Quo Vadis GOP?

[Sheilbh]

Still low-key think he might be the candidate in 2024

Apparently Trump already has him in his crosshairs... 

With good reason
https://twitter.com/UNHSurveyCenter/status/1539627220745867266

Steve Kornacki
@SteveKornacki
New UNH survey of "like NH GOP primary voters" for 2024 (n=318):

DeSantis 39%
Trump 37%
Pence 9%
Haley 6%
Pompeo 1%
Noem 1%
Cruz 1%

Last October:
Trump 43%
DeSantis 18%
Haley 6%
Pence 4%
Cruz 2%
Noem 1%

[viper37]

John Adams would be very surprised to learn that.

What was Franklin's opinion of Canadians ca 1750?  What's #4 on the intolerable acts list?

4. Quebec Act
The Quebec Act was created with two main purposes.
The first one was to increase religious distances between Christian Catholics and Protestants via providing special privileges to Catholics.

As for slavery, Adams and his son are the only one of the first twelve presidents who weren't slave owners.

Clearly, slavery was of the utmost importance to the beginning of America.  It was part of the colonists' grievances that the British had offered freedom to slaves.

Slavery was certainly not THE motivating factor in seceding from Great Britain, unlike in the Civil War, but it was among the motivating factor of the South to join in the rebellion.  On one side, the promise of status quo.  On the other, a government that offers slaves their freedom in exchange for military service.  Arming black folks...  Still not popular today, can't imagine what it was like back then.

[alfred russel]

With good reason

So in the space to be the nontrump candidate that everyone less trump is aiming for, desantis has a prohibitive lead. So everyone should logically gun for him and cut him down to size, which leaves everyone under 20% except trump in the high 30s. Trump vs. Biden 2.0, this time with more senility.

[Barrister]

With good reason

So in the space to be the nontrump candidate that everyone less trump is aiming for, desantis has a prohibitive lead. So everyone should logically gun for him and cut him down to size, which leaves everyone under 20% except trump in the high 30s. Trump vs. Biden 2.0, this time with more senility.

I've heard it suggested that the GOP primary voters roughly break down as being 1/3 huge  Trump fans, 1/3 open to Trump but also open to someone else, and 1/3 who really wish Trump would go away.

So there is definitely room for Trump to not be the nominee, but you need to see consolidation fairly early on.  Because otherwise Trump can win a lot of states in a divided field with 1/3 of the vote.

[The Minsky Moment]

What was Franklin's opinion of Canadians ca 1750?  What's #4 on the intolerable acts list?

It isn't enormously suprising that American colonists, having fought a bitter war to establish their rights to western territory as against Canada, would object to the assignment of those same rights to Quebec.

As for anti-Catholic feeling, that certainly existed, but by virtue of the fact that the Americans inherited such sentiments from the motherland.  As for Franklin specifically, although he can fairly be accused of anti-clerical views, his diplomatic career does not suggest animus against French speakers or French culture. 

During the revolution, Franklin thought there was sufficient consonance of interest between America and Quebec to devote his efforts to a revolutionary era mission to Quebec to take common cause against Britain, a mission co-led by founder Charles Carroll, and Charles' cousin in John, a Jesuit and first American archbishop.  Although that mission failed, the founders' prejudices did not prevent John from founding a Jesuit led institution of higher learning in the nation's capital - Georgetown University.  The Carroll family and other patriot Catholics of Maryland certainly did not understand the American revolt to be anti-Catholic crusade.  Their sentiment is not that hard to understand, given that the patriots fought for and obtained the right of free exercise of religion as against a mother country with an established (Protestant) Church.

As for slavery, Adams and his son are the only one of the first twelve presidents who weren't slave owners.

That's another way of observing that most early Presidents were Virginians.

I wouldn't take the position that safeguarding slavery played no role in patriot motivations in the South (I've argued otherwise here on languish), but I can safely say that it was not a significant motivation in the patriot hotbeds of New England.

[Razgovory]

Yet she calls her self a nationalist.  That's what nationalism looks like from the outside.  That's how strange and laughable and menacing it looks.  That's what you look like when you start going on about nationalism or that weird pro-confederate secessionist argument you make sometimes.  Quebec has left-wing nationalists so maybe they look different, but this is what right-wing nationalism looks like.

I was joking because you guys always insist there's some magical difference between the good, pure patriot and the evil cold-hearted nationalist.

It's exactly the same.  Right wing or left wing does not even matter.  As much as I dislike the left, Sweden and Finland were never the USSR.  Reagan years in the US were not Nazi Germany.

The American Patriots where white men fighting against other white men because they feared their slaves would be taken from them, because they did not want Catholics to have any rights and because they wanted the lands that belonged to Indian tribes.  The rest is as accessory as the Confederacy denouncing some high tariffs as the cause of their own war of independence.

You can be a proud American by not being racist, despite your founding fathers being mostly slavers and against racial equality.

America had racial issues since before it became a country.  Nationalism, as a political concept, is an invention of the 19th century.  It only became a problem when it mixed with imperialism, of which it shares many core issues.  But hey, the problem is certainly that some people are proud of their culture and want it to thrive.  Certainly not that some country invades its weaker neighbors to grab their resources, right?

People like MJT are no different than many other politicians of the past.  Winston Churchill let the Indians from Bengal starve for the good of the Empire and generally considered all non British to be inferior.  He was merely a product of his times.  Consider this:
Since 1939, the United Kingdom had been drawing grain and manufactures from India for the war effort, and the colonial government had been printing money to pay for these purchases.  The resulting inflation had combined with other factors to precipitate famine in early 1943.  The following summer, the Government of India asked the War Cabinet for half a million tons of wheat by year-end.  The cereal would feed India's two-million-strong army and workers in war-related industries; if any happened to be left over, it would relieve starvation.  The mere news of the arrival of substantial imports would cause prices to fall, because speculators would anticipate a drop in prices and release any hoarded grain to the market.  Churchill's close friend and technical advisor, Lord Cherwell, demurred, however: he erroneously argued that India's food problem could not be solved by imports.  In any case, expending valuable shipping on Indians "scarcely seems justified unless the Ministry of War Transport cannot find any other use for it," he added in a draft memo.  (In the final version, this sentence was changed to a straightforward recommendation against sending grain.)

This is imperialism, as has been done since antiquity.  Politicians like MJT add nothing new.  They ain't part of some "revolutionary new" political movement.

If you want to be specific to the US, there were always racist US politicians, opposed to immigration and/or wanting to use the power of their army to crush dissent or expand their territory. They existed long before we talked of nationalism.

Imperialism is the problem.  The belief that somehow, your country is superior to all others.  Not the pride once can derive in its cultural group.  Mix imperialism with conservatism, and you got the modern GOP.  We are the best in the world and we should absolutely not change anything.  Add a dose of religious fervor, and you have a recipe for disaster.

But keep blaming it on nationalism all you want.  It'll just blow harder in your face.

That's not what an imperialist is.

[Admiral Yi]

Slavery was certainly not THE motivating factor in seceding from Great Britain, unlike in the Civil War, but it was among the motivating factor of the South to join in the rebellion.  On one side, the promise of status quo.  On the other, a government that offers slaves their freedom in exchange for military service.  Arming black folks...  Still not popular today, can't imagine what it was like back then.

I've read plenty about Britain offering slaves their freedom *during* the war, but nothing at all about the threat of emancipation imposed by the motherland being a cause of independence sentiment.

[viper37]

Yet she calls her self a nationalist.  That's what nationalism looks like from the outside.  That's how strange and laughable and menacing it looks.  That's what you look like when you start going on about nationalism or that weird pro-confederate secessionist argument you make sometimes.  Quebec has left-wing nationalists so maybe they look different, but this is what right-wing nationalism looks like.

I was joking because you guys always insist there's some magical difference between the good, pure patriot and the evil cold-hearted nationalist.

It's exactly the same.  Right wing or left wing does not even matter.  As much as I dislike the left, Sweden and Finland were never the USSR.  Reagan years in the US were not Nazi Germany.

The American Patriots where white men fighting against other white men because they feared their slaves would be taken from them, because they did not want Catholics to have any rights and because they wanted the lands that belonged to Indian tribes.  The rest is as accessory as the Confederacy denouncing some high tariffs as the cause of their own war of independence.

You can be a proud American by not being racist, despite your founding fathers being mostly slavers and against racial equality.

America had racial issues since before it became a country.  Nationalism, as a political concept, is an invention of the 19th century.  It only became a problem when it mixed with imperialism, of which it shares many core issues.  But hey, the problem is certainly that some people are proud of their culture and want it to thrive.  Certainly not that some country invades its weaker neighbors to grab their resources, right?

People like MJT are no different than many other politicians of the past.  Winston Churchill let the Indians from Bengal starve for the good of the Empire and generally considered all non British to be inferior.  He was merely a product of his times.  Consider this:
Since 1939, the United Kingdom had been drawing grain and manufactures from India for the war effort, and the colonial government had been printing money to pay for these purchases.  The resulting inflation had combined with other factors to precipitate famine in early 1943.  The following summer, the Government of India asked the War Cabinet for half a million tons of wheat by year-end.  The cereal would feed India's two-million-strong army and workers in war-related industries; if any happened to be left over, it would relieve starvation.  The mere news of the arrival of substantial imports would cause prices to fall, because speculators would anticipate a drop in prices and release any hoarded grain to the market.  Churchill's close friend and technical advisor, Lord Cherwell, demurred, however: he erroneously argued that India's food problem could not be solved by imports.  In any case, expending valuable shipping on Indians "scarcely seems justified unless the Ministry of War Transport cannot find any other use for it," he added in a draft memo.  (In the final version, this sentence was changed to a straightforward recommendation against sending grain.)

This is imperialism, as has been done since antiquity.  Politicians like MJT add nothing new.  They ain't part of some "revolutionary new" political movement.

If you want to be specific to the US, there were always racist US politicians, opposed to immigration and/or wanting to use the power of their army to crush dissent or expand their territory. They existed long before we talked of nationalism.

Imperialism is the problem.  The belief that somehow, your country is superior to all others.  Not the pride once can derive in its cultural group.  Mix imperialism with conservatism, and you got the modern GOP.  We are the best in the world and we should absolutely not change anything.  Add a dose of religious fervor, and you have a recipe for disaster.

But keep blaming it on nationalism all you want.  It'll just blow harder in your face.

That's not what an imperialist is.

"a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force:"

Why do you do it?  Because you can.  Why can you?  Because you're better than everyone else.

[viper37]

Slavery was certainly not THE motivating factor in seceding from Great Britain, unlike in the Civil War, but it was among the motivating factor of the South to join in the rebellion.  On one side, the promise of status quo.  On the other, a government that offers slaves their freedom in exchange for military service.  Arming black folks...  Still not popular today, can't imagine what it was like back then.

I've read plenty about Britain offering slaves their freedom *during* the war, but nothing at all about the threat of emancipation imposed by the motherland being a cause of independence sentiment.

It was groundless fear, mostly, but it was one of the reproach to Great Britain, that the Virginia governor was inciting a slave rebellion against the colonists.

But Lincoln didn't intend to free the slaves either at the beginning of the Civil War.

Anyway.

From the declaration of independence:
 

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us

, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

And here:

The British had encouraged slave and Indian revolts against the colonists. For example, in 1775, Lord Dunmore of Virginia, swore to members of the Virginia House of Burgesses that if "any Injury or insult were offered to himself" he would "declare Freedom to the Slaves, and reduce the City of Williamsburg to Ashes." The governors of North and South Carolina also were planning similar uprisings. General Gage, commander in chief of the British army in America, tried to persuade various of the Indian tribes to attack the colonists.

https://founding.com/he-has-excited-domestic-insurrections-amongst-us-and-has-endeavoured-to-bring-on-the-inhabitants-of-our-frontiers-the-merciless-indian-savages-whose-known-rule-of-warfare-is-an-undistinguished-des/

Can't deny that was a fear to some colonists.

[viper37]

That's like saying Canadians fought a bitter war for freedom.  France and the UK paid for the war and supplied most of the troops.

Anyway, the point is not that it is surprising that American colonists were enraged at liberties given to Canadians to keep their religion and have some limited rights over a portion of territory, is that it existed.  Long before you could claim some politician or another is the face of nationalism.

As for Franklin specifically, although he can fairly be accused of anti-clerical views, his diplomatic career does not suggest animus against French speakers or French culture.

Can't find the exact quote, but Franklin believed French Canadians should be deported to France after the 7 years wars, or force converted to Protestantism.

It wasn't much about culture back then

During the revolution, Franklin thought there was sufficient consonance of interest between America and Quebec to devote his efforts to a revolutionary era mission to Quebec to take common cause against Britain,

IIRC, he didn't have a high opinion of Canadians.  Anyway, his mission was pretty much doomed to failure from the beginning.

The English merchants already here were Loyalists.  The French mistrusted the Americans who were just another kind of British, and having lost all their elites after 1763, the only ones left with an education were the clergy from whom protecting religion was much more important than silly ideas like freedom.


I wouldn't take the position that safeguarding slavery played no role in patriot motivations in the South (I've argued otherwise here on languish), but I can safely say that it was not a significant motivation in the patriot hotbeds of New England.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Motivations certainly varied from place to place.  It wasn't a simple war, just like the French Revolution can't be summed up to a bourgeois uprising.

[Berkut]

Slavery was certainly not THE motivating factor in seceding from Great Britain, unlike in the Civil War, but it was among the motivating factor of the South to join in the rebellion.  On one side, the promise of status quo.  On the other, a government that offers slaves their freedom in exchange for military service.  Arming black folks...  Still not popular today, can't imagine what it was like back then.

I've read plenty about Britain offering slaves their freedom *during* the war, but nothing at all about the threat of emancipation imposed by the motherland being a cause of independence sentiment.

Don't go there. Suggesting that the American Revolutionary War was not primarily about protecting slavery will get you a lot of grief around here. 

[Berkut]

Slavery was certainly not THE motivating factor in seceding from Great Britain, unlike in the Civil War, but it was among the motivating factor of the South to join in the rebellion.  On one side, the promise of status quo.  On the other, a government that offers slaves their freedom in exchange for military service.  Arming black folks...  Still not popular today, can't imagine what it was like back then.

I've read plenty about Britain offering slaves their freedom *during* the war, but nothing at all about the threat of emancipation imposed by the motherland being a cause of independence sentiment.

It was groundless fear, mostly, but it was one of the reproach to Great Britain, that the Virginia governor was inciting a slave rebellion against the colonists.

But Lincoln didn't intend to free the slaves either at the beginning of the Civil War.

Anyway.

From the declaration of independence:

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us

, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

And here:

The British had encouraged slave and Indian revolts against the colonists. For example, in 1775, Lord Dunmore of Virginia, swore to members of the Virginia House of Burgesses that if "any Injury or insult were offered to himself" he would "declare Freedom to the Slaves, and reduce the City of Williamsburg to Ashes." The governors of North and South Carolina also were planning similar uprisings. General Gage, commander in chief of the British army in America, tried to persuade various of the Indian tribes to attack the colonists.

https://founding.com/he-has-excited-domestic-insurrections-amongst-us-and-has-endeavoured-to-bring-on-the-inhabitants-of-our-frontiers-the-merciless-indian-savages-whose-known-rule-of-warfare-is-an-undistinguished-des/

Can't deny that was a fear to some colonists.

The Declaration of Independence came AFTER the war started. Not before.

[The Larch]

Granted it's Boebert, who is a notorious MAGA moron, but still, chilling.

Republican Lauren Boebert wins in Colorado after denouncing separation of church and state
Congresswoman backed by Trump wins primary after proclaiming 'I'm tired of this separation of church and state junk'

The extremist Colorado Republican congresswoman Lauren Boebert won her primary on Tuesday night, shortly after attacking the separation of church and state under the US constitution.

"I'm tired of this separation of church and state junk," she said.

A dedicated controversialist first elected in 2020, backed by Donald Trump and described by NBC News as a "Maga lightning rod", Boebert convincingly beat Don Coram, a state senator, for the nomination to contest the midterm elections.

(...)

On Sunday, two days before the primary and in comments first reported by the Denver Post, Boebert told a religious service: "The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our founding fathers intended it."

(...)

Boebert, however, said she was "tired of this separation of church and state junk that's not in the constitution. It was in a stinking letter, and it means nothing like what they say it does".

The "stinking letter" seemed to be one written by Thomas Jefferson to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, in 1802.

The third president referred to the constitution establishing "a wall of separation between church and state". His words have been mentioned in supreme court rulings.

Gwen Calais-Haase, a Harvard political scientist, told the Washington Post Boebert's claim was "false, misleading and dangerous", and said she was "extremely worried about the environment of misinformation that extremist politicians take advantage of for their own gains".

The supreme court has also recently ruled on abortion, overturning the long established right in a ruling last week.

At the service on Sunday, Boebert said, "Look at what happened this week. This is the fruit of your labor, of your votes and of your prayers – this is your harvest."

[Valmy]

Granted it's Boebert, who is a notorious MAGA moron, but still, chilling.

It's nothing that Christian nationalists haven't been saying for centuries.

But the thing that baffles me is that this separation protects religion from the government. If that wall went away then Christian practice could be in danger all over the country. Not just in areas where other religions, or anti-theists, have power but in areas where other Christian groups they regard as heretical have power. If they are against Sharia law so much one would think they would want to protect that wall.

I guess it is just based on the concept that they will have more power in their very specific area so screw all the Christians in other places.

[Jacob]

It's nothing that Christian nationalists haven't been saying for centuries.

But the thing that baffles me is that this separation protects religion from the government. If that wall went away then Christian practice could be in danger all over the country. Not just in areas where other religions, or anti-theists, have power but in areas where other Christian groups they regard as heretical have power. If they are against Sharia law so much one would think they would want to protect that wall.

I guess it is just based on the concept that they will have more power in their very specific area so screw all the Christians in other places.

That, or they think they can use their power base to impose their particular flavour of Christianity on other areas either through force or co-option. I mean, you do see a certain alignment between some flavours of Catholicism and the radical Evangelical chauvenists at times.