Monday, June 16, 2014

Dave Brat and more

  • Pat Buchanan at TAC: David Brat, probably a good thing. A mob of course is not always right but most people still have more God-given common sense than our elite now. (No more foreign wars and help our citizens first.) I'm less optimistic than Pat about '16. In '12 I thought most white Americans felt they had done their charitable duty by voting affirmative action in '08 and would switch to the mainstream liberal Republican but no. This time? Too close to call but again I can see a mainstream Republican such as Jeb winning in the Punch-and-Judy show of mainstream politics in which the two important parties aren't really different. Some say it's a plus, for stability. I stopped voting mainstream after 2000. People will vote for Hillary simply because she's a woman. Either way it'll be more of the disastrous same, Hillary taking a page from Margaret Thatcher (admirable in some ways: economic efficiency/less socialism and defending her own people in the Falklands), being a hawk to prove she's tough in spite of being a woman, so more Middle Eastern fool's errands, plus she out-and-out hates the church like the incumbent. I don't see with her the scenario that accidentally made her husband a good president: caged by Congress and willing to make a deal so he did rather little.
  • Sarah Palin: Pro-war and pro-torture, and unqualified to hold national office so I wouldn't vote for her, but not the idiot the mainstream media make her out to be. The hatred is mostly envy: with the same manly husband for many years and being a mother, she has fulfilled being a woman and men still want her.
  • Was there a real story behind D-Day? The news and politics at the time and the narrative today say it saved America from the Nazi menace; America won the war. Actually the USSR won the war and the Germans couldn't have invaded even if they planned to. The Germans lost to the Soviets at Stalingrad, really losing the war then. (Hitler didn't learn from Napoleon; don't underestimate the Russian winter or the Russians.) General Patton's idea and Churchill's Operation Unthinkable are rather appealing, if only Churchill had pursued the conditional surrender some of the German leaders (the July 1944 plot) wanted: us and the Germans vs. the Soviets (but arguably not worth it for us if Stalin really just wanted to run Russia, not the world like Trotsky did). But no; he was obsessed with eliminating Germany as a threatening hegemon on the continent, standard British strategy. Some say D-Day was really about confronting our putative not-really ally under the guise of beating the already beaten Germans, pre-emptively grabbing Western Europe before the Reds could. Yalta was bad (the excuse for the war was freeing Poland, and look what happened) but these revisionists are saying if not for Roosevelt's statecraft it would have been much worse. (A variation of "we saved Europe"; arguably World War I destroyed Europe as we knew it, the reason America went in. Hooray for the Central Powers.) Not buying it but it makes me think.
  • The British elite: culturally conservative but intellectually liberal like their American successors. Thought of that when the royals, because of the Trooping of the Colour and Prince Philip's recent birthday, showed up in the news recently. You'd think the mother country, places such as Canada (whose reason to exist was conservative), and the parts of the U.S. most like England (New England of course and the rest of the Northeast) would be more conservative than flyover America (the frontier settled by free-church Protestants) but it's the opposite. (Hint: in principle Anglicanism really never was conservative.) Heartland America is probably still more conservative and more religious. For how much longer? And do the Reagan Democrats, Archie Bunker, even still exist? Maybe: an echo in the Tea Party.
  • From Fr. Todd Bragg: A fine American high churchman, Bishop James Mote. One story I recall about him is like I say, "It's Not About Latin™" (non-trad Catholics and the media long have painted us as mainly obsessed with a dead language), he said he could take or leave thous and thees; it was about principle, about theology. The color picture tells the paradoxical story of old-school American Anglo-Catholicism: looks as Tridentine Roman as we are but Prayer Bookish and believing in an invention it calls Anglicanism, Hooker filtered through a construct resembling Orthodoxy on paper (the Affirmation of St. Louis: seven councils, the Vincentian canon), from which you get more or less an equivalent to the church, but they say no thanks to the Pope. But the Episcopalians failed, from our point of view, because of an inherent flaw (man-made church invented to please the king of England that spun into heresy early on), so why re-create that? Our mother church became inhospitable because of Vatican II so such places have served a purpose (maybe not quite the one they intended), but they're still wrong in principle and are stuck in sectarian Protestantism where they don't belong.


  1. "And do the Reagan Democrats, Archie Bunker, even still exist?"

    A fair number hang around neighborhood watering holes in my neck of the woods. At my local, the demographic profile seems to skew toward middle-aged-and-older Irish Catholics who grew up as Democrats and turned rightward (GOP or, more commonly, skeptical independent) over time. There are a lot of them, but they're definitely not young- the average age is probably almost 60. I also get a decidedly non-liberal vibe from most of the cops I know, but I don't usually discuss politics with them explicitly.

  2. Palin is at least as qualified,to be president as any of the candidates of either two parties since 2000.


Leave comment