• Introduction
  • About Ruby Red Republic
  • Contact
  • Blog

Ruby Red Republic

~ Thoughts on Red States and "Deplorables."

Ruby Red Republic

Category Archives: Uncategorized

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.

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 …

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.

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.

Hillary, You Are No Richard Nixon

01 Thursday Dec 2016

Posted by Jim Langcuster in Patriotism, U.S. Politics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Cook County, Election 2016, Election of 1968, Hillary Clinton, Jill Stein, Jim Langcuster, Patriotism, Richard Daley, Richard Nixon

richard-nixon-crowdOur 37th president, the late Richard M. Nixon, was a terribly flawed man – a fact corroborated by many of the people closely associated with him during his troubled presidency.

But, of course, Nixon was also a complicated man, capable of as many soaring acts of brilliance and selfless patriotism as he was of petty and, sometimes appallingly destructive partisanship.

Henry Kissinger, who endured a full immersion in Nixon’s manifold complexities, described him as a man who, despite his flaws, almost invariably put the interests of his country first.

One unusually compelling chapter of U.S. presidential history reveals Nixon’s capacity for selfless patriotism.  As The Washington Times opinion editor David A. Keene observes in a recent column, Nixon had acquired compelling evidence that the Kennedys, working through Chicago Mayor Richard Daley’s manipulation of Cook County ballots, had stolen the 1960 presidential election.

Illinois Republican Senator Everett Dirksen urged Nixon to take action.

In the end, though, Nixon refused to contest the election, fearing the effect a recount would have in eroding  the standing of the United States vis-a-vis the Soviet Union, which was competing with the United States to carve out a following among the emerging developing nations of Africa and Asia.

How times and personal standards have changed.

Dr.Jill Stein, the nominee of the tiny Green Party, which garnered a mere 1 percent of the U.S. popular vote, has demanded a recount in the key swing stares, apparently not so much with the goal of changing the election’s outcome but rather to raise her visibility and that of her party.

Never mind the effect this recount may play in undermining what remains of this nation’s standing as the world’s leading democracy and model for democratic government. She apparently is interested solely in building her and her party’s political viability.

And to add insult to injury, the defeated Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, has joined the fray, apparently with the that hope that this recount could throw the election outcome into the House of Representatives.  Throwing the election into the House would likely not alter the inevitability of a Trump victory – Hillary and her staff are undoubtedly well aware of that fact. But it would have the effect of eroding what legitimacy is attached Trump’s presidency.

 We have come a long way from the politics of the 1960’s, when even the most fiercely competitive and morally flawed national politicians still felt compelled out of a sense of patriotism to put the interests of the nation first.

Dr. Stein,  I may be a deplorable, but you are despicable – and as for you, Mrs. Clinton, you are no Richard Nixon.

Finally, an End to the Culture Wars?

26 Saturday Nov 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Culture Wars, Donald Trump, Federalism, Jim Langcuster, State Sovereignty, States Rights

black-lives-matterI’ve speculated more than once on this forum that at least part of the interminable anger and chest beating among Hillary supporters in the election’s aftermath stems from the realization that they were so close to closing the ring on  all of us dumb, reactionary red-state yokels.

The cultural war had ended, our national overlords assured us. History would remember Hillary’s resounding  victory as a confirmation of that fact.  All of us Deplorables would finally be brought to heel.  Figuratively speaking, the dog collars would be attached and all of us would be marched down from the mountains onto the broad, enlightened urban coastal plains.

Of course, an unexpected thing happened on the way to oblivion:  Trump’s remarkable electoral upset.

Some cultural skirmishing apparently remains.  A few pundits even speculate that the Trump upset could mark a turning away and perhaps even an abandonment of the culture war.  Some think that Trump may turn out to be a political realist, concluding that it’s time to put an end to all this disharmony.

Perhaps Trump may even end up affirming an insight that our Founders conceived almost a quarter millennium ago: namely that we are simply too diverse a nation for a culture war to have been started in the first place. Cultural issues are best resolved at the state and local levels. Perhaps he will even conclude that we are all better governed by 50 different social policies rather than by a cookie-cutter policy imposed from Washington.

Simply put, maybe the end of the Culture War will require a looser American Union.

Granted, ending the culture war will not make all Americans happy, particularly those among our ruling class who are deeply invested either professionally or financially in this protracted struggle. It will not be an attractive option at all for many deep-dyed blue Americans who live in red states and, conversely, for ruby-red Americans who live in blue states. Moreover, returning genuine sovereignty to the states ultimately  may lead to a much looser federal union – perhaps even one from which New York, New England and “Cascadian” America may leave to federate (or, at least, work out forms of post-sovereignty arrangements) with parts of Canada.

 As I said, none of these options come anywhere close to a panacea.  But maybe Americans in time may conclude that to live and let live is preferable to a country in which tens of millions of Americans are, rhetorically, at least, at each other’s throats.

John C. Calhoun: Blue State Icon?

18 Friday Nov 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Blue Stats, Calexit, California Independence, Devolution, Federalism, Jim Langcuster, John C. Calhoun, Red States, secession, Shervin Pishevar

john-calhoun2

John C. Calhoun, architect of Southern exceptionalism.

It’s often said that politics produces strange bedfellows.  And it appears that two weeks after the election of Donald Trump, a growing number of left-leaning blue-staters are embracing, however unwittingly, the political legacy of one of one of red state America’s most incendiary firebrands.

For 180 or so years, elites in the blue states – or what became blue states – have been wagging their fingers at Southerners and other red state Americans, decrying our appalling lack of patriotism and commitment to national unity and, even worse, our recalcitrance in the face of federal power and all that is deemed good, noble and decent in nation and the world. And, rest assured, if, after a year or so following a Hillary victory these fissiparous tendencies had surfaced once again in the South or any of the red states, the outcry would have been unremittingly harsh, with the left screaming about the dangerous rise of secessionist sentiment and the ugly racist, reactionary, conspiratorial and paramilitary-related impulses driving all of it.

Now that the proverbial shoe is on the other foot – now that red state rather than blue state America is in a position to tighten the federal screws – a growing number of Californians and other coastal blue states almost seem disposed toward the ideology of one of the greatest red state recalcitrants of them all: John C. Calhoun, the South Carolina firebrand who helped refine the nullification doctrine and even drew his native state and much of the rest of the South to the precipice of secession in the 1830’s.  And this embrace is occurring with hardly the batting of an eye.

And make no mistake: The people calling for secession or, at the very least, genuine devolution, are not simply ordinary people but also businessmen with real influence. One prominent Silicon Valley investor, Shervin Pishevar, walked back his earlier assertions of California secession, though affirming “a new Federalism where state and local governments are empowered to determine their destinies while bonded together in a United States of America.”

Think about this for a moment. A red state billionaire or political leader wouldn’t have conceived of raising such views following a Hillary victory without the inevitable verbal upbraiding by elites and the mainstream media. Yet, in the weeks following Trump’s unexpected victory, these sentiments are being espoused by the very people who otherwise would have regarded such opinions as dangerous, divisive, if not traitorous, talk only a short time ago.

But there is a silver lining to all of this rising fissiparous blue-state sentiment: It will likely pave the way for some genuine attempts at returning power to states and localities. States were envisioned by the Founding Fathers as entities with the attributes of nationhood but that were compelled, out of necessity, to pool a share of their sovereignty, namely, defense, foreign policy and economic policy,  to a general government – an approach considered far more efficient than each of these states exercising this sovereignty separately.

Honestly, despite all the hypocrisy that newfound blue state affinity for states rights and localism conveys, I wish California lots of luck.  I’ve got no problem with the idea of blue state America preempting Calhoun.  California and the other blue coastal states have every right to reacquire the accoutrements of nationhood that once characterized all of the states of the American Union.

I just hope that these states understand that red states are as much entitled to these attributes of nationhood as they are.

← 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...