Monday, October 21, 2013

The Jacksonian Tea Party

I have to admit that, down deep inside, I'd have to pick Andrew Jackson as my favorite President. Others have their good points — All the Founders, Coolidge, Cleveland, even Teddy Roosevelt — But only Jackson has so much going for him. He somehow managed to be an anti-secessionist nationalist without any of the abolitionist know-it-all obnoxiousness. He never sucked up to the Brits. (I have Brit friends, and Brits are great, but you have to admit that we've had a lot of Presidents who seem to care more about the fate of the UK than of the US.) And he certainly never sucked up to any central banks. He was neither sentimental about, nor mindlessly hostile to, American Indians, despite lots of caterwauling to the contrary. And he was always prepared to slap the bejesus out of his enemies. Below, Kevin MacDonald points out that the "Tea Party" is best described as a Jacksonian organization, and I wish I'd thought of that.  This is from

The Tea Party and the GOP: Heading for Divorce

Kevin MacDonald

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, William A. Galston makes some points that reinforce the still expanding racial fault lines in America (“The Tea Party and the GOP Crackup“) noted in my previous post. The take home message is that there is a rift between (White) Tea Party Republican base representing traditional American conservative rural and small town values versus corporate America and the emerging non-White majority. As always the rhetoric does not explicitly mention race, but it’s looming in the background like the proverbial 800-lb. gorilla. Tea Party Republicans are in the Jacksonian tradition of American politics.
Jacksonians care … passionately about the Second Amendment …. They are suspicious of federal power, skeptical about do-gooding at home and abroad; they oppose federal taxes but favor benefits such as Social Security and Medicare that they regard as earned. Jacksonians are anti-elitist; they believe that the political and moral instincts of ordinary people are usually wiser than those of the experts ….
These Republicans believe that their country has been taken away from them. They are
aroused, angry and above all fearful, in full revolt against a new elite—backed by the new American demography—that threatens its interests and scorns its values.
That’s the crux of the problem in a nutshell. The new hostile elite that has been ascendant since the 1960s has solidified its power by importing a new people—people who want big government, high levels of government services, more immigrants that look like themselves, and who care nothing for the traditional people and culture of America.
Galston points out that most Tea Partiers think that minorities get too much attention from government; 65% view immigrants as a burden on the country. Contrary to elite opinion, they are better educated than the general population and are more likely to be middle class (50%) or upper-middle-class (15%). They are socially conservative on issues like gay marriage. Many are small businessmen who abhor high taxes and government regulation. They have strong economic reasons to oppose the current trend.
Galston concludes:
It’s no coincidence that the strengthening influence of the tea party is driving a wedge between corporate America and the Republican Party. It’s hard to see how the U.S. can govern itself unless corporate America pushes the Republican establishment to fight back against the tea party—or switches sides.
The problem is that corporate America is part of the hostile elite—with a globalist outlook, favoring policies that gut the US labor market and highly susceptible to lawsuits by activists and race hustlers if they deviate in the least from the path of righteousness as defined by the diversitycrats. They are not going to switch sides. Indeed, corporate America is a major employer of diversitycrats.
And so much of the really big corporate-derived money in the Republican party comes from ethnically motivated members of the hostile elite, like the Republican Jewish Coalition (which supports gay marriage and the immigration surge) and Sheldon Adelson in particular. According to ProPublica, Adelson donated at least $98 million and perhaps as much as $150 million to Republican candidates and causes in the last election cycle, mainly motivated by his obsession with Israel. This is the highest total for any individual in American history. But Adelson is no fan of anything remotely resembling Tea Party attitudes.  VDARE’s Patrick Cleburne notes that Adelson describes himself as a “social liberal” in favor of “socialized-type” health care. Definitely not a Tea Partier.
So we have one part of the Republican Party that is furious that their country is being taken away from them, while the other part—the one with most of the money—is actively involved in their dispossession.
This is not a marriage made in heaven. Again, the Tea Party Republicans are “aroused, angry and above all fearful.” In fact, it looks to me like fertile ground for an implicitly White third party. Republican votes, if not Republican money, come from its Tea Party base. A third party with such a Tea Party platform  may not win given that the hostile elite has imported a new electorate opposed to everything the Tea Party holds dear. But when it’s obvious that they can’t win, that’s what revolutions and secessions are made of.


  1. Eager Young LiberalOctober 21, 2013 at 3:09 PM

    Not hostile to Native Americans? He kicked them off their land and forced them to move, most consider it a form of ethnic cleansing. He also supported slavery, so what you call know it all obnoxiousness, I call having a heart. At the end of the day nothing matters more than how you treat the most vulnerable under your care. Because people are the only ones who actively suffer, the economy, and national relations do not. As for the Tea Party, they are such a small group that they cannot make a claim it being "their country" without saying that they are elitests. Essentially they want to run the country despite their minority status, and regardless of how the rest of the country feels about that. As for your final claim, they claim to be the real revolutionists, or harken back to that but again as a super minority, they would be no more than terrorists imposing their will upon the country through violence.

  2. At the end of the day nothing matters more than how you treat the most vulnerable under your care.

    Utter nonsense. Survival is prior to compassion.

    1. Eager Young LiberalOctober 22, 2013 at 10:56 PM

      Wrong, when we live in a society where there is enough that survival should not be a question, it is about compassion. And how you treat those most vulnerable under your care is very telling about any group or govt. If they abuse, enslave, demean, and dehumanize them, their policies really do no matter, because nothing is more important than people.

    2. Survival is always the foremost question. That will never change.

    3. Eager Young LiberalOctober 23, 2013 at 5:32 PM

      The survival of those who have a surplus is not endangered by giving aid to those who do not have enough

    4. Get back to me on that when black Africa's population has doubled to 2.5 billion by 2050.

    5. Actually that should be 1.5 billion, but it will seem like more.

    6. Eager Young LiberalOctober 25, 2013 at 10:55 PM

      Why should it matter how many there are? Do they have less of a right to have families than white people?

    7. Yes, and for the same reason I don't have the right to a Jaguar XJ: Because they can't pay for them.

      The West has been the enabler of Africa's exponential population growth. Ethiopia has twice as many people now as it did during the horrific famine of the early nineteen-eighties. By 2050 Nigeria alone will have a larger population that will America, and never mind the dozens of other African countries following the same demographic glide path fo Hell on Earth .

      Your attitude is simply a form of pathological altruism writ large, like those crazy old ladies who adopt dog after dog after dog, until their filthy houses are filled dead and dying animals.

  3. Guess what young liberal, you sir, are probably going to be in the minority soon enough and then you'll feel the political wrath of another hostile group. So, you can just go and assuage that guilt of yours on them.

    All politics are racial and you're probably to naive to realize it, but you will. Of course, being a young and naive LIBERAL, you'll never admit it.

    You will make excuses for the savages that'll be slitting your families throats somewhere down the line.

    You people suffer from a Stockholm Syndrome x 100.

    1. Eager Young LiberalOctober 22, 2013 at 11:13 PM

      Thanks for proving my point. The fact that you admit that the right is by nature hostile is not a positive, it only proves the point that how you treat those in your care matters. Also, it is untrue since young people are the largest voting block and they are generally liberal, and the conservatives are generally the older generation, which means the sun has set on their political movement.

      After that I have no idea what sort of nonsense you get into. You say that because the name I use on an internet blog has the word young in it, I must be naive. And I will respond to you the same way I respond to every other person who brings that up. As a seminary student, it is my job to see the suffering of others, and to bear that burden with them, so I am not naive. What you seem to be saying is that since these racial tensions exist we should just allow them to continue existing? I get the distinct feeling that you are just typing whatever random ideas that pop into your head without any sort of connected thought process. Which let me tell you, is no way to argue...anything.

      As for the savage comment, I really have no idea what you meant. Are you saying that Native Americans are going to come attack my family like it is some kind of bad western movie? I have noticed that many of the arguments people on the right use to justify all sorts of atrocities are what if arguments. What if an entire gang attacks me, or what if I need to fight off the entire army what if torture is the only way to stop a terrorist attack, or what is Native Americans attack my family, but those are never good arguments and that goes especially for allowing the suffering of others because you are afraid they will respond in kind to you.

      As for your Stockholm Syndrome comment, that does not even make sense. You can never see Christian love and compassion as anything but a mental illness and for that I feel so sorry for you.