• Introduction
  • About Ruby Red Republic
  • Contact
  • Blog

Ruby Red Republic

~ Thoughts on Red States and "Deplorables."

Ruby Red Republic

Category Archives: American History

An Alternative George Wallace

06 Wednesday Dec 2017

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Alabama, Conservatism, George Wallace, Governor of Alabama, Jim Langcuster, Politics, Southern History

George-Wallace-Portrait1An image of George Wallace turned up on my Facebook news feed yesterday. Seven years ago, I posted a photo along with speculation about how George Wallace’s political career would have turned out of he had somehow managed to chart a different course during the segregationist era. He was a moderate Democrat at heart with no serious animus toward blacks and no seriously vested interest in segregation – at least, no more than the average white Southerner of the time.

I’ve written many times about the Wallace legacy – I find him one of the most fascinating and enigmatic political figures in Southern and U.S. history – and I’ll probably keep thinking and writing about him for the rest of my life.  He was not only a gifted politician but also an uncharacteristically intelligent one.  He was also a visionary who transformed American politics despite coming from what was considered by pundits to be a provincial backwater.

He started out no conservative. His former close friend and fellow University of Alabama law student, U.S. Judge Frank Johnson, once related that arguing with Wallace essentially amounted to debating a New Deal socialist.

As a student at the University of Alabama, Wallace was an outsider.  His idol was Carl Elliott, a wonder kid from my native Alabama county of Franklin who worked his way through Alabama and eventually was elected student body president, beating the student establishment know as “The Machine,” which exists to this day.   Elliot is remembered as one of Alabama’s most progressive-leaning Alabama congressmen.

Wallace was a Democratic Party stalwart who refused to bolt the 1948 Democratic Convention over the party’s proposed civil rights plank in the party’s platform. As an Alabama circuit judge, he cultivated a reputation for affording black litigants courteous treatment in his courtroom. His bitter defeat in 1958 at the hands of John Patterson changed all of this, driving him to become an ardent segregationist.

In a very real sense he sold his political soul for the sake of political expediency.

I’ve always wondered how differently the Wallace legacy would have been if our 45th Alabama governor had somehow managed not to carry the segregationist legacy.

Moreover, I have also wondered about how differently Wallace’s fortunes may have turned out if he had avoided an assassination attempt. Would he have brokered some sort of John Connally-style arrangement with Nixon, perhaps even serving in a cabinet post? Could he have prevented Jimmy Carter’s assent in 1976? All of these historical what if’s are the grounds of lots of fascinating historical speculation.

Many American Republics Instead of One?

25 Saturday Nov 2017

Posted by Jim Langcuster in American Federalism, American History, Devolution, Federalism, The Passing Scene, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Civil War 2017, Jim Langcuster, National Divisions, secession, Thomas Jefferson

Thomas-Jefferson2

Thomas Jefferson

The American Thinker recently painted a disturbing picture of the American future.  We are embroiled in a Civil War – for now, a cold one, though one that bears many hallmarks of one that eventually could run hot.

And from my perspective as a conservative, the left seems implacably opposed to compromise.  And why shouldn’t it be?  They control most of the institutions that define cultural hegemony:  the mainstream media, the arts, popular entertainment and higher education, not to mention, elements of the so-called Deep State.   As I have argued in this forum many times, a Democratic victory last year would have sealed its victory.

The rancorous divisions in this country have prompted some thoughts about an observation Jefferson offered throughout the post-revolutionary period of American history. He presumed that this continent was too big to encompass one American nation. He expected that settlers, as they spanned across broad American continent, would establish several republics, though all of them would share mutual affinities.

That was not to be.  As it turned out, our forebears essentially hewed a kind of middle way between the ideals of Jefferson and his arch ideological rival, Alexander Hamilton. We have tended to place great emphasis on the Jeffersonian fixation with individual liberties, while tacking more closely to the Hamiltonian ideal of a centralized federal union.

And I wonder: Could the case be made that this push toward centralization has simply prolonged the inevitable? Isn’t it natural for a country this big to develop distinct regional identities, even fissiparous ones? Would we be getting along better on this sprawling continent if we had been allowed to develop several polities, albeit with strong shared mutual affinities?

Rehabilitating Reagan, Bush and Other GOP Chuckleheads

24 Tuesday Oct 2017

Posted by Jim Langcuster in American History, The Passing Scene, U.S. Politics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Dwight Eisenhower, Establishment Media, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, I.Q., Intelligence Quotient, Jim Langcuster, Media, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, U.S. Presidents

Ronald-ReaganWhy should we find it at all surprising?

George W. Bush, our 43rd president, once written off by the pundits and comedic agit/prop of the ruling class as the biggest presidential cipher since Warren Gamaliel Harding, is now portrayed as a thoughtful former president and statesman, one whose ruminations even should be taken seriously.

Yes, folks, in less than a generation, George W. Bush, once excoriated as the greatest menace to liberty and decency since, well, Ronald Reagan a generation earlier, has finally undergone rehabilitation.

But, again, why should we be surprised?

The current occupant of the White House, Donald J. Trump – Potus45, as he’s known in Twitter parlance – has been characterized as the greatest presidential menace since, well, Potus 43, George W. Bush.  So, the Establishment media, in true Soviet-style, had deemed it appropriate to upstage Trump with Bush, much as Dubyah was upstaged by Reagan, whom the media once excoriated as history’s most conspicuous presidential empty shirt.

Indeed, almost two generations ago, Ronald Reagan, now regarded as one of the most successful presidents of the 20th century, sat approximately where Donald J. Trump does today.  He was characterized as an entirely new presidential phenomenon, one lacking intellectual heft – half-educated, a bit gauche and provincial –  not only intellectually limited but a dire threat to the safety of planet Earth.   In fact, some media pundits characterized the former actor as the greatest existential threat to the planet since his intellectual godfather, Goldwater, the 1964 GOP nominee, who incidentally, was also dismissed as a reactionary chowderhead.

And I  still recall the large collection of Reaganite malapropisms the Establishment media compiled to support all these characterizations.

Today, though, Ronald Reagan is lionized by the Establishment media as the embodiment of Republican presidential statesmanship – a man who “grew” into the job.

Also telling to me is how media pundits resort to speculating about the I.Q. differences between Republican and Democratic presidents, especially during presidential campaigns.

In fact, have you ever noticed how the left, a political tradition supposedly wedded to egalitarianism, almost seems obsessed with the subject of a I.Q.’s and scholastic attainment, especially in terms of how this relates to Republicans presidents?

A few yeas ago, the media reported extensively on a study compiled by University of California-Davis professor that projects the I.Q.’s of every U.S. president since Washington.  The study ranked John F. Kennedy, with a projected I.Q. of 158, as the third most intellectually gifted chief executive, just behind Thomas Jefferson.  Bill Clinton, with a projected I.Q. of 156, came in fourth.

That is an interesting assessment, considering that Kennedy tested out with a bright but far from singular I.Q. of 117 at Choate Academy, his secondary school.  By contrast, Richard Nixon, his GOP opponent in the 1960 presidential election, scored a genius-level I.Q. of 143 while a student at Whittier High School.

Interestingly,  perhaps tellingly, Nixon does not rank among  the 15 smartest U.S. president in this survey, nor does any other 20th century Republican president, with the exception of the GOP maverick Theodore Roosevelt.  However, five Democratic presidents do: Kennedy, Clinton, Carter, Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.

Yet, one can make the strong case that the 20th century produced some unusually cognitively gifted Republican presidents.

Herbert Hoover was a Stanford graduate who became conversant, if not fluent, in Mandarin while he lived in China. He was considered the Bill Gates and Elon Musk of his generation – the greatest logistical planner in the world, though his personality was, to be sure, somewhat mordant and colorless, which proved the kiss of death to his presidential fortunes.

Dwight Eisenhower not only ranked first in his class in the Army’s Command and General Staff College but also attained the Army’s equivalent of the doctorate upon completing the War College. Moreover, he oversaw  the planning and execution of the most complicated military alliance in history – not to mention, the most logistically complex land invasion in history.  As President, Ike undertook a thorough modernization of the White House national security structure. He is now increasing ranked by scholars as a great or near-great president.

And I would be remiss if I did not return briefly to our 37th president, Richard Nixon, who not only tested with a genius-level I.Q. at Whittier High School but also was admitted to Harvard, though he was unable to raise the money to support himself.  He excelled at Whittier College and later graduated from Duke University Law School on a full scholarship. Among other achievements, he significantly altered the geopolitical balance of power through his brilliantly conceived and executed China strategy.

It’s also worth pointing out that George H.W. Bush, frequently depicted by the media during his presidency as an airhead and an egregious violator of English syntax, was a Phi Beta Kappa economics graduate of Yale University and also served in the cognitively demanding role of director of the Central Intelligence Agency, not only overseeing intelligence efforts over a global scale but also managing employees who had taken a demanding cognitive exam to serve in the agency.

Sorry for this long history lesson.  But I do think it’s an instructive and enlightening way of illustrating how the Establishment media are constantly engaged in cultural warfare, even if this involves departing occasionally from egalitarian orthodoxy to call the cognitive capacity of conservative presidents into question or to alter history by elevating previously discredited Republican presidents at the expense of others, typically the sitting one.

Why Is Secession Such a Terrible Word?

13 Friday Oct 2017

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Articles of Confederation, Catalonia, Federalism, Jim Langcuster, John Stossel, Localism, secession, Thomas Jefferson, U.S. Constitution

John-Stossel

Libertarian pundit and author John Stossel. Photo: Courtesy of Gage Skidmore.

Libertarian author and pundit John Stossel is mystified by all the smack talk about secession.

“Why do so many people see secession as such a terrible thing?” he asks.

Stossel cites the recent Catalonian push for secession, stressing that the struggle is about Catalans taking charge of their own affairs.  As he stresses, no government is perfect, but local governments, generally speaking, are “more responsive to the needs of constituents.” Moreover, by keeping government closer to home, citizens secure a greater likelihood of keeping their governments under close watch.

So, why all the agonizing over secession? he asks.

Short answer:  because the people in charge of big governments are seldom willing to give up power.

I wholeheartedly agree with Stossel: Why is secession such a terribly unspeakable word among so many of us? As he stresses, secession is by no means alien to the American experience. Indeed, the United States is an outgrowth of a secession struggle against the British Empire.

But I wonder: How many of us are aware that the the post-constitutional United States is a product of secession, too?

Madison once referred to this secession as the “delicate truth” behind the current American union. In effect, 11 states seceded from the union of states founded on the Articles of Confederation to form the present union. Recall that Rhode Island and North Carolina had refused to accede to the new Constitution and were still out of the union when George Washington took the oath as the first president of the United States on March 4, 1789.

Quite a few of our Founding Fathers never lost their enduring affection for small governments. A few of our Founding Fathers even had a hard time envisioning a nation the size of the present-day United States.  Writing to Dr. Joseph Priestly on January 29, 1804, Thomas Jefferson observed:

Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children and descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty and the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.

I concluded a long time ago that the American Experiment has essentially amounted to a forlorn attempt to force one part of the country to meld culturally and politically into the rest. And it hasn’t happened – not after almost a quarter of a millennium. Yes, I would like to see us soldier on as looser federation sharing common market and defense.  There are legitimate geopolitical threats, after all.  But this business of forcing a nation as geographically and culturally diverse as the United States to march in ideological lockstep is madness, sheer madness.

A Republic of Pluralism

10 Tuesday Oct 2017

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Calexit, Federalism, First Amendment, Incorporation Doctrine, Jim Langcuster, Second Vermont Republic, Texas Nationalist Movement

vermont-flag

The Green Mountain Boys flag: The past and future flag of the Vermont Republic?  Photo: Courtesy of Amber Kincaid.

A social media conversation this morning prompted a few thoughts on the egregious lack of pluralism that characterizes America in the 21st century.

One poster observed that the white nationalist provocateur Richard Spencer is attempting another visit to Charlottesville, apparently with the intention of stirring up yet another racial hornets nest.

Yet, as another poster stressed, the University of Virginia, as a public institution that receives substantial federal funds, can’t easily refuse his request to stage another protest.

I’m no legal scholar, but it seems to me that we can ascribe the university’s predicament to the Incorporation Doctrine.  The Bill of Rights originally applied only to the federal government.  It was extended to the states only through  incorporation, which was made possible by passage of the 14th Amendment. (Check me on this, but I believe I stand on solid ground.)

In time, I suspect the courts will formulatr some kind of compelling needs doctrine, which establishes some threshold for requests such as these, where there is the real risk of violence. Indeed, I presume that provisions such as these already are in place.

At this point, I feel compelled to offer a disclaimer: I am a free-speech purist – I think that open, robust speech is not only healthy but also vital to a free, open society.  But I also think that the prospect of federal authority extending its clammy fingers into every facet of American life is a grievous and dangerous thing and one that the Founders – the vast majority of them, at least – would have found abhorrent.

I am also as much a proponent for pluralism as free speech. Our Founders – certainly Jefferson – envisioned a very pluralistic “republic of republics” in which the state republics would conceive their own individual visions of ordered liberty.  While congenial to prevailing notions of liberty, these also would be adapted to local cultural, social and religious realities.

I’ll add a final disclaimer: I am as fervent a proponent as incrementalism as I am free speech and pluralism.   It seems to me that barring an Incorporation Doctrine all of the states in time would have adopted some degree of legal uniformity regarding free speech.  The openness required of federalism and a American common market would have necessitated such uniformity over time.

I know: I come off sounding like a  reactionary and a constitutional fossil – a so-called paleofederalist.  Most Americans would contend that we have moved far past that that quaint, bygone era when states functioned with many of the attributes of nationhood.  But Calexit, Texit, the Second Vermont Republic and other incipient sovereignty movements emerging across the breadth of America may be changing all of this.

The California National Party, which comprises one pillar of the California independence movement, seems to be demanding a new vision of democracy, constitutional law and identity that runs counter to much of the rest of the nation.

Who knows where all of this will lead?  These incipient autonomy movements may be pointing to a return to the original founding vision of American federalism. Maybe we ultimately will return to a constitutional arrangement in which states, at least, some states, will function as genuine sovereign states, with many of the hallmarks of nationhood.

Time will tell.

Why We Should Celebrate Columbus’ Legacy

09 Monday Oct 2017

Posted by Jim Langcuster in American History, The Passing Scene, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

American History, Christopher Columbus, Columbus Day, Jim Langcuster, Networks, Political Correctness

columbusWhat I’m going to say may come as a shock to some of you: Columbus discovered America!

He did in a very real sense.

He connected the Western Hemisphere, which, for all intents and purposes, was an isolated cultural backwater, with the comparatively more open and advanced culture of the West.  By doing so, he changed the course of human history.

I tend to relate the course of human progress with the expansion of networks. Westerners are credited – at least, they should be credited – with creating the densest and, consequently, the most generative network in human history.  And many of thes achievements associated with the West stem from the courage and farsightedness of Christopher Columbus.  By connecting the Americas with the West, he ensured that the connections already occurring within the comparatively free and open societies of western Europe would occur at significantly higher volumes and faster rates.

I posted a brief tribute to Columbus on my Facebook page today and a friend pointed out that modern animus towards him reflects a wider hatred for the legacy of the West.  He’s right, of course.

All of this animus towards Columbus strikes me as nonsensical and even comedic.  But for the efforts of Columbus and the comparative openness of the culture out of which he sprang, there would be very few prosperous and literate people around to critique the explorer’s legacy.

So, Happy Columbus Day, folks.

Calhoun’s Spirit Alive and Well in California

05 Thursday Oct 2017

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

California, Catalonia, Decentrism, European Union, James Madison, Jim Langcuster, John C. Calhoun, Nullification, Sanctuary State, Spain, States Rights, Thomas Jefferson

Elites are apparently having a hard time coping with the phenomenon of “identity awakening.”

In a recent column, Ramón Luis Valcárcel, vice-president of the European Parliament, follows a predictable path: Catalonian nationalists are “undemocratic” – they even evince authoritarian traits – and threaten the peace of Europe (even though they aspire to be a part of the European Union). Indeed, he goes so far to contend that secession doesn’t even constitute a legitimate undertaking in a state that meets all of the hallmarks of a democratic one (Spain, in this case). And, of course, add to that the suspicion of Russian collusion – the secessionists are “aided by pro-Russian bots of the stature of Julian Assange.”

I was also a bit taken aback by the use of “deplorable” early in the text.

Finally, the writer conveniently forgets that the vaunted Spanish experience, while purportedly democratic now, carries the painful memories of Francoism, during which Spanish national identity was rammed down Catalan throats.

Yet, I suppose we can derive some solace from what has just transpired in blue-state California, where Gov. Jerry Brown just signed a bill into law establishing California as a sanctuary state.

It appears that decentralist tailwinds are sweeping all over the world.

The greatest of all national centralizers,  Old Abe Lincoln,  must be rolling in his grave. With the signing of this bill, America seems to have come full circle to the spirit of Jefferson, Madison, and yes, perish the thought, John C. Calhoun, the ultimate red-state deplorable and the philosopher of nullification doctrine.

But that’s okay.  Old habits die hard, and despite all the best efforts and fervent wishing of the European and American ruling classes, the basic human passion for local affinity and identity invariably trumps – no pun intended –  centralism.

As a close friend of mine brilliantly observed, sooner or later everyone eventually embraces his or her inner Calhoun.

 

 

Jeff Sessions and the Stool of Everlasting Southern Repentance

09 Thursday Feb 2017

Posted by Jim Langcuster in American Federalism, American History, Conservatism, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Attorney General, Clarence Thomas, Hugo Black, Jeff Sessions, Jim Langcuster, Southerners, Supreme Court, The Left

jeff-sessions

Attorney General Jeff Sessions

I’ve said before that as a proud Southerner, I struggle sometimes with being an American – and the brouhaha over Attorney General Jeff Sessions is one of many reasons why.

I really wonder how much of the Senate and Establishment media opposition to Sessions occurred simply because he was a conservative Alabamian and a Southerner. For as long as the left reigns culturally in this country, white Southerners with conservative leanings, which, frankly, represent the vast majority of these Southerners, will be expected to remain on their stools of everlasting repentance, it seems.

And as I have argued before, this really is a disgrace, especially considering the disproportionate role Southerners, particularly working-class Southerners, serve in protecting this country’s national security interests all over the world.

I think that it’s also worth pointing out that with the exception of Justice Thomas, who spent most of his life outside the South, no other Southerner sits on the Supreme Court and hasn’t for generations. Throughout most of the history of the United States, there was an attempt to maintain at least the semblance of geographical diversity on the Supreme Court.  But since 2014, the Court is composed of a majority from the Northeastern United States, with seven justices coming from states to the north and east of Washington, D.C.

The last white Southerner to serve in the U.S. Supreme Court was Justice Hugo Black of Alabama.

Shortly after Black’s passing, President Richard Nixon opens a cultural hornet’s nest when he attempted to nominate two Southerners to the Court, Clement Haynesworth of South Carolina, and G. Harrold Carswell of Georgia.

The Unpalatable American Truth about Secession

01 Wednesday Feb 2017

Posted by Jim Langcuster in American History, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Articles of Confederation, Calexit, Constitutional Ratification, Devolution, Jim Langcuster, secession, U.S. Constitution

washington-first-inauguration

Washington’s First Inauguration in 1789.  He initially presided over 11 states, as North Carolina and Rhode Island had not yet acceded to the new Union.

It’s one of the great and, for many left-leaning Americans, unpalatable facts associated with American history.

And this great and unpalatable fact was raised, however unwittingly, by Georgetown University School of Law Professor David Super in a recent discussion of the Convention of States effort.  As Super stresses, the Founders broke the law during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution by abandoning the Articles of Confederation to form a new national compact under a new Constitution. How? By ignoring the provision in the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union that required not only the approval of the Congress of the United States but also the unanimous consent of all of the states before any revision of the Articles could occur.

The Delegates’ Commission under the Articles of Confederation

Bear in mind that delegates commissioned to represent their states at the convention in Philadelphia were “solely and expressly” charged with the task of revising the Articles of Confederation, not with drafting an entirely new framework of government.

Over the course of discussing the intractable limitations associated with the Articles, though, the delegates concluded that simple revision was an impractical goal.  Redressing their acute limitations would require a whole new written charter, one that likely would not be accepted by all the states.

So the delegates resolved to draft an entirely new Constitution, though one that would require the formal assent  of only three-fourths of the states for it to go into effect. Eleven States eventually ratified the new constitution in the intervening twenty months between the convention delegates’ signing of the new charter and the inauguration of George Washington as the first President of the United States.

The U.S. Constitution: Born of Secession

Think about that: Eleven states, in effect, seceded from the Confederation to form the new American compact we know today as the American Union. Yet, two states, Rhode Island and North Carolina, had not  ratified the Constitution and, consequently, were out of the Union when Washington took the his first presidential oath of office in

North Carolina finally came into the Union in November of 1789.  However, Rhode Island dragged its feet and grudgingly ratified the Constitution after the new federal government threatened to sever commercial relations.  And even then, ratification squeaked by with only two votes.

James Madison’s “Delicate Truth”

The 11 acts of secession that culminated in the new American Union poses what in 21st century parlance would be known as an “inconvenient truth.”

James Madison described it as “the delicate truth” beyond the American Union.

Writing in The Federalist Papers, he described the 11 states’ secession from the Articles of the Confederation to form a new compact as a simple matter of “self-preservation.” He justified this self-preservation on the basis of what he characterized as “the transcendent law of nature; and of nature’s God, which declares that the safety of and happiness of society are the subjects at which political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed.”

California Secession: Not Treasonous at All

Simply put, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were no longer capable of securing a lasting,sustainable union and had to be scrapped out of necessity and replaced with something entirely new. And this could be achieved only by a super majority of states seceding from the old constitutional system and creating a newer, more sustainable one.

So, viewed within the wide context of American constitutional history, California’s current secessionist sentiment isn’t treasonous at all but is merely the latest expression of a very well-established American tradition.

Twice Born of Secession

The United States was twice born of secession: first in 1776, when thirteen former colonies issued a joint declaration declaring their intent to withdraw from the British Empire, and later in 1789, when the majority of the states withdrew from the Articles to form a new and improved confederation (Washington’s term for the new union).

And, incidentally, speaking of unpalatable facts, the great nationalist Founding Father Alexander Hamilton repeatedly described the new American  government as a “Confederate Republic” and as a “Confederation” and described the new constitution as a “compact” throughout the Federalist Papers.

But that is another remarkable and rather unpalatable constitutional fact that I’ll save for discussion at a later date.

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.

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • 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

  • Create account
  • Log in

Website Powered by WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Ruby Red Republic
    • Join 27 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Ruby Red Republic
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...