More thoughts on Lind’s Neo-Jacksonians


Lisa Kramer

Lisa Kramer is a contributing contributor at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen.

Related Post Roulette

15 Responses

  1. Avatar Trumwill says:

    Outstanding post.

    The hardest thing about Democrats trying to get the Bubba vote – even harder than their socially liberal positions – is that you can’t insult them if they’re in your tent. You can’t run against them. You can’t use them as examples of backwardness. Now, Democratic politicians actually tend to be reasonably good about this, but you still have the boosters and those congresspeople from districts where these voters don’t live that make things difficult for everyone else because they have no reason to bite their tongues. And more fundamentally, the anti-Bubba contingent is a substantial part of the Democratic base.Report

  2. Avatar dexter45 says:

    If one considers what Bubba really stands for, then why would a person who can’t stand racist, wants gays and lesbians to have the same rights as other people, who think creationism is a ploy to get people to accept stupidity want them in their tent? I don’t want them in my tent anymore than I want unjust war starting people in my tent. I don’t want them in my tent anymore than I want GWDs in my tent. On some things there can be no compromise. I don’t think they are stupid, I just think they are wrong.Report

  3. Avatar Will says:

    Nice post. For whatever reason, I’m irresistibly reminded of this Tom Wolfe article:

  4. Avatar Robert Cheeks says:

    The world-immanent, commie-Dems have ‘immanentized the Eschaton,’ and that’s why they’re screwed up. The Republicans, though flawed, haven’t and that’s why they’re salvagable.Report

    • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Robert Cheeks says:

      @Robert Cheeks, The Republicans, though flawed, haven’t and that’s why they’re salvagable.

      Bob, I love you but bullshit.

      The Republicans are every inch into the whole preservation of virtue and prevention of vice as the commie-dems. They just have a different list of sins.

      I’ve seen arguments defending laws intruding into doctor’s offices, private bedrooms, and music libraries from Republicans that are just as nannyish as any health care law.

      Different sins, same amount of parenting on the part of poppa (rather than momma) gummint.Report

      • Avatar Robert Cheeks in reply to Jaybird says:

        @Jaybird, JB, I love you too, and I agree with your analysis to a point. And, that point lies with my initial statement e.g. you’ll find among the GOP unwashed those (not all of course) who live a metaxical existence, grounded on the Divine. Commie-Dems are either non-believers of some sort or incoherent, confused, and derailed pseudo-Christians.Report

        • Avatar Boegiboe in reply to Robert Cheeks says:

          @Robert Cheeks, in the quasi-Appalachian town where I grew up, the majority Republicans were the confused pseudo-Christians, attending church to prove they’re good and watching their neighbors to find their flaws, while the Dems were mostly those who still truly believed that beyond this reality lies Truth, so just ease on down the road with your fellow travelers. But they weren’t “commie-Dems” in any sense; they were “keep- outta-my-bidniz-Dems.”Report

  5. Avatar Steven Donegal says:

    The core belief of the original Jacksonians was white supremacy, which manifested itself in Jackson’s Indian removal policies and protection of slavery through the weakening of the federal government. Neo-Jacksonians are not the overt racists of the 19th century, but there does seem to be a “whites are first among equals” mentality present in the Neo-Jacksonian strain of American society. It is difficult to put together a black and bubba coalition under those circumstances.Report

    • @Steven Donegal, I would debate that white supremacy was “the core belief” of the Jacksonians. He also killed the National Bank and worked to create a more participatory democracy. Yes, that participatory democracy excluded non-whites, but so did everything else up to that point.Report

      • Avatar Steven Donegal in reply to Lisa Kramer says:

        @Lisa Kramer, Jackson was an advocate of states rights, because he realized that a strong federal government would inevitably interfere with slavery. Jackson was also an authoritarian who brooked no challenge to his authority. Nicholas Biddle as President of the Second National Bank was a challenge to Jackson and Jackson won the fight. The fact that the demise of the National Bank helped trigger the worst depression until the 1930s doesn’t exactly help his reputation.Report

    • Avatar Lyle in reply to Steven Donegal says:

      @Steven Donegal, Actually Jackson felt that whites and native americans could never live together. (The whites would always get them drunk and take advantage of them and the natives were relative children). He proposed sending the southeastern native americans to Ok in order that they would not need to interact with the whites (Thinking that settling the US would take a lot longer than it did). In many respect it similar to the re-repatriation movement for blacks at the time, send them to Liberia. At that time apartheid was felt the only way people could live with was with their own kind, and Catholics were not always included in the white race.
      This does come down to how do you judge someone who lived nearly 200 years ago on their views of the world, in many respects to judge them on todays values is unfair, other than to say those values could not hold today. Do we judge Rome on its views of slavery also? Actually if we want to get in that business the greatest religious freedom was held in islamic spain before the christian reconquest, and in the ottoman empire, where it appears greeks provided a lot of the bureaucracy, just did not rule.Report

  6. Avatar Steven Donegal says:

    @Lyle, Actually, Jackson didn’t care where the native Americans went, just so long as they got out of the southeast so that the whites could steal their land. The Five Tribes had a fairly advanced agricultural community and were more than willing to be generally integrated into the American system. Jackson wouldn’t permit it.

    Do we judge Rome on its view of slavery? Not exclusively, but it certainly is one aspect that needs to be considered. I don’t think they get particularly high marks for the activities at the Colosseum.Report