American Party Politics in a Nutshell

The Democratic Party is now the party of foreigners and minorities. How did the all-American party of the common man, founded by Andrew Jackson, come to this? Briefly-

-There was a common party, the Jeffersonians then Jacksonians that eventually became the Democratic Party. It was run by elites- Jefferson and Jackson were nothing if not elite- but they were Southern agrarian elites, opposing Northern commercial elites.

-The Northern commercial elites had various pro-business parties, the Federalists, then the Whigs, then the Republican Party. The Republican party also had Western (or what you would now call Midwestern) support because Western farmers, while they economically had more in common with Southern farmers and plantation owners, did not like slavery and saw it as a threat to their culture.

-The Republican Party remained strong after the Civil War as the US became a more industrialized and less agricultural country. The Democratic Party remained the party of the farming or laboring common man.

-If you want to ride a horse, you have to have a horse to ride. Elites who didn’t want to elbow their way to the front of the Republican Party had the opportunity to take over leadership of the Democratic Party, then still run by common people. In 1928 the Democratic presidential candidate was Irish Catholic machine pol Al Smith; in 1932 the patrician FDR.

-If you want to control the common man, the best way is to control his institutions. The Democratic party and labor unions are run by the same people, youthful elites.

-The common man saw the Democrats were no longer interested in helping him, but making an alliance between the elites and the lumpenproletariat, a political coalition dating back to ancient Rome and seen today in Latin America. The brighter and better part of the common people- that is, the white part- moved over to the Republicans, if only as a defensive move.

-The upper/lower coalition (I forget what Moldbug calls it, he uses the Indian caste terms) is unstable, but politics like much of life is about today, not tomorrow. It will last and rule things as long as it lasts.

Advertisements

About thrasymachus33308

I like fast cars, fast women and southern-fried rock. I have an ongoing beef with George Orwell. I take my name from a character in Plato's "Republic" who was exasperated with the kind of turgid BS that passed for deep thought and political discourse in that time and place, just as I am today. The character, whose name means "fierce fighter" was based on a real person but nobody knows for sure what his actual political beliefs were. I take my pseudonym from a character in an Adam Sandler song who was a obnoxious jerk who pissed off everybody.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to American Party Politics in a Nutshell

  1. PA says:

    Moldbug calls is the BHD-OV conflict:

    Optimates: old-money social register elites; pre-liberal church, military, business leaders (not many around anymore: their kids become Brahmins at Harvard)

    Vaysias: middle class (regular whites)

    Brahmins: current Cathedral elites and wanna-be’s (Stephen Spielberg and barrista hipsters)

    Helots: laborers (illegals/Hispanics)

    Dalits: crime/welfare classes (blacks)

  2. PA says:

    I like Moldbug’s simpler classification of castes in Arab countries, specifically in Mubarak’s Egypt:

    Sheep / Dogs / Wolves

    Sheep: a tiny westernised elite and professional class
    Dogs: military, police
    Wolves: Islamic fundamentalists; majority of the population.

    It’s a rock-paper-scissors thing: the sheep control (and hate) the dogs, who control (and hate) the wolves, who want to devour the sheep. How did doing away with the digs work out for the sheep?

  3. joetexx says:

    MM uses a mix of Hindu and Classical terms.

    Curiously he leaves out two of the Hindu castes; the Kshatriyas or warriors
    and the Shudras who were common laborers but still within the caste system.

    The Dalits (pariahs or untouchables) were outside the castes altogether.

    I suggest the despised white working class (proles) are our current Shudras.
    The Vaisyas are more Beaver Cleaver, Brady Bunch types, though the Brahmins despise them almost as they do the Shudras.

    Americans do have a Kshatriya or Samurai caste though it is not as visible or powerful as in other lands.

    An American Kshatriya recently died: Brigadier General Albion Knight Jr. ,
    Presiding Bishop of the dissident traditionalist United Episcopal Church in America.

    In 1992, Knight was the vice-presidential candidate of the US Taxpayers Party in the U.S. presidential election.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion_Knight

    • Callowman says:

      It could be argued that Knight’s an Optimate. Your additions to the caste system are solid, however. Can you propose any more candidate Kshatriyas?

      • joetexx says:

        Callowman:

        I would suppose that any family associated with the professional military
        (Commisioned officers, not NCO’s) for two or more generations could be called American Kshatriyas.

        Examples would be the Schwarzkopf or Trusscott families. You can marry into a Kshatriya family as did General Petraeus, who wed the daughter of the Superintendent of West Point.

        One of the problems with Moldbug’s mixing of cultural terminologies is that
        Kshatriya (Hindu) is a caste or status term, whereas Optimate (Roman) also meant a definite political position; supporting the Senatorial or reactionary faction in the Roman republic’s civil wars.

        Caesar and Catiline were from old-line patrician families, but no one would have called them Optimates in old Rome; they supported the Populares, the radical party.

        As a political reactionary General Knight could be considered Kshatriya and Optimate.

  4. oscar the grinch says:

    “How did it come to this?”

    Oh I’m pretty sure the question actually just has a plain one-word answer: Jews.

    Funny how so many questions genuinely have the same answer.

  5. fnn says:

    Jews combined with prolonged periods of affluence combined with liberalism. Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) pointed out how affluence led to weakness/social decay even before liberalism came along.

  6. SOBL1 says:

    Great post. Money allows a society to paper over or socialize the negatives of bad social engineering and permissiveness. We’ve covered for the decay of our nation with credit.

    I do think Moldbug has simplified the divide as Elois + Morlocks vs. Proles. The Eloi think they can control the Morlocks forever, but there will come a day when the grad school kids won’t be allowed to hold the strings because the coalition of victims will demand one of their own at the helm of every institution.

    I argue that even starting back with Pres. Wilson, the NY money elite combined with the progressives (America’s word for socialists) to stage a “brick by brick” coup on the nation. That coup is complete (Rubin’s work in the Clinton admin cemented it). Marx did write that one of the first things a socialist state should do is create a central bank. Wilson did that in his 1st term.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s