THE "SLAVE POWER"

Now we are getting down to the, errr, "nuts" and bolts. Republican "red state" voters are for today's "progressives" the current version of the mid-19th century "slave power" (via Moron Abroad). That "nuanced" view as expressed here is courtesy of one Jane Smiley ("author of many novels and essays" -- and as a result of the below also appears to be attracting far more interest at Amazon), writing at Slate:

. . . When the forces of red and blue encountered one another head-on for the first time in Kansas Territory in 1856, the red forces from Missouri, who had been coveting Indian land across the Missouri River since 1820, entered Kansas and stole the territorial election. The red news media of the day made a practice of inflammatory lying—declaring that the blue folks had shot and killed red folks whom everyone knew were walking around. The worst civilian massacre in American history took place in Lawrence, Kan., in 1862—Quantrill's raid. The red forces, known then as the slave-power, pulled 265 unarmed men from their beds on a Sunday morning and slaughtered them in front of their wives and children. The error that progressives have consistently committed over the years is to underestimate the vitality of ignorance in America. . .

Actually, it was 1863, not 1862. According to the Lawrence, KS Public Library:

. . . On August 23, 1863, Quantrill led his 300-plus followers in a violent attack on Lawrence, burning the major buildings and killing between 150 and 200 of the males in the town.

Following the raid, Quantrill continued fighting minor battles in Missouri, and then moved on south to spend the winter in Texas. He would not obey the regular Confederate officers and his men lost confidence in him. Many left his band, and he returned to Missouri and then Kentucky, fighting a few minor skirmishes. On May 10, 1865, Quantrill was shot in a surprise attack by Union guerrillas, and he died on June 6 at the age of twenty seven. . .

Anyway, let's not quibble about a year here and there. Fast forward to the present. Back to Smiley:

. . . The history of the last four years shows that red state types, above all, do not want to be told what to do—they prefer to be ignorant. As a result, they are virtually unteachable. . .

Crying "ignorance" and "virtually unteachable" about listeners who remain unpersuaded -- the pathetic, last stand of he/she who's losing an argument. . .

. . . Shortly afterwards, that "enlightened person" usually throws up his/her hands and screams something about how he/she is moving to Canada. But be careful. Montreal's Paul Jané has already forewarned anyone thinking of a "Canadian escape":

. . . If you really are Hell-bent on emigrating to Canada in the event of a Bush victory, don't.

We have more than our fair share of idiots roaming our streets as it is, and the last thing we need is another batch of certified American idiotarians terrorising us on our home turf; especially considering that we're still dealing with the consequences of accepting your Vietnam War Chicken contingent.

You've inflicted Jack Todd upon us, and you should consider yourselves lucky, because a more reasonable country would have viewed that alone as an act of war. . .

We now return to our Jane again. It is curious that she cites especially the Quantrill raid, which, aimed at civilians or not, occurred in the midst of the Civil War. Maybe Smiley has heard of THAT war? Indeed, that she doesn't mention it speaks volumes, considering that her bunch doesn't want to admit we are currently at war. So why would she admit we were at war (at that time, with each other) in "1862" either?

Aside from omitting the Civil War, she has apparently also missed the fact that the Quantrill "raiders" -- if they HAD a party affiliation -- were, at least until secession in 1860-1861, in all likelihood, urrr, DEM-OH-CRATS. How quickly we forget. It was only after that party was transformed by Wilson and especially F.D.R. in the mid-twentieth century, leading to what became known as the "New Deal coalition" (when many older stock Americans, recent European immigrants and Southern segregationists came together in an uneasy alliance that survived into the 1960s, at which time large numbers of previously disenfranchised blacks were also added to the mix), that the Democrats could be said to have become truly national at last, and no longer rooted most strongly in mostly the prewar slave states and in the postwar segregated South.

The New Deal coalition frayed partly over desegregration, yes. But that can be overstated. Lyndon Johnson ran for president and won big in 1964, and on a strong civil rights platform. In the immediate wake of post-segregation, in 1976, Democrat Jimmy Carter won the presidency across the country, including large parts of the country which today no Democrat has a hope of carrying. And Democrat Bill Clinton did well in the "red states" as recently as both 1992 and 1996.

So, it isn't Smiley's fanciful notion of "the slave power" 21st century style that is driving the collapse of the Democrats; it is that since the 1980s, the Democrats have become disturbingly clueless on "moral issues".

Yet as someone who evidently considers "moral issues" being merely those insignificant emotionalities held to tightly by grasping, small people, who are themselves easily manipulated by capitalist oppressors -- standard false consciousness junk, from California novelist, is what we have here -- Smiley's base "argument" on the "ignorance" of American "red state" voters who refuse to toe the "progressive" (as SHE sees it) line is not surprising.

Ask oneself this. "Quantrill raid" and "slave power" obfuscations aside, which party stands clearly for equality, freedom and democracy, TODAY, both at home and globally? Alas, mostly the "party of Lincoln": the Republicans. In contrast, at home, the "party of F.D.R." (the Democrats) stand probably most prominently for nothing other than a longing for the good ol' days ("c. 1968"), hatred for the Second Amendment, and abortion rights. And abroad, today it is Democrats who more readily embrace and explain away dictators and thugs of nearly every size and every type -- as long as the dictators/thugs are deemed suitably "progressive". (Meaning that they hate the U.S.)

Thus demonstrates that political parties can evolve and be changed over time. Today, it is the Democrats who have too often shown themselves to be the party that has lost the plot. And that they don't understand WHY they have does not bode well for them in the longer term.   ¶ by Robert, Monday, November 08, 2004