1) Whatever the backlashes with regards to religious puritanism are, the train to make all people equal (except for the monetary class-divider) has long left the station and is unstoppable. Women's and minority rights have advanced so far that any regression can only be miniscule.
2) Anytime somebody paints the original tea-partiers as racist and anti-freedom they show their utter ignorance. They were born from libertarianism which values personal liberty as the highest good and opposes any privacy intrusion and unconstitutional (para)military action. Sure there were a few feeble-minded and racist ones as in every group, but nothing out of the ordinary. Later they were hijacked by the neo-conservatives and their representatives sold out one by one (money corrupts at times).
I would like to clarify with regards to 1) that some people are above the law and the rule of law has been in peril for a while, but that has nothing to with religious puritanism or southern vs northern values, but with the bankstas.
By contrast, Mr Gore has made a vast wad of cash by setting up a boring TV channel, letting it fail and then selling it to a foreign concern. Not quite outsourcing, but fans of the movie The Campaign might know it as insourcing. And the indirect source of his wealth is something that he’s spent the last ten years attacking: big oil. It’s not the first time that he’s profited from something he professes to hate. Breitbart reports that back in 1995, he helped secure oil drilling rights for Occidental Petroleum in central California – destroying 100 burial grounds and holy places of the local Native American tribe. “What Gore didn’t tell people was that he owned stock in Occidental; before the sale of the land his stock was worth between $250,000 – $500,000, afterward it was worth between $500,000 and $1 million.”
So, the ghosts of Southern aristocracy are now the cynosure of American evil?
Gum cracking, tobacco chewing, gun kissing, bullwhip lashing psychopaths, lusting for the days when they can be czars again and rape the peasantry and ethnically disadvantaged while practicing some kind of cabalistic antiquated psuedo British class system from the middle ages!
Very interesting. I haven't finished it yet and will, but I think the thesis, while there is something to it, overly emphasizes the southern influence.
I think there are two elites, and the notheastern type, who went to Ivy league schools etc, is more likely to be of a communitarian mindset, and so on.
Whereas there are the other elites, who feel that inequality is the way it is, or possibly Gods law, or in some cases they are just selfish in the more negative sense, not believing in bettering their community and the country, or even in some cases giving up on the country because of propaganda or racist reasons.
The latter less enlightened wealthy elites are in control now, and as a thesis that is interesting.
But he (and the other authors he cites), lose me a little when they attribute this totally and exclusively to what they trace back as coming from the deep southern elitist culture. Not that it isn't a factor, or that there isn't some truth to it. But it's overly simplified, and false to a degree.
This is unfortunate, because the more general thesis about two different types of wealthy elites, and the wrong type being in control now, is an interesting one.
"On the contrary, it helped bring on the Terror and set French progress back a generation."
One might think that if the Aristocracy is allowed to continue we might end up the same way. It might not be about monetary collapse in the future. It could be about a people being fed up with a system & being angry & willing to take any action to change a system that they think is unfair. I guess I could do some research & try to find out if all the French Aristocrats survived "Madame Guillotine"
Remind me which one of them opposed Afghan or Iraq War?
Oh right, they didn't even utter a peep during that mess.
Actual Libertarians, seem to be against a large standing military and invading foreign countries.
Libertarians side with the Palestinians as being due their land. Teabaggers on the other hand not at all.
The Losers who started the Tea Party, were not Libertarians in any sense of the word. They may have been Libertarians in the sense that Chief Douchebag Santelli uses, "you know I'm kinda libertarian...". Meaning they are only libertarian in that they subscribe to the Cato nonsense and are anti-tax wingnuts who think that the FIRE gods should run the show and everyone else should sit down and shut up.
"There were two 'Reigns of Terror', if we could but remember and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passions, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon a thousand persons, the other upon a hundred million; but our shudders are all for the "horrors of the... momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty and heartbreak? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief terror that we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror - that unspeakable bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves."
Mark Twain, writing about the French Revolution,
in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court