They keep this up the Onion will be out of business:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

First it was advocating Nullification, a crisis that was settled in the 1830s:

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_74a2dc51-4ef0-53d4-842a-797ef0009fdd.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-02-28-nullify28_ST_N.htm

Then the Party of Lincoln and Grant starts advocating secession from the Union, a Man Bites Dog story if there ever was one:

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2010/04/republicans_pas.php

http://www.politicususa.com/en/as-simple-as-black-and-white-the-gops-secessionist-dream

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7458701.html

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/poll-texas-republicans-approve-of-rick-perrys-secession-remarks.php

And now it's the Right Wing equivalent of deleting secret policemen from group photos:

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/23/paul-lepage-labor-mural/

Not to mention collective punishment for strikers:

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/23/buried-provision-food-stamps/

Seriously, what's gotten into the Republicans in Congress as of late? I mean Democratic stupidity tends to be more banal than trying to literally return to 1890s social issues:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/10/utah-legislature-goes-gold-silver-legal-tender/

I love history, sure, but why exactly are people deciding in the 2010s to refight battles long-since settled politically? Did the GOP come down with Miniver Cheevy syndrome? I mean really, you can't even use Poe's Law anymore with stuff like this. Next thing you know people will be advocating returning the USA to the British as a new Dominion of the Empire.

To be absolutely sure about Rule 8-I really don't think any of this is a good idea and I think it all frankly is the kind of behavior that makes me think that guy in the tiger suit is more typical of members of Congress than people like to admit. And I might note that I'm cynical but even I wouldn't believe some of this stuff unless I saw it in the first place.

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I love history, sure, but why exactly are people deciding in the 2010s to refight battles long-since settled politically?

We/They weren't alive then, for one, and being on the losing but correct side doesn't necessarily mean one should give up.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

You know this would also apply to say, Commies and other people whose sacred cows got turned into ribeyes by history, right? Face it, if you decide on war to make your ideology stick and you get spanked as badly as the South did by the first Republicans, you should straighten up and fly right.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It would apply to those people if they're right, sure. After all, your attitude could be applied to any number of issues - gay marriage, civil rights, etc.

Just "eat it".

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

It's kind of like their insistence that they are being fiscally conservative by cutting funding from Planned Parenthood and NPR, never mind those being drops in the bucket of massive government spending, the important thing is THEY DON'T LIKE THEM. And apparently moral objections to spending only count when they come from conservatives.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

That's ordinary political hypocrisy, though. Trying to bring up arguments settled a long time ago? It's like our politicians have been replaced by time-traveling Jacksonians.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I know that the mere mention of the New Deal is like blood in the water during shark week for conservatives.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Ever think for a moment that you're completely wrong? That your whole ideology stems from circular conceptions of what you believe the arguments your opponents have and at no point are you actually applying intellectual rigor to the debate?

Nah, it must just be that conservatives are dumb and greedy and there lies no fault in your argument of what conservatives believe.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Next thing you know people will be advocating returning the USA to the British as a new Dominion of the Empire.

Oh I think Green_man will SO love this idea!

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

He's welcome to it. If they do that, I'm moving to Argentina. ;P.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

I love history, sure, but why exactly are people deciding in the 2010s to refight battles long-since settled politically? Did the GOP come down with Miniver Cheevy syndrome?

The whole thing about conservatism is, well, being conservative. While there will be several people here who will deny it, one of the definitions of being conservative is "disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change." Emphasis mine.

Nullification? Tradition.
Secession? Tradition.
Mowing down strikers with machine guns? Tradition.
Gold standard? Silver standards? Tradition.

Frankly, if they want to be traditional, why don't they overthrow the republic, establish a monarchy, and recreate feudalism? That's a fuckload more traditional than those other items. If traditional is good, then even more traditional is better.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Conservatives today are radical change-makers spouting "reform" like any other good progressive. What they aim to create is not based in history or tradition, much like how religious fundamentalism is neither traditional or fundamental.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I'm all for the Jeffersonian treatment with the military.........

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I thought they *were* trying to recreate feudalism

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I think that's about as honest an assessment of conservatism as unthinkingly overturning every and all tradition/established law/ would be an honest assessment of liberalism.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

"I love history, sure, but why exactly are people deciding in the 2010s to refight battles long-since settled politically?"

Much of how politics and history is decided not as absolute right or wrong, as the issue of slavery or civil rights can be fairly described, for example. But rather it is arbitrarily decided in favor of one philosophy or the other, whoever is stronger politically at the moment. But much of this kind of 'settled' law is not based on some absolute and unchangeable truth. As such, I believe it's rather silly and arbitrary in its own right to deem something settled politically, as if that's how its supposed to be (or as if 'how things are' are the same as 'how they're supposed to be'), based on nothing but the observation that something established has been around a long time, and shouldn't be questioned because it takes on an air of religiosity. Politics is not faith and tradition. Those belong to the larger, non-political free-associating aspects of a culture.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Slavery, like gay marriage, was illegal everywhere in America save the USA and Brazil by the 1860s. Brazil manumitted it without a civil war, and for God's sakes fucking TSARIST RUSSIA emancipated without a civil war. Lincoln is elected on the idea of preventing the spread of slavery and in four years half the country's laid waste and 630,000 soldiers, and at least 100,000 civilians are dead.

Now, hopefully the Theocons will be smarter than to touch off *this* kind of war when 80% of the military likes what Obama's doing. But the irony is that the abolition of slavery here has some parallels with gay marriage, though bringing *that* up in an OP would really be probably for someone else with a bit more tact than I have.

[404.livejournal.com]

I love history, sure, but why exactly are people deciding in the 2010s to refight battles long-since settled politically?

If you love history so much then you should understand that very few things are "settled" and are constantly being reexamined and discussed, based on 1) new information, 2) a generational shift or 3) an event that radically alters the conscience of a state/people/culture.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Why don't you marry it?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The extent of this is grossly exaggerated. Historical change is rather slow and diffuses through entire generations. You can change things superficially by revolution or tough it out through the kind of multi-generation long-term thinking that only occurs in bad sci-fi novels.

[kris-schnee.livejournal.com]

There are acts that the federal government is forbidden to do under the Constitution. An unconstitutional act has no legal force because there's no lawful authority behind it, any more than a cop who robs people while in uniform. The states are acknowledging the reality that the feds are trying to do illegal things. If the Supreme Court refuses to put any meaningful limits on federal power -- and based on the Wickard, Raich, Lopez and Morrison cases it's teetering 5-4/4-5 on the health care mandate and all it implies -- then the Constitution has already been overthrown. The message being sent by the nullification is, "We think you're trying to claim absolute power over us. Back off." And the reaction so far has been to laugh this claim off and insult the people making it. This is unwise.

I understand, you probably have a low opinion of people who think certain federal acts have no legal authority. But the fact is that the feds will have to initiate force to impose the health care mandate and other policies over the states. Are you willing to see that happen instead of backing off? If we're lucky, the Supreme Court will make the feds back off on this one, and the "progressives" won't need to make a decision here.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Ah, so they care about universal health care but not suspension of the writ, negation of Posse Comitatus, or the idea that anyone a President decrees a terrorist can be shot via summary execution. In other words, they're concerned about a selective example of governmental abuse like most people.

But I forget, you're one of the Randian fanboys.....

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

The states are acknowledging the reality that the feds are trying to do illegal things.

Question: Who determines what is and is not illegal, if the Supreme Court does not have that authority?

The message being sent by the nullification is, "We think you're trying to claim absolute power over us. Back off."

You see that message.
The message I hear is: "We'll do whatever we damn well feel like and you can go fuck yourself."

Of course, then there's the message that if nullification is correct, then obviously the CSA was correct, as that was one of the prime issues of the Civil War.

Are you willing to see that happen instead of backing off?

Well, that's a good question.
Should I have been willing to see the federal government enforce desegregation in Arkansas in 1957? If yes then, then yes now.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

But the fact is that the feds will have to initiate force to impose the health care mandate and other policies over the states.

Not really.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

That pesky minimum wage...