Skip to comments.How Richard Nixon and Rodney King Changed my Party Loyalty
Posted on 10/19/2013 10:35:41 PM PDT by lee martell
I grew up in a blue collar, Democratic family. We have been Democratic on both sides of the family, at least since the beginning of the 20th century. I never questioned what decisions my party representatives made as a very young man, say 18 years old. I presumed (wrongly) that these elected officials would always do what was right. I also accepted as indisputable fact that , well of course the Republicans were always, always in the wrong. The republicans were greedy and 'keeping us down'.
You can imagine my surprise when, as a college freshman in 1975, I heard from someone I know with an opposing view. This was in October. I was at one of many back to school after-parties in Columbus, Ohio. The host's girlfriend had just poured me a full paper cup of Ernest and Julio Gallo Sangria (Red). I heard a familiar voice; another student saying how 'great' a president Richard Nixon was. I was amazed. If you think George W. Bush was trashed in the press, you should have heard the wailing after WaterGate. It lasted for decades. Enumerable nattering nabobs. This student was somebody I knew from psychology class. We had discussed Jung and Sarte. He even knew about Simone De Beauvoir. I had thought we were friends, and now this? I sat down with my oversweet wine and listened to him. He mentioned how the economy was very strong under Nixon, and our Earnings to Debt Ratio was impressive. I had the obligatory retorts in reply. I responded with what we now call talking points, all based on emotion or circular rhetoric. I was struck that my friend was focused on results, not personality, as my side always relied on. I thought about that conversation long after, although I made no immediate changes. I still dutifully voted democrat as my father advised. From that short conversation, I realized that not all republicans are horrible people. A lot of my tried and true beliefs were suddenly not necessarily all true.
Fast forward almost 20 years later to the 1992 Rodney King Riots in Los Angeles. Suffice to say that the incredible amount of race baiting and 'reverse prejudice' that I saw on the news or read in the papers (long before internet for regular folks) was disturbing and embarrassing. After hearing the umpteenth person defend those looters who had to be threatened with shotguns from the Korean owners,, I realized I did not wish to call myself a democrat any longer. This was around the time Jesse Jackson made up that phrase African-American, a phrase I still disagree with a refuse to use today when given a choice. I'm not from Africa, I'm from Michigan. This was when the style began to openly overwhelm substance in American Politics. Now, I'm at the point of considering the Libertarian Party. I believe in war and fighting for the right reasons. If there is a page in the Libertarian Book for conservatives who are willing to support defense of the country. well. I may have to give it a good look.
Today’s Republican Party is yesterday’s Democratic Party, but without balls or a spine. I went Libertarian last November and have no regrets.
There ya go.
If you are a social liberal, but like conservative economic positions and like the conservative position of limited government, but can’t realize that social liberalism makes economic conservatism impossible, then libertarianism is for you.
Great post Lee! :-)
Tiny picky point. That would be innumerable, not enumerable, nattering nabobs. (Well, to God they’re enumerable. But we take this as your point of view :-)
Anyhow, nice account. Sometimes it does dawn on Democrats-by-habit what stinkers they’ve been in bed with. Now sometimes even blind pigs get acorns, and a Democrat has been known to do decent things once in a while. But a party that since antebellum times has been bent on the dishonoring of humanity, is not exactly begging for God’s blessings. It’s not that the Republicans are so wonderful but that the Democrats have so far managed to be worse.
So you think even a ‘smidgen’ of social liberalism is guaranteed to be incompatible with limited government? We already have a bit of a mixture now, ever since Johnson’s welfare and social reforms, some of which have been clipped back a little. Some social programs have to be either dumped or totally revised, such as pension plans. We cannot make that cozy promise anymore, there are too many of us, and we live too long to sustain it. Just ask Detroit about the crushing weight of pension plans, and lifelong guarantees.
You’re correct about that. Innumerable is one of those words that I hear spoken, but rarely do I see it in print.
If you are a social liberal, but like conservative economic positions and like the conservative position of limited government, but cant realize that social liberalism makes economic conservatism impossible, then libertarianism is for you.
At least social/economic conservatives can form alliances/truces with libertarians on the economy to push forward market reforms that reduce government interference, it is nearly impossible to do so with communists/socialists...
We don’t need to make more former conservatives into libertarians, we need to make more former liberal into libertarians.
That is a very thoughtful and poignant observation of the democrat party.
“If you are a social liberal, but like conservative economic positions and like the conservative position of limited government, but cant realize that social liberalism makes economic conservatism impossible, then libertarianism is for you.”
Yes. Relax yourself. Sit down, if you like. But remember to keep saying the mantra “Rand, RAnd, RANd, RAND”......
That’s the thing about libertarianism: it doesn’t solve the problems that incur the same curses socially that liberalism brings, and potentially wants to expand them as the liberals do. There is a God indeed.
Social liberalism is the libertarian platform of,
Libertarian Party Platform:
Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through political boundaries.
Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.
Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments.
Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.
Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, and anything new that science can come up with, zero restrictions.
Advertising those drugs, prostitution, and pornography; zero restrictions.
Military Strength; minimal capabilities.
Ansel12 continues to be confused. I’ve pointed out before how PERSONAL INDIVIDUAL acceptance of God weighs far more to the good than any kind of social bans on inanimate things. And in fact the second is scapegoating.
Ansel12 continues to try to paint scenes on the head of pins with a house painting brush and achieves consequences in accordance with this folly.
God did not send His Son into this fallen world to save “societies” but individual souls. And I can continue to pound on the distinctions, except that I do intend to go to a church worship service in the morning and can’t chase ansel12 around all night. So there may be (although I hope not) more inane comments I cannot reply to, or at least not soon.
The goal of the libertarians at FR, is to make conservatives into libertarians/social liberals.
How about letting the restrictions on abuse of the inanimate be in the form of a evangelized society?
I wonder if you don’t evangelize at all. Evangelization is basically canvassing for votes for God.
There you go with that stupid broad brush again.
Oh jeez, here it comes, the embracing of social liberalism in the name of Jesus.
We conservatives will continue our political fight for life and marriage, thank you very much.
Well your fight is a piddly little, LOSING thing until “the name of Jesus” is exalted.
Some day it will finally dawn on your thick mind that the horse goes in FRONT of the cart.