02 September 2007

Just where *did* they go to?

Well, seeing the link at Instapundit to Jamie Kirchick on "Whither the anti-totalitarian left?" I was quite surprised that one name is mentioned and that Mr. Kirchick did not recognize it as the actual answer to his own question.

So, to help out a bit I will give the name: Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson.

And another name, from the very early era of the Democratic Party: Andrew Jackson.

Old Hickory?


Ring any bells?

The Democratic Party committed an unforgiveable sin: after JFK convinced the Jacksonians that Viet Nam was *worth* fighting for, and Johnson continued that, the Democratic Party made it clear that it was going to join the leftists so as to gain *more supporters* and then disavow and 'empower' those wishing to end it dishonorably. Jacksonians are slow to go to war, prefer to put it off before anything, but when you convince them to start fighting they see anything short of victory as defeat. By saying that Viet Nam was lost and not worth fighting, the Democratic Party and their leftist friends turned their back on core Jacksonian values.

That is not something you do *twice* to Jacksonians.

And we did not walk over to the Republican Party as they have yet, to this day, learn how to speak to Jacksonians.

By embracing anti-American ideals, dishonoring the Nation by leaving an ally to be overcome by Communism and its two neighbors falling because of that, the deaths of millions are on the hands of those who espoused leaving: the left and their Democratic Party supporters. A very, very few stalwarts remain trying to redeem the Party of Jackson but I, for one, will have nothing to do with that and will vote for individuals. Never a 'party line' as NO party represents me.

Quite some few Jacksonians stand by America but see the entire two-party system as corrupt beyond redemption. Those you see in the Armed Forces are overwhelmingly Jacksonians. When you take up that America has no right to hold other Nations accountable to their cease-fires, that America should always lose and never, ever fight back, then you are telling Jacksonians to talk a walk away from you. Those of that era did just that. And that is still done to this day, as Jacksonians have joined the perennially disaffected as seen by this:

The above taken from US Census datasets.

By breaking faith with the Jacksonians and corrupting the Party of Jackson to some Transnational Progressivist wonderland that espouses highly anti-liberal themes and authoritarian views towards Americans and the world as a whole, the Democratic party has exchanged a minor fringe of leftists, far less than 10% and most likely hovering at 3% of the public, and told 30% to leave. That is why the Democratic Party stopped winning huge majorities after the 1970's. It is not that the Republican Party grew stronger, but that the support of the Democratic Party walked out on it. And we still HAVE huge problems with the Republican Party, which tends to be Transnational Capitalist at the expense of national sovereignty.

Somehow neither of these seem to be on the path *towards* liberty nor freedom.

And every word that is spouted by Democrats that is defeatist, anti-American, that runs down this Nation at all opportunity and that supports the barbaric enemies of mankind waging predatory war upon all Nations and seeks to excuse it confirms the belief that there is nothing of value left in the Democratic Party. Jacksonians still stand beside the belief that all men are created equal: it is self-evident. To make just government people must find out for themselves that they have those rights, and then value them and defend them and use them to uphold society and keep tyranny in check.

Not by government mandate.

Not by a system of taxation and handouts.

Not by coddling those destroying civilization.

Jacksonians realize that we are in a deadly conflict unlike any that has been seen for centuries as this kind of war has not been FOUGHT for centuries. And yet the defeatist, appeasement oriented, butcher excusing LEFT still trots out its anti-American ideals and puts forward that standing up for civilization and fighting FOR it is NOT WORTH THE COST. There are some liberals left who realize that the civil sword cannot remain unbloodied for peace to have a chance to exist. Our barbaric foes seek to end all Nations and replace it with their own order in the world.

The Left and the Right each have similar outlooks and they are ALL horrific to Jacksonians. And the longer we delay fighting, that we delay calling enemies what they are, and that we delay actually learning the scope of the global problem we are in, means that much, much more blood will be shed to try and preserve what we have. Not to go on the OFFENSIVE, just preserve the liberty and freedoms we have as a Nation amongst Nations.

We stood by and stand by America while the Democratic Party and its Left went off into the wilderness. I, for one, will not be coming to the Left in my lifetime. Nor the Right, for that matter.

Where are the Jacksonians?

Still here. Waiting. Watching. Seeing who stands by the ideals of America and who does not.

And believe me, by my reckoning neither the Left nor the Right amounts to very much on that score. That bodes ill for America and human liberty and freedom. Perhaps the day of Federalist #26 will return to us, and then, indeed, Jacksonians will show up. Let us hope that one of these two sides drifts back from the wilderness before that happens.


D said...

Of the current announced and likely candidates for President, who do you think is the *most* Jacksonian? Not that any of them ARE Jacksonian, but who leans farthest in that direction?

A Jacksonian said...

D - That is a damned hard question to answer!

The R side of things has a few unique characters:

1) Fred Thompson - Very strict constructionalist and federalist, which are major pluses. He does seem to lack a vibrancy to make that appealing, however, and would, paradoxically, have done better a century ago as his laconic style of speaking is great for a classroom, but not so good on getting the personal appeal of ideas across. Also, I have little to no idea of his stance on the law of nations... actually I have no idea about that with any of them. While he did do good work on investigating committees during Watergate and the Clinton impeachment, that is not the same as the way to build cases with the American people. Military outlook is a cipher with him at this point. A good man, yes. He has yet to clearly state *why* he wants to be President and what his outlook for the office *is*. The closest, in general outlook, from what I have read and heard to Jacksonian concepts. His ability to carry them out from an Executive position and the actual goals are still a blank spot.

2) Rudy Giuliani - He has large shoes to fill coming on the exact, same path as Teddy Roosevelt. He has multiple pluses on understanding the law, enforcing it and running a huge city. Critics of his handling and pre-prep for 9/11 have not made the case that any *other* city was better prepared or more capable, but one knew that NYC was not going to *fall* on his watch. He speaks the right words on the law of nations concept, but I don't know that he actually approaches the problem of terrorism from that. His executive experience gives him the ability to reach out and make a case directly to the American people. It will be interesting to see just how much he *does* play off the TR angle... and he actually does have foreign policy experience having to deal with the UN. Actually a better record than a President or two I could name. I do not like his affiliation for stronger government and interference in the lives of citizens, and that is something that is a hard hit to him. But anyone that can take down the mob in NYC and challenge the D machine there and *win* on both is someone to be considered. He clearly knows the outlines of the Executive and makes cases on how to reform government, so he has good standing on that. What he will do on some topics, like illegal aliens and such... when he puts forward a view and backs *that* with programmatics to demonstrate his seriousness, he just might have something. Not a Jacksonian by any stretch, but the key areas of defending the US, upholding its traditions and stepping away from the area of 'Realism' are noteworthy.

3) Mitt Romney is still making his case that being Governor of Taxechussettes leaves one able to deal with America. The creeping nannystate there is highly worrying, and the need to address what he did do to curb that is necessary. So far it is some programmatics and getting his personality across. Federalism and limited government are not things I have heard from him... but a case can still be made. Why does this man want to be President? I really have no idea. While a nice man, I get no feeling of Jacksonian affinity from him and he falls far too heavily to the R 'business mode' form of candidate.

I like some of Tom Tancredo's views, but beyond those his outlook for what a President should do and be is not clearly enunciated. The spots of accordance do not make a case for or against, just places of accord.

The rest? While I have read a smattering across them, none impress me as candidates.

No one on the D side at all impresses in any realm.

On the third party side, no party has put forward ideas and candidates with traction to them. Or even the ability to challenge the status quo.

Each of those three will *defend* America.

Re-inforcing her, sustaining her and moving to the *offensive*? Do any of them know we are on the defense right now, as a Nation? In this age we are in, a President cannot live by poll watching: as President the job requires that you keep the Nation safe no matter what, and take the fight to our enemies. Jackson sent the first US ship to circumnavigate the globe... it was a warship... to attack pirates. If it comes to the need for similar, fast decisive action and taking any heat for it, do any of those three actually meet that standard? Not just building a case, but *doing* because something *must be done*.

To me that is the most worrying aspect of this field. If we were at peace I would consider them more easily, but the next President is a War President. And that makes all the difference in the world on that last point...