Last November, I was invited to join a shared weblog called "Writer Beat'. (Thanks to Autumn Cote for her efforts setting it up, recruiting people, and dealing with their gripes.) Something I said got noticed, appreciated, and more was sought from me, something I am too willing to provide. I do regret starving this blog a bit in favor of the more interactive site in recent months, but now it looks as though it may dwindle.
Writer Beat's format was an article, with whatever visuals appended, and then an open comment session moderated by the author of the article. Depending on the subject, opinions could be fast and furious, or the article could drop right through the site's front page into obscurity.
I liked having my thoughts challenged by others, even though many of them were hostile--that was one thing you could count on happening. The preponderance of active posters/commenters were from various factions of the Party of the Right--not real joiners, in terms of Republican party activism, but constitutionalists, libertarians, curmudgeons of all sorts (yes, including racists and bigots), with a sprinkling of foreigners of various nations and a couple of liberals.
A friend of mine, an activist of progressive tendencies, asked me why I bothered with it. Surely I don't expect to change anyone's mind there? Well, no, though I do think I made some progress in humanizing some people's responses to normal progressive expression (and I rarely fell into some of the uglier habits and sunk for long into ad hominem name-calling, snark, and insults).
The post and the discussions that follow were response to a few articles in which these very non-Democratic folks tried to give advice about what the Democratic party should do.
Bring Back the Whigs!
"Lots of people told me" that Abe Lincoln signalled down from Heaven that he was giving up his membership in the Republicans of today. The phrase Party of Lincoln can no longer be applied to any but the Whigs.
Writer Beat's format was an article, with whatever visuals appended, and then an open comment session moderated by the author of the article. Depending on the subject, opinions could be fast and furious, or the article could drop right through the site's front page into obscurity.
I liked having my thoughts challenged by others, even though many of them were hostile--that was one thing you could count on happening. The preponderance of active posters/commenters were from various factions of the Party of the Right--not real joiners, in terms of Republican party activism, but constitutionalists, libertarians, curmudgeons of all sorts (yes, including racists and bigots), with a sprinkling of foreigners of various nations and a couple of liberals.
A friend of mine, an activist of progressive tendencies, asked me why I bothered with it. Surely I don't expect to change anyone's mind there? Well, no, though I do think I made some progress in humanizing some people's responses to normal progressive expression (and I rarely fell into some of the uglier habits and sunk for long into ad hominem name-calling, snark, and insults).
The post and the discussions that follow were response to a few articles in which these very non-Democratic folks tried to give advice about what the Democratic party should do.
Bring Back the Whigs!
"Lots of people told me" that Abe Lincoln signalled down from Heaven that he was giving up his membership in the Republicans of today. The phrase Party of Lincoln can no longer be applied to any but the Whigs.
("Lots of people told me" = in Drumpftalk, what follows is a total fabrication. If not a lie, it is because he pays people to say it to him.)
How the Democrats of the future will respond to the Drumpfist Dilemma--the idea that there really is a "silent majority" which defeats the glorious idea of democracy--remains just that, a dilemma. I thank all for the contributions they made to that debate, which, I repeat, is an ongoing one.
Let's turn instead to the fate of their opposite, the elephant in the room, the party which has had its justification exposed as false and failing, which has now been replaced by something awesome and ugly and all-too-factual.
*******
Cleaning up my email file (as I must, every day, as it is about 5.5 lb. of mierda in a sacco of 5 lb.), I ran across a reference to this article from The Hill of July, 2016. In it, various establishment-Republican types were bemoaning their party's fate, as in their view Hillary's win was inevitable and would be massive, due to the defection of major Republicans (like them).
The result was even worse (for them). It proved definitively that they no longer represent much of anything, constituency-wise. Where will this disinherited mass of Washington stooges go? (sounds like an episode of "Veep") The Biden campaign? I don't think so.
It's just--Can the whole conservative movement pin all its hopes and aspirations on the fate of that scoundrel?
What a roller coaster, an incredible risk to take. I find it hard to believe. William Weld can light the way, but that is barely a candle in the wind. Kasich, the Mittster (or a I call him, "The Suit")?--no stomach for the long haul. Some NextGen Bush, willing to continue the vendetta? Saddam is dead, my friend, so are his sons.
There is a need for a Third Way, and it can succeed in being the successor to the "Republican" party of Trumpian legacy. It needs a symbol, it needs a name, it needs....some disinterested advice from someone who has the least possible sympathy for their plight.
It will soon be Time to Bring Back the Whigs, or something just like them. The People who have some moral decency but reject the madness of the Democratic version of democracy need a place to go. Resolutely anti-slavery (or at least its unconstrained spread throughout the country), against empire-building, a limited government constrained by laws and good sense. The party of Tippecanoe (and Lincoln). Numbers 9, 10, 12, and 13. But that name....you practically have to wheeze to say it
You talk about your False Flag operations: Try a search for "Whig party symbol". It brings you to the amusing battle for control of the Modern Whigs' symbol. I give you a free space to give your version for its symbol--the Owl or the Eagle? Or you could try to tell me how the Drumpfian vision will guide us into the uncertain future?
MAWhA!
(Make America Whig Again!)
Selection from the comments following
(Make America Whig Again!)
Selection from the comments following
That "Bush wing" that Thomas talks about--where will they go when they have been excised from the Trumpist party--even after Trump is gone?
I see our politics as 40% Trump (hopeless, deplorable), 40% Democratic (ineffective, due to infighting and being outmaneuvered), and 20% homeless never-Trump ex-Republicans and conservative/moderate ex-Democrats. It may be a small group, but what they do may determine the future course of our politics. That's why I think it's important.
When I look at the Writer Beat crowd, most are in that group that can't stand Democratic candidates but won't admit to supporting Trump. So, I ask you, where?
TexasLynn chinshihtang • 7 days ago
I... did not vote for Trump last time because he was not a conservative, and I had promised myself I would settle for nothing less (after being forced to vote for the likes of McCain and Romney).This time around, I may end up voting for Trump for two reasons.1) I see no acceptable candidate running against him. Personally, I think the Democratic Party is so far gone (left) that I doubt it can produce one.2) To send a message to the statist media, elite, deep state, and crazy left that has pushed all the overblown Russia collusion bullshit.All you guys give grief to those who held their nose and voted for Trump last time (2016), especially Christian.So, I ask you, where was the alternative? What candidate should they have supported instead based on their principles? Would you have rather they sat on their hands (and votes) and given the job to Hillary by proxy? (Actually, THAT is precisely what that particular criticism is about... Well, all I can say to that is we all hope those we despise and oppose are idiots.)
›
the burghal hidage chinshihtang • 8 days ago
Stoner the problem I see is that you are asking wrong question/discussing wrong issue. Your concerns seem to centered on the parties. The parties are the problem. They are parties alright: theirs. We are not invited, except at election time. The parties are not going to be fixed. They both need to be destroyed.
TreeParty the burghal hidage • 7 days ago
Little surprise coming from an "anarcho-libertarian gonzo". Political parties grow organically from the political milieu, and tend to evolve toward a two-party structure. Wishing that the two existing major parties "need to be destroyed" is about as constructive as wishing that Santa Claus was real."Your concerns seem to be centered on the parties. The parties are the problem."
Well, DUH! His concern is centered on the problem - how ridiculous is that?!Admit it, BH - you don't know or care what you are talking about...1
the burghal hidage TreeParty • 7 days ago
›Youre close. I Know what you think, but I don't Care. You really need to work on your reading comprehension
chinshihtang the burghal hidage • 8 days ago
Fair enough, so I ask: How do you destroy the immobility of the two-party system as we have it? The answer has to be a third "force" (--Let's not call it a party, we can celebrate once it has succeeded.)--one that rejects the parties yet has some organizational quality to produce positive value. ( It is not the Trump movement, which is a clownlike parody of that idea.)I say in all sincerity (though as an outsider) that we need that moral force which conservatism could have to be restored to our politics to have any hope of resolving the stalemate. My best-case scenario for next year is discord between dRumpkins vs. the Repenticans, and the Democrat slide through. Sort of like 1992, or 1976. So my motives are dubious, however:As for the Democratic party, that would take care of itself quickly enough once the menace of control of the government by the Trumpist Republicans has receded. They (we) can't wait to have at each other, but the imperative is to hold off until Mordor falls. That could happen in 2020, in 2022, or it could take decades still, though we must believe justice will prevail.
the burghal hidage chinshihtang • 8 days ago
Jim I appreciate your voice in the conversation. I strongly disagree with most of your premise on things, but you do seem to be starting to recognize the source of at least some of the problems. Just my opinion, but you seem to be an old school Chicago democrat unable to separate yourself from the party identity. You can take boy out of Chicago, not the Chicago out of the boy 😁
chinshihtang the burghal hidage • 8 days ago
I'm more like one of the Chicago 7, but I can't pick just one. Maybe Bobby Seale (the one that was bound and gagged in the courtroom because he just wouldn't STFU). Not from Chicago, though.
the burghal hidage chinshihtang • 8 days ago
›But I recall you had said that you did spend some years there?
chinshihtang the burghal hidage • 8 days ago
Yes, you're right! I was an "economic migrant" from my adopted home (in New Mexico) to Ill. for a very good job, post-recession. (2011-2018) But now retired--lots of time to give you guys grief.
- Another conversation, this time about the Democratic party and where it's going:
chinshihtang Jessica Colon • 13 days ago
With regard to taking up arms for the Democrats' nominating a radical before the process even begins, I suggest calmness--it will be a very long ordeal.I would suggest one way to think about the process: if we think of Chief Twit as being the classic 'dorkhead' (a euphemism), then the Democrats' objective should be to nominate the least-dorkhead possible candidate.That would suggest certain qualities: a non-misogynist, non-racist, well-educated and well-spoken, knowledgeable about foreign policies and scientific thought, a good manager of people, clear-thinking, forward-looking and consistent in philosophy. Not Barack Obama, though, unfortunately.
Posts
