexistence can be maintained. However, he believes that this can be achieved by what he calls “massive devolution,” reflected by a “re-tuned federalism,” though with a heavy bipartisan emphasis on devolving as much power as possible to localities.

Frankly, I couldn’t agree more.

Incidentally, I also wholeheartedly agree with his characterization of the U.S presidency, which I think is long overdue for a complete re-tooling, perhaps along the lines of Ireland’s, Germany’s and Israel’s monarchical presidential models or, at the very least, France’s bifurcated model.

Following are Richard’s 9 devolution precepts:

1. The problem runs way, way way deeper than Trump.

2. The problem is nation-state & imperial presidency that has far, far too much power & is out of sync with clustered knowledge capitalism.

3. The problem is a nation that is terribly divided & cannot be put back together …

4. The problem is a nation that has now been taken over not just by Trump but by the taker class of finance & resources …

5. The only way out I can see lies in massive devolution of power & local empowerment across multiple scales – neighborhood, city, metro…

6. American federalism is a powerful & dynamic instrument that can be re-tuned for our new age of geographic concentration & division.

7. The two America’s can find a way to live together – a mutual coexistence.

8. The only true alternative & opposition to Trumpism I can see is a broad partisan coalition for local empowerment …

9. Compare Jerry Brown’s speech to anything said by national level politicians … Mayors can be even more effective …

A Libertarian Perspective on Donald Trump

16 Friday Dec 2016

Posted by Jim Langcuster in Mainstream Media, U.S. Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Jim Langcuster, Llewellyn Rockwell, MARs, Middle American Radicals, The U.S. Political Class

lew-rockwell

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.. Photo: Courtesy of Gage Skidmore.

I’ll preface my acclaim for Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr.’s most recent praise of Donald Trump with this disclaimer: Rockwell is on the PropORNot blacklist –  whatever the hell PropOrNot is – though Rockwell would be the first to consider that listing as something akin to placement in a hall of fame in defense of traditional American liberty.

Aside from that, much of what Rockwell relates in this article is quite valid, at least, from my vantage point.

For starters, the Establishment media’s claim that a Donald Trump presidency will leave in its wake the utter wreckage of the New Deal and Great Society programs is utterly uniformed within the context of the last 50 years of U.S. political history.

MARs, the Middle American Radicals who provided the margin for Trump’s upset are not anti-entitlement. Quite the contrary: the MARs backbone is comprised of working-class whites who have always been favorably disposed to entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare.

No, the part about Trump’s base that frightens the willies out of the U.S. political class – and should, frankly – is that MARs regard the U.S. ruling class with the same profound and unmitigated contempt with which the elites regard them. And this deep contempt presents a potentially mortal threat to everything this class holds dear – all the major sources of coercion and control on which they rely: the federal courts, the federal bureaucracy, open borders, the #CorruptMedia monopoly, and left-wing academia, to name only a few.

From his perspective as a libertarian, Rockwell concedes that the Trump presidency will be characterized by its share of “statist idiocy and outrages,” as have all U.S. presidencies  to one degree or another within the last century.  Even so, he contends that the Trump era potentially could go a long way toward awakening the public mind to true nature of the elite institutions that “have poisoned the public mind against liberty.”

 In the view of many Americans, not just libertarians, that is precisely why elite media, academia and entertainment are characterizing  Donald Trump as the greatest threat to the American Republic since Aaron Burr.

Russia: A Geo-Political Paper Tiger

15 Thursday Dec 2016

Posted by Jim Langcuster in Geo-Politics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Demographics, Donald Trump, Election Hacking, Jim Langcuster, Politics, Russia, Soviet Union, Vladimir Putin

russian-presidential-standards

Presidential Standard of the Russian Federation

Whether or not Russia hackers influenced the presidential election, I, a mere layman in geopolitical terms, will venture out on a limb and assert my genuine doubts that Russia poses a dire threat to American liberty or geopolitical security.

Russia is a basket case, a shell of its former self.  And that speaks volumes about the current state of the Russian Federation because even in its earlier guise as the Soviet Union and the seat of global socialist revolution it was little more than “painted rust,” to borrow a phrase from the Cold War movie classic “The Good Shepherd.” With 35-year hindsight, the late West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt’s characterization of the old Soviet Union as “Upper Volta with missles” was really spot on. Uruguay with computer hacks is arguably an apt description of 21st century Russia. 

 

Russia arguably doesn’t even match the old Soviet Union in its soft-power capacity, ranking below tiny Finland in at least one international survey. Appealing to a universal egalitarian ideology, the Soviet Union at least posed a serious threat to the United States and the West within much of the developing world. The present hidebound, counterrevolutionary doctrine of Putin’s Russia has little, if any, appeal outside its borders.

 

Russia possesses a GDP smaller than that of New York State, but its population is in a deep downward spiral. Demographers predict a further steep population decline from the present 144 million to 120 million by mid-century.

To complicate matters, in a few more decades, ethnic Russians will be outnumbered by other ethnic groups. Moreover, Russia already is dealing with a serious illegal immigration problem from China. Some 2 million Chinese currently reside illegally in Russia, mostly in the vastly underpopulated region of Siberia. Some geopolitical experts have even speculated that China, which already deeply invested economically in Siberia, ultimately may attempt to annex large swaths of the region, to which it has maintained longstanding territorial claims.

 

Under the circumstances, there’s every reason to speculate that the Russia Federation will implode much as its Soviet predecessor did in 1991.

 

Aside from its nuclear arsenal, Russia’s antiquated military sector poses little threat to the United States. Indeed, in geopolitical terms, the United States holds virtually all the cards. In the event of an international showdown, we have to the capacity to inflict all manner of misery on this beleaguered country, including seizing the assets of Putin and his cronies, interdicting Russia’s trade – roughly 40 percent of its food supply is imported – and wreaking havoc within its communications sector.

 

With Putin, we are dealing with a desperate man whose only hope is to hold a fraying,if not terminally ill, society together by struggling to maintain the illusion among his people that Russia remains a significant global power.

 

Yes, there is some evidence, albeit still speculative at this stage, that Russia hacking influenced the 2016 presidential election. And if this is true, the United States has every right to retaliate through economic sanctions and other measured responses.

I wonder, though:  Given Russia’s desperate condition, is it possible that this 21st century paper tiger deliberately being inflated into something bigger, actually much bigger than it really is?  Is it possible that sick, pathetic Russia is serving, however unwittingly, as the basis for a new form of McCathyism, one cooked up as an act of desperation by U.S. elites who perceive an even bigger threat to their vital interests: a Donald Trump presidency?

Perhaps all will be revealed over time – but then, perhaps not.

One Reason Why Trump Still Trumps Clinton

13 Tuesday Dec 2016

Posted by Jim Langcuster in U.S. Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

CIA, Corruption, Donald Trump, Electoral College, Jim Langcuster, John Podesta, Justice Department

donald-trump-stunnedClinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta’s endorsement of an effort to provide Electoral College members with an intelligence briefing regarding Russia’s alleged efforts to influence the presidential election a mere week ahead of official balloting aptly illustrates why I very reluctantly supported Donald Trump instead of casting a vote for Gary Johnson.  As in previous elections, I had planned to support the Libertarian Party nominee as a protest vote against the entire corrupt political and electoral system.

Yet, I ended up fearing the Democrats even more than Trump partly because of what seems like a headlong rush to politicize this nation’s law enforcement and security apparatus.

As this article contends, there has been very little concern within the Obama administration until recently about cyber terrorism. Now the CIA, very conveniently it would seem, has supplied a rationale for a thorough-going of investigation of Russian hacking only days before the electoral count occurs.

Will all of this Electoral College strategy affect the outcome of the vote? Likely not. But it will work – again, rather conveniently it would seem – to undermine the legitimacy of the 45th president.

Yes, to a degree, this sort of dirty pool must be accepted as one of the operating costs of politics in 21st century America and in an unusually acrimonious election cycle. Even so, the fact that the CIA has possibly been enlisted as an active agent in this partisanship is deeply disturbing to me as it should be to all Americans.

No More Lecturing about Blacklisting

11 Sunday Dec 2016

Posted by Jim Langcuster in American History, Mainstream Media, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Blacklisting, Donald Trump, Election 2016, Fake News, Hillary Clinton, Jim Langcuster, McCarthyism, PropOrNot, Russian propagandists, The Washington Post

joseph-mccarthy
Wisconsin Sen. Joseph McCarthy

The Daily Beast’s title pretty much summarizes the situation: The Washington Post has placed itself, however unwittingly, on a fake news hot seat.  And it may emerge from this debacle not only with a badly reddened backside but also with a deeply tarnished reputation.

By now, most informed Americans know the drill: A Post article published over the Thanksgiving holidays maintains that deft Russian propagandists have actively colluded with or deluded certain news U.S. news sources to disseminate fake news and with the goal of destabilizing American democracy and, in the course of which, undermining Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and electing Donald Trump.

Several of the news sites targeted by the article are enraged and threatening legal action.

The focus of the outrage stems from the Post’s use of a highly specious and secretive source, PropOrNot, whose media blacklist was posted online only a few days after the group launched its Twitter feed, according to The Daily Beast.

From my prospective, what has transpired almost exceeds the bounds of belief. As a late Baby Boomer, I was brought up within an educational environment in which the whole premise of blacklisting was roundly condemned and characterized as one of the more odious penchants of the American Right.

Now, of all people, The Washington Post, which built a journalistic legacy reporting on and condemning McCarthyist blacklists and Nixonian enemies lists, appears to have employed slipshod journalism – if this even qualifies as conventional journalism – to construct a blacklist of its own.

In the aftermath of all of this, I’ll say this to my liberal friends and acquaintances and left-wing posters to this site: Please don’t lecture me anymore about the authoritarian proclivities of the right unless you are willing to concede an inconvenient truth, namely that the left-leaning Establishment appears to harbor a few authoritarian aspirations of its own.

Alexander Stephens, Red State Progenitor?

10 Saturday Dec 2016

Posted by Jim Langcuster in American Federalism, American History, U.S. Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Alexander Stephens, Civil War, Confederacy, Confederate Constitution, Flyover Country, Georgia, Heartland, Jim Langcuster, Red States, secession

heartland-america

Alexander Stephens’ America.  That’s one way of looking at Red State America.

It’s remarkable how Stephens, a Georgia Whig U.S. congressman who would later serve as vice president of the Confederate States, really wasn’t a Confederate sympathizer to any significant degree.  He came to Montgomery very reluctantly as a delegate from Georgia to the Confederate Constitutional Convention, entrusted with helping draft both the Provisional and Permanent Constitutions of the the embryonic Southern confederation.

He was not only a Whig but also an FOL (friend of Abraham Lincoln, actually a very close friend of Lincoln). And to add an extra layer of irony to his legacy, Stephens at heart was also a deep-dyed unionist who had opposed secession.  Like Robert E. Lee, he cast his lot with the Southern cause only because he considered his first allegiance to lie with his beloved Georgia, which, much to Stephens’ regret, had withdrawn from the American Union and chosen to confederate with the other Southern Gulf states.

How did he intend to re-engineer this American reunification? By insisting that the Confederate Constitution include a provision to allow the admission of free states. Because of the Mississippi River, which still provided the most efficacious means for transporting agricultural and manufactured goods, Stephens was confident that hard economic realities ultimately would force the Old Northwest (the present-day Midwest)  to leave the American Union and confederate with the Southern Gulf States.

In essence, Stephen hoped that most of the Union, sans the Northeast, eventually would coalesce around the new Confederate Constitution.  This new charter would function not as the charter for a Southern Confederacy but as the basis for a reconstituted American Union.

It is amazing how this map, currently circulating on Twitter, reflected Stephens’ vision of a reconstituted American Union.

In a sense, he anticipated Red State America a full 150 years in advance.

The Belching, Flatulent Elephant in the American Living Room

09 Friday Dec 2016

Posted by Jim Langcuster in Federalism, U.S. Politics

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

C, Donald Trump, Election 2016, Jim Langcuster, Sanctuary Cities, Sanctuary States, States Rights

elephant

Photo Courtesy of Mister-E.

The editorial chutzpah of the mainstream media – The New York Times,  The Washington Post, and CNN, in particular – never fails to amaze me.

Earlier this week, a New York Times editorial writer discussed the “last ditch effort” that would involve electors stepping up to deny Donald Trump the presidency – remarkable talk in the pages of a news entity that purports to be the national newspaper of record.

Imagine for a moment if the tables were turned and Hillary had won the presidency under similar circumstances – an Electoral College victory but with a popular vote deficit. Any talk of denying her the presidency through some Electoral College ploy would be  laughed right out of an NYT Editorial Board meeting as muddle-headed right-wing idiocy and  condemned as the rankest expression of  hate mongering and authoritarianism.

But there seems to be a lot of  surprising talk among the mainstream media in recent weeks, notably regarding state sovereignty issues.

Today, for example, the NYT Editorial Board expressed its solidarity with California’s desire “not to be an accomplice to deportation.”

Amazing, isn’t it? Now that the tables are turned, frank discussions about federal power are remarkably in vogue – in the “national newspapers of record, of all places –  but only so long as they relate to the grievances of blue states.   I caught myself simultaneously laughing out loud and shaking my head in disbelief watching California Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren bemoan the Electoral College outcome in a recent congressional hearing. She even conceded that secession has ascended to respectable levels of discourse  now that citizens in respectable blue states such as California and Oregon were contemplating it.

Don’t misunderstand me.  I am hoping fervently that this blue-state resistance against President Trump unfolds with zeal.  It has the potential to open up a serious national dialogue about the future of federalism.

Moreover, these recently expressed blue state grievances reflect what a deeply divided nation we are. If all this acrimonious discussion talk about standing up to a Trump presidency reveals one thing, it’s that  we are far too big and diverse a nation to be governed any longer by a federal model conceived more than century ago in the Industrial Age by progressive centralizers.  To put it another way, imposing a one-size-fits-all domestic policy on a country characterized by this much ethnic, cultural and political diversity is sheer madness.

 There, I’ve said it.

But let’s not forget that there would be little, if any, discussion of these issues if Hillary Clinton had emerged the victor last month.

That’s the disturbing part to all of this as I see it.   Federalism, until now, at least, has remained off  limits, simply because the “right” kind of people – the political leadership in the blue states – have been unwilling to discuss it.  But I am holding out hope that Americans on both sides of the great political divide have finally begun to see the federal impasse for what it is:  the big belching, flatulent elephant in the American living room.

Last Chance to Dump Trump

08 Thursday Dec 2016

Posted by Jim Langcuster in U.S. Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Donald Trump, Electoral College, Jim Langcuster, U.S. Presidency

trump-gesticulating

Photo: Courtesy of Gage Skidmore.

The recount attempts in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania are not yielding any prospects for a Hillary Clinton victory, so the left is holding out the forlorn hope that enough U.S. electors will bolt to deny Trump the presidency.

The New York Times editorial writer Elizabeth Williamson reports that one Texas elector has publicly stated his intention to ignore the popular verdict of his state and cast his vote for someone else.  Apparently, this has provided some on the left with at least a faint glimmer of hope.

Honestly, I’m surprised this is even being discussed, if only halfway seriously, in a source that purports to be the newspaper of record.  If Hillary had won under similar circumstances, conservative talk of denying her the presidency through some Electoral College ploy would be (1). laughed right out of an NYT Editorial Board meeting as muddle-headed right-wing idiocy or (2). condemned as the rankest expression of right-wing hate mongering and authoritarianism.

Yet, in what will likely be remembered as one of the most remarkable rhetorical turnarounds in U.S. political history, the left seems to be indulging in a lot of “wild” talk regarding secession, even though, until recently, at least, it has characterized such talk on the right as reckless, hateful speech.

← Older posts

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • February 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • June 2018
  • March 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • February 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016

Categories

  • Alabama History
  • American Education
  • American Federalism
  • American History
  • Brexit
  • Censorship
  • Christianity
  • Conservatism
  • Devolution
  • Federalism
  • Geo-Politics
  • Imperial Decline
  • Localism
  • Mainstream Media
  • Nullification
  • oligarchy
  • Patriotism
  • Red-State Faith
  • secession
  • Secularism
  • Southern Athletics
  • Southern History
  • The Passing Scene
  • U.S. Politics
  • Uncategorized

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in

Website Powered by WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • Ruby Red Republic
    • Join 26 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Ruby Red Republic
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...