COVID-19 and Secession Post two

I don't need to know until early July to start work on my Texas secession book if it appears that Donald Trump is not getting re-elected. On the other hand, secession movements will likely start gaining strength if it becomes really obvious that Trump isn't going to be re-elected. So the earlier I can figure out whether Trump is going to be re-elected or not the better.

I am still struggling with this. I have a couple other projects that are absorbing much of my time so I don't need to be working on Texas secession until I know it is going to happen. I think that there are two things to consider.

The following is an issue only if some treatment doesn't show up. There are anti-virals being tested and there might be one or two that works. Even if one is found, it remains to be seen if it is that effective and can be made available in large quantities and supplied quickly enough. If they can only supply enough for 5 or 10 percent of the cases it will have limited usefulness to stop a pandemic. It will help, but it might just slow the progression of the pandemic.

Vaccines will become available, but I think they won't be available for sometime, long after things have gotten fairly bad.

FIRST THING

I am beginning to believe Trump is not going to be re-elected. There is evidence that indicates that Trump is doing well in the polls and his approval ratings are jumped up significantly.

However, things are still early in this pandemic outbreak. The pandemic is starting to reach the rural areas and smaller towns. Take for instance this city.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/02/us/albany-georgia-coronavirus/index.html

Dougherty County has 85,000 people and have close to the number of Fulton County with one million people.  Rural areas don't have really good health facilities or don't have any.

The governor of Georgia who has resisted stay at home measures is now claiming that he didn't know asymptomatic COVID-19 individuals could spread coronavirus until just recently, which I don't think is going to be believed except by the most credulous.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/georgia-gov-brian-kemp-admits-he-just-learned-asymptomatic-people-n1174976

There is Arizona which isn't taking coronavirus seriously.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/04/02/arizona-coronavirus-pawn-shops-golf-courses-essential-businesses-160043

I think when these other states get really impacted there will be two phenomenon. Trumps credibility will drop. Also, when these states get impacted the credibility of these governors will drop and with it the Republican Party which will also drag down Trump.

If the rural areas have people dying in their houses because there is no medical facilities and bodies stored without refrigeration I think it will have a big impact on support for Trump by Trump supporters. Though they might decide it is all fake news or someone it is a 5G thing or some other lunacy.

When people know someone who has died, a relative, a friend, co-worker, fellow member of a church or organization dies, I think there will be a change of opinion.

But we will have to see.

SECOND THING

Fatality rate is likely to be highest with Donald Trump supporters. The fatality rate is highest with older people. The severity of the impact seems like it is going to be in places where social distancing is being resisted in conservative states and the rural areas.

There are anecdotal reports of older individuals mocking social distancing or defying it to make some type of political point. So you have higher risk individuals engaging in higher risk behavior.

You have Evangelical churches having services with large numbers of people there. They do risk the general public's health, but they more immediately risk the health of their members and their members friends and relatives. By example they also send a message to their members that these health issues are not to be taken seriously.

I don't think fatalities will constitute a number representing a large percentage of voters, but it will have some impact. Winning and losing an election can depend on really small numbers. It might be a state that goes for one presidential candidate rather than another. There could be impacts to other elections.

SUMMARY

We will just have to wait and see. None of the above factors may be the deciding issue. It might be that once things are over, upon reflection, the public may decide that it is a bad idea to have a clown in charge because things can happen. It may be realized that the White House isn't a TV show and needs to be run by someone who is able and has able people on his or her staff.

I am going to start getting ready to write the book. I want to have all the materialss at hand if it is a go.

ADDTIONAL NOTE:

I am safely isolated and avoiding all risks. I will be looking forward to pulling down the Confederacy when this crisis is over.

Secession and COVID-19: UPDATE1:

So before I discuss the topic I want to say two things. I am doing fine and I have enough supplies to stay inside for a considerable amount of time and being retired I don't have to go to work or take other risks.

The other topic will be covered at the end of this post, which is some basic information about COVID-19 with links to some reliable sources of information.

SECESSION AND COVID-19

I have expressed the opinion that as long as Trump is re-elected the secession movements are going to remain without support. I also thought that there was a good chance Trump might be elected. So I haven't revived my writing on the Texas nationalist movement. The manuscript is where it was the night of the election in 2016.

However, we now have a severe national disruption with COVID-19.  Trump has said a series of things which in retrospect look fairly stupid. On the other hand the conservative movementt of the Breitbart type,https://www.breitbart.com/ , are coming up with a counter narrative as to what is happening. So COVID-19 has become fully politicized.

If things go badly, such as the health  care system runs out of hospital beds and really sick people are sent away I think Trump will have very poor re-election chances. I think it hasn't been considered that during a pandemic it might be elderly sick people with the flu that can't get beds because they are taken up with COVID-19 patients.

For example in Texas there is this warning about Texas running out of hospital beds by late April, about 30 days from now.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/public-health/2020/03/22/hospitals-will-run-out-of-beds-by-late-april-if-gov-abbott-doesnt-order-texans-to-stay-at-home-hospital-group-warns/

Then there is this is the latest count of new cases. (3/22/2020 Dallas Morning News (DMN) Sunday report)It is 36 new cases, with the county's total now reported as 131. Yesterday's DMN report it was 21 new cases with a total of 95. Friday, March 20, 2020 DMN report it was 19 cases, with a total of 74. Thursday, March 19, 2020 there were 20 new cases, for a total of 55. I am not exactly sure if the report is for the day or the report or the prior day.

UPDATE as of yesterday, April 1, 2020 there were 100 new cases and the total is 731. The number of cases is still increasing and increasing at a higher rate.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/public-health/2020/04/02/were-beginning-to-see-the-curve-rise-dallas-county-reports-record-100-new-coronavirus-cases/

So in three days the number of cases have more than doubled, about 2.5 times. However, this is a limited sample and the climbing numbers of cases might be due  to testing stations being opened so people can stop and get tested.

A week ago last Friday, the known number of cases in Dallas was 18. 3/13/2020, DMN. However, I would not use this data to construct an exponential curve. What I am trying to point out is that there could be in a week alot more cases, many times more cases than at the present.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/public-health/2020/03/22/dallas-county-announces-second-death-36-new-coronavirus-cases/

If on the other hand there is a surge but it doesn't exceed the capacity of the health care system Trump will not be that badly impacted I speculate. Despite everything stupid he has said his supporters really don't care and they will vote for him. The real issue for them is not getting a Democrat elected and they would be willing to vote for a yellow dog or a sack of potatoes instead.

The other issue about a failing health care system is the health care providers getting sick. If most of the doctors are sick or quarentined along with other health care workers how does a hospital function? If there aren't

So what are the chances of the health care system getting overloaded or too many health care workers getting sick? I really don't know and I am watching day by day. Largely because I need to know if there will be emergency care if I get sick.

There has been alot of really inane alarmism. Mathematical illiterates are suddenly talking about exponential curves and with a few data points projecting millions of cases in 4 to 8 weeks. Besides using a few points to fit a curve and other idiocies these projections are just stupid. I have solved differential equations and in no way does the spead of a virus going to be that simple.

This isn't to say there can't be dire consequences, but I wish to warn people not to believe some these projections. If they use the word "exponential" they are idiots.

The basic problem is that we don't know how many people are out there with COVID-19. Until starting this week there has been little testing. The testing is largely of those who are sick and believe they might have it.

How many people are out there asymmtomatic or mild and spreading it we don't know. It might be quite a lot or it might not be enough to bring down the health care system.  Also, even if it is a lot of people, it  might be with the tough measures being taken it will be controlled.

So I am watching the numbers come in. The amount of testing is going way up and every person tested positive can be quarantined. On the other hand this virus takes some time to start exhibiting symptoms if it does, so we might find out in the next coupld of weeks a lot of people suddenly manifesting symptoms. In general we will have to just wait and see.

One factor I haven't seen discussed is the mortality rates versus age and the political implications. The chance of COVID-19 being fatal to a person contracting goes up stepply with age. It also impacts people with underlying health conditions which tend to go up with age. So though the gross average fatality rate might be about 1% for the general population, for the elderly it seems to be many times higher. Demographically these are much more likely to be Trump voters.

Asian Americans who being high income and who tend to be Republicans are very alienated by Trump's pandering to racist sentiment. It is likely to cost the Republicans a House district or two and maybe a U.S. Senate seat.

I think in about four weeks I think we will start seeing how this will play out politically. Of course even if it doesn't reach disasterous proportions, it might be that voter turn out will be much higher among young people who are finally motivated to vote, and want to vote Trump out.

I think political polarization is going to go way up. People in the cities impacted by Trump's incompetence are really angry.

COVID-19 is likely to be a public health issue right up to election day.

If Trump is not re-elected I think that secession movements will be quite active and get strong support. Not just because Trump is not elected, but because they will see a Democratic Party in power ready to aggressively push their agenda. The Democratic base is angry and will expect the Democrats to move.  This will likely cause a reaction with conservatives.

In the larger picture what is happening is unprecedented. In the end I am just guessing at what the issues might be and how they develop.

By the way there is even a right wing narrative that there really isn't a problem.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/03/ron-paul/the-coronavirus-hoax/

COVID-19 INFORMATION

I would like to dispell those who are talking about fatality rates of 4% or more. The fatality rate for the general population appears to be somewhere between 0.6 to 1.5%.

The high rates reported are due to statistical bias of a skewed sample. So if I had a disease which had many of the people getting it not having symptoms of mild and others severely impacted or fatal it would depend very much on my sampling.

For example if there was an extensive testing of the public so we learned and included in our number those who are sick but don't have symptoms or mild, and we divided the number of fatalities by the total number we would get one rate of fatality.

On the other hand if we just took the number of people who should up at the hospital and divided that number into deaths we would get a much higher rate of fatality. The sample wouldn't include those who didn't have symptoms or were mild or those who weren't bad enough to show up at the hospital.

For other information I direct readers below. I just think people should be critically thinking about what is put out to the public and the fatality rate I find to be a big factor in getting people to panic. The rate is high, and it is many times higher than the flu, but it isn't the Black Death or Ebola either.

This is an excellent link for information about COVID-19. I regularly read them and they are really good in terms of their reporting and also being critical of what might be put out as information. It is fairly comprehensive and will answer any questions you might have.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/dont-panic-the-comprehensive-ars-technica-guide-to-the-coronavirus/

Wondering if I got the current status of secession wrong./ "American Secession" by F.H. Buckley

I had concluded that the secession movements in America were moribund unless Donald Trump lost re-election as president. I also tend to think that Donald Trump will get re-elected. So secession movements will have to wait until 2024 to get traction.

However, it was brought to my attention by a colleague the book, "American Secession" by F.H. Buckley.  It is published by Encounter Books and I am not sure  who they are. It seems like they are some type of conservative or neoconservative publisher of the Encounter for Culture and Education non-profit corporation. On the dust jacket, besides the author and title is the warning, "The Looming Threat of a National Breakup."

https://www.encounterbooks.com/books/american-secession/

He is a Foundation Professor at George Mason University Scalia School of Law. He is senior editor at the conservative publiscation American Spectator, he has a column in the New York Post, and has written for a variety of prominent publications.

The author and the book has gotten some fair amount of coverage. Here are some links to news stories about the book.

https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/11/new-secession-movement-growing-america-f-h-buckley-book/

https://nypost.com/2020/01/24/how-to-avoid-americas-coming-secession-crisis/  This article is by F.H. Buckley.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/feb/20/embracing-the-state-secession-movement-make-americ/

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/buckley-is-america-on-the-brink-of-a-third-secession

C-Span had an article. Click on link to see all of the video.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?469400-3/washington-journal-fh-buckley-discusses-book-american-secession



In his New York Post article he says the United States is "overly big." He has neo-Confederate ideas about secession stating, "Originalists on the court might recall that the Framers at their 1787 Convention thought secession was very possible. Almost every delegate conceded that if one region or state wanted to leave the union, it was perfectly possible to do so."

But his focus is on liberal states seceding. 

I have noticed continuing discussion of secession elswhere. There was the idea that counties could secede from Virginia and join West Virginia. 

Here is a Feb. 29, 2020 article about secession in New York State. African Americans have risen to power in the New York State legislature and upstate conservative whites want to secede. 

It seems like a lot of rural areas want to secede and have their small populations get two U.S. Senators. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/02/26/across-country-rural-communities-secede-states-why-column/4851817002/

Evidently the cause of rural areas seceding from their states is something being pushed by at least one conservative group.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/24/virginia-secession-movement-underscores-lefts-growing-contempt-for-rural-americans/

The reason seems to be nothing more than they are on the losing side of an election. Before when they were winning it was fine to be in a big state, but now that they are losing they are whining they want their own state. 

I am sure these proponents for small rural states see the disportionate influence of states like North Dakota (pop. 760,000) and South Dakota (880,000) with the having 4 U.S. Senators, even though  their total is 1.6 million out of 327.8 million. They are over represented about eight times. 

Some elected officials seem to be lunatics on the issue such as the governor of Idaho. 

https://www.corvallisadvocate.com/2020/idaho-governor-digs-rural-oregon-secession-movement-another-county-joins/

So I thought I need to re-think this secession issue. What was I missing? I came up with the following.

1. Trump is not seen as a sure thing for re-election. Maybe secessionists are reving up their movements thinking Trump is not going to be re-elected or maybe just preparing based on the chance that he might not be re-elected.  If there is a good possibility or an appreciable possibility perhaps some people will want to get involved in secession movements just in case. 

2. Some conservatives don't find Trump reactionary enough. Maybe since the country hasn't gone hard right or become a white dominated society yet, some conservatives and racist groups are thinking that they need to have secession to achieve their goals. I don't think this would drive the current revival of secession, though it might be a minor source driving secession talk. 

3. Some want to push liberals out of the nation to secure a conservative American future. This is what F.H. Buckley hints at when he suggests in his New York Post article, "Finally, there’s the president. I don’t think we’d see one who’d want to send in the Army to invade a state. Were he of the other party, he might even look at the electoral map and say, “Erring sister, depart in peace.” If California was an independent nation, the Republicans would have the electoral map locked up. On the other hand, California pays alot of tax money into the U.S. Treasury, is an economic powerhouse, and has a lot of the West Coast as its boundary.

However, I think that the above ideas of secession of a new nation aren't the only secession ideas that need to be considered. The revival of secessionist ideas may not to create a new nation but seize power in the existing nation. 

4. Subverting American democracy by forming rotten boroughs. The term "rotten borough" originates from 18th century politics in which there were boroughs that were very small but elected a member of parliment.  For example there was Old Sarum that had two members of parliment but only seven voters while Birmingham and Manchester had no MPs to represent them at all. See this British Library article. 

https://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/21cc/struggle/chartists1/historicalsources/source2/reformact.html

The thing is that a series of newly created states you could have the U.S. Senate permanently biased towards a conservative majority. Six states of totally rural populations would have twelve U.S. Senators.

There is no reason to believe if a few rural states were carved out of larger states, the effort would be restricted to just six. A quick look at a map would show that you could make two dozen rural states easily which would added 48 senators, and do it without losing any Republican dominated states. Of course the credibility of the American government of being some type of reasonable constitutional arrangement would be defunct in the cities, but I am sure elites and conservatives would justify it. 

I think that this prospect is what is perhaps behind the revival of American secession. 

5. Intimidation of a state government. The threat to secede might be used to intimidate a state government. I think that the Democrats are basically corporate types who dont' want a fuss and don't have the firmness of character to not be intimidated. I think the Malhuer Refugee crisis shows how the Democrats are basically gutless. 

It could be that now secession is a form of expression with bravado of an antipathy to state governments, but what starts out as a shout or bravado can be the first step to being for something in earnest later.

The fact that a member of the establishment, F.H. Buckley, law professor, columnist, not some person living in a tent or rural compound, has expressed this about secession works to legitimize it. 

I think we have reason to be concerned about secession. I have gone over some actions which can be taken against secession and I urge the reader to think of their own. I think that there should be an anti-secession group formed for every state in which there is currently a secession movement or might be a secession movement. I see it a sort of emergency preparation. To get some preliminary organization going, at least getting opponents of secession grouped together, with the sharing of some basic ideas, so an anti-secession movement doesn't have to start from zero if a crisis arises.  

The Sanctuary movement, secession and nullification under another label. / Is a civil war coming. Status update.

In the United States there have been a series of sanctuary movements. First there were cities and counties and states having sanctuary for undocumented immigrants where one way or the other they defy the enforcement of immigration laws.

However, seeing a good strategy there is now a sanctuary movement for the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which affirms the right to bear arms.

There is even a sanctuary city against abortion.

Let me list some links for background and then resume the discussion.

For sanctuary cities regarding immigration.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/25/politics/sanctuary-cities-explained/index.html

For guns.

https://nypost.com/2019/12/21/more-than-100-virginia-cities-counties-declare-themselves-gun-sanctuaries/

For abortion

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3k3gq3/lawmakers-are-banning-abortions-in-cities-sanctuary-cities-for-the-unborn

I am not saying that the articles provided above are unbiased or broadly representative. They are there to show you that there are such movements and to give you some background.

These sanctuary movements are nullification pure and simple.  The spirit of John C. Calhoun lives in all of them.

It is profoundly anti-democratic.  Democracy isn't just supporting the government and the laws when you win, it is accepting defeat in an election and the consequences.

These movements are nothing more than the modern day version of "massive resistance." "Massive resistance" was the resistance to the civil rights movement in the mid-20th century.

Nullification is logically incoherent. If you can decide to ignore one law, why not ignore others. Also,  if laws by a national body are to be accepted upon a localities choosing then there really is no point for a national body.

Now nations do have internally autonomous regions and special acccomodations for localities. They are usually spelled out very clearly that the adjustments are for some areas of legislation and governace and not other areas. They exist because of a variety of historical factors.

Nullification is suggested whenever some law or another gets some locality upset and the local politicians seek to gain popularity by supporting it.

Nullification is secession by another way. Instead of formally seperating, you pick and choose what you want and don't want, and avoid any of the military issues. However, you are seceding from national government by parts.

There is a lot of speculation thrown out about a civil war in the United States. I am torn between seeing it as alarmism and between being alarmed myself.

I do seek the sanctuary movement is being a sort of practice for secession. It is defiance of the national law which could be a percursor for defiance of the national governement and identity.

It also gets people consciously involved with defying the national government. It is a practice session for defying the national government generally.

So is civil war coming? I don't know.  I have been seeing one element or another fall in place since Obama was re-elected president in 2012 when there were those secession petitions. Each one element in itself isn't all that significant, but accumulated one by one I think they work together to evolve in the public mind a new attitude towards national identity or more specifically the rejection of it.

If Donald Trump was impeached I think all the interstate highways in the United States would be blockaded by Trump supporters in less than 24 hours. American interstate highways go through long distances of very rural areas which are very pro-Trump. Trump supporters would regard it as the election results of 2016 being overturned. However, I think that the process of impeachment is now stalled at least until the 2020 national elections. Even then, even if the U.S. Senate is controlled by the Democrats, a 2/3rd majority is needed for impeachment. So impeachment is not happening.

If Trump is not re-elected I think secession movements will be revived from their current moribund existence, but if he is re-elected they will remain largely stagnant. I am tending at this moment of writing to think that Trump has a fairly good chance of re-election. I remember that the Democrats were very sure in 2018 there was going to be some massive "blue wave", and in the end it resulted in only getting control of the U.S. House by a slim majority.

However, there are other paths leading to secession movements taking off or a civil war like situation. This where Trump is re-elected, but the Republicans lose control of the U.S. Senate and don't regain the U.S. House. In this case the Democrats still won't be able to impeach Trump, but they will be able to subject him to all sorts of tactics to make his life miserable. There are likely to be endless congressional panels making inquiries about everyone and everything in the Trump administration. It will be ugly. Trump supporters might decide that their election victory in 2016 is being overturned and I can see that leading into real conflict.

This 2nd Amendment sanctuary movement by counties and cities versus state governments is a potential flash point for violent resistance. After this is a movement for guns and the laws are to regulate them which means there is the potential of their denial or being taken away. The possibility of violent conflict or a stand-off involving guns and threats of violence is fairly obvious.

It would be a training ground for armed resistance to a larger governmental movement and if the Democrats win the 2020 presidential election they would likely pass gun laws and I think that a movement of resistance armed with guns will be ongoing.

However, the issue of secession mostly rests on the results of the 2020 elections. There will be developments over time which I think will erode national identity or support for the nation state, but there will merely make it easier for civil war or secession when the historical window opens, but in and of themselves will not drive secession or civil war.

We just have to wait for the election results of 2020.

BREITBART reports that Robert E. Lee was a poor military leader and cruel to slaves. /HOLY MOLY GERALD HORNE IS QUOTED! NEO-CONFEDERACY IS GOING DOWN!

I about fell out of my chair reading this article this morning. (4/27/2019). The neo-Confederacy is going down!

This is the article.

https://www.breitbart.com/news/ap-explains-trump-revives-debate-about-robert-e-lee/

I check Breitbart every morning to see how they process historical memory in their politics. I have about 3 to 4 linear feet of printouts of their articles.

So with the title, "AP Explains: Trump Revives Debate About Robert E. Lee," I expected a long article about how great Robert E. Lee was and how the left hates America, etc. etc.

I was quite surprised to see that instead the article was highly critical of Robert E. Lee.

On slavery the article explains:

"Documents show Lee was cruel to his slaves and encouraged his overseers to severely beat slaves captured after trying to escape. Historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor said in a 2008 American Heritage article that Lee was angry about the slaves’ demands for freedom and 'resorted to increasingly harsh measures to maintain control,' breaking up most slave families. One slave at Arlington, Pryor noted, called Lee, 'the worst man I ever see.'"

Again, this isn't The Guardian, or The Root, or The Grio, or some liberal/left publication, it is Breitbart.

As for his performance as a soldier the article states:

"Lee eventually commanded troops in the field, winning battles largely because of an incompetent Union Gen. George McClellan, according to historians."

There is more than this quote explaining how Lee was a poor military commander.

The Lost Cause mythology is torn apart. Confederate monuments are associated with the rise of racism and the Ku Klux Klan.

HOLY MOLY GERALD HORNE IS QUOTED!

By the early 20th century, Northern state politicians — fearing deadly violence over black civil rights in the South — caved to pressure from Southern leaders to cast Lee in a more conciliatory light, said Gerald Horne, a professor of history and African-American studies at the University of Houston. “The South showed it would shed blood,” Horne said.

These are the books by Gerald Horne sold on Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/Gerald-Horne/e/B001HCVSVK?ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1&qid=1556384783&sr=8-1

Interestingly neo-Confederate Marshall DeRosa is quoted to take apart Lee's military record. I don't think the Abbeville Institute is going to be happy over that. Maybe DeRosa is bailing out of the neo-Confederate movement or is working on an exit strategy. DeRosa I will come up with a web page for you so your Confederate service isn't forgotten.

Of course this article might be a fluke. Or Breitbart might retreat is their support base is upset. Even if they do retreat, they might have the strategy of just not covering the issue and avoiding the issue.

As for African American conservatives who have supported the Confederacy or neo-Confederacy or Lost Cause rememberance as part of their careers, what is their situation after this shift by Breitbart? In the new strategy to get African Americans to support conservative causes, these pro-Confederate African American conservatives are not useful because they have this Confederate baggage. They will be dumped.

WHY?

In 2015 and 2016 and afterwards there were many many articles in Breitbart in defense of Confederate monuments, suddenly there is this reversal.

I think the conservative movement has decided that the neo-Confederacy is a lost cause in terms of 21st century politics. If they are going to have a conservative African American movement like Breitbart's Blexit, the Confederacy needs to be left behind.  If they are going to have some politics supporting racial hierarchy having the Confederacy attached to it makes it obvious which would defeat that politics.

I think it has been observed that campaigning on supporting the Confederacy doesn't win elections. There have been some candidates which have run on defending the Confederacy and they have lost elections and cost the Republicans important offices.

Also, Christianity is more and more centered outside the Western world and the Confederacy is not going to be a selling point there when Christianity is in competition with other religions.

In America Christianity finds its strongest support in minority communities.

These changes are manifested in the Southern Baptist Convention apology over slavery some years back and in 2017 (or 2018?) rejection of the Confederate flag.  Evangelical Christians are leaving the Confederacy behind and are finding it an obstacle in the way of their aspirations for the future.

Kanye West, Obama, Bill Clinton, slavery and selective neo-Liberal outrage

I review Breitbart routinely since I feel they represent White House ideology generally and also in monitoring Breitbart I get a fairly good idea of the Trump supporting right wing ideas and positions on issues relating to historical memory. I have discussed this before in this blog.

So recently I have been printing out all the Breitbart postings about the controversy surrounding Kanye West and West's statements regarding slavery. I initially wasn't thinking that much about it, but I noticed that there was a tremendous amount of condemnation of Kanye West but also, it was interesting that other pop cultural figures came to West's defense, such as Justin Bieber.

Something about the outrage over Kanye West got me thinking.

Former president Bill Clinton wrote three letters of congratulations to the United Daughters of the Confederacy. The neoliberal press and the media that is just  furious about Kanye West has never been interested. Democrats have given me all sorts of rationalizations over the years.

Hillary Clinton had her infamous "super predator" remarks some time back, but that doesn't seem to be a concern.

Then there was the 2009 letter sent to former president Barack Obama asking him not to send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate Monument.  Letters were later written asking Obama to put an end to the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) handing out of neo-Confederate awards at the U.S. Military Academies. Additional letters were sent about the Arlington Confederate. Never got any response to any of the issues about neo-Confederate involvement in the federal government.

https://arlingtonconfederatemonument.blogspot.com/

In 2009, prior to Obama sending a wreath to the Arlington Confederate Monument the neoliberal press mounted an effort to sideline the issue and rationalize Obama sending the wreath. The Washington Post took a leadership role in this with the New York Times in a supporting role.

When Obama spoke at the Arlington Cemetery in 2009 what references that were made to the issue sounded like he was channeling former president Woodrow Wilson. At the end I was somewhat glad that Obama's speech didn't involve any history written with lightning. Democrats had all sorts of rationalizations for Obama and it was made really clear that the letter was not welcome. The persons who had supported the effort lost interest. Obama did send a wreath to the African American Civil War Museum in DC and that was supposed to make it okay and I was told, "Let's declare victory and move on."

Of course there was the Obama "Beer Summit" which occurred before cell phone cameras and social media had advanced such that police abuse and murder of African Americans was routinely captured on video and shared online in social media and new online media websites.

Regarding Confederate monument removal you read here and there in the neoliberal media that being active against Confederate monuments is supposedly falling into some trap that Trump is setting.

I am not seeing a lot of interested by the Democratic Party in the Black Lives Matter movement or discussion about Confederate monuments.

The operating policy of the Democratic Party is that African Americans have no place to go so if they don't like the Democratic Party policies they can lump it.

Meanwhile there a desperate searching for some magic formula to shake loose a few more white votes for the Democratic Party. Progressives are lectured in the neoliberal press to stop being concerned about Democratic candidates positions on issues, that the winning of elections is paramount.

So into this situation comes Kanye West openly admiring president Donald Trump and saying slavery was a choice.  West's views and behavior suggests that African Americans do have the Republican Party as an alternative.

Kanye West is a major entertainment figure and has a substantial base of fans. On Twitter he has 28.2 million followers. (The story that he lost 10 million followers is incorrect, twitter had a glitch and when corrected there was no loss of 10 million followers.) This number of Twitter followers is after all the controversy over West and any supposed lost.

A short tweet, "free thinking is a super power," on May 8th, by West gets 5,100 comments, 46,000 retweets, and 180,000 hearts.

On Facebook there are various pages for him, with hundred or millions of likes. One page which is just a topic page has over 9 million likes. West currently has his Instagram account shut down, but the number of comments about Kanye West are over 5 million.

What is worrisome to the Democrats is that their program of civil rights is not very substantial and West might be validating to African Americans that African Americans should consider the Republican Party of Donald Trump.

David A. Love had an article in the Atlanta Black Star titled, "Should the Kanye West MAGA Debacle Remind Black People That It's Time to Hold Democrats and Liberals Accountable?"

http://atlantablackstar.com/2018/05/06/kanye-west-maga-debacle-remind-black-people-time-hold-democrats-liberals-accountable/

Nice sentiment, and good luck with that.

Chance the Rapper was chastised for a tweet in support of Kanye West but had this to say:

My statement about black folk not having to be democrats (though true) was a deflection from the real conversation and stemmed from a personal issue with the fact that Chicago has had generations of democratic officials with no investment or regard for black schools, neighborhoods, or black lives,” he said. “We have to talk honestly about what is happening and has been happening in this country and we have to challenge those who are responsible, as well as those who are giving them a pass,” the rapper concluded. “If that happens to include I love, someone who is my brother-in-Christ and someone who I believe does really want to do what is right, it’s not my job to defend or protect him. It’s my job [to] pick up the phone and talk to him about it.” (Taken from David A. Love's article.) 

It is not just leftists or political economists who are realizing that the Democrats policy on civil rights is the general idea that African Americans have nowhere to go and a Democratic candidate needs to search for a Sistah Souljah moment, or speak out and tell those African American men to pull up their pants to validate themselves with white voters.

But also, I sense there is a little bit of panic. I don't think that the general public really cares about what the Washington Post or New York Times has to say on West. I don't think the neoliberal press will have that much affect on West's fan base.

I live in Oak Cliff section of Dallas, and I notice that there are a lot off African American male pants not pulled up. Maybe I should tell them that Obama says pull up their pants and see what the reaction is. I wonder what the response would be? (I am being sarcastic and ironic and in no way would I do that.)

In short the fan base of of Kanye West largely isn't going to care about the fulminations of the neoliberals. Justin Bieber realized his fan base doesn't care either and came out in support of Kanye West. I am not hearing a lot of condemnation from Hollywood figures either who I think realize that West does have a lot of fans who would not be sympathetic to such a condemnation of West.

Remember when the National Review put out an issued devoted to the single topic of condemning Donald Trump and it had no impact on politics? I think that is what might be happening here. Neoliberals go thunder your Bull against West.

Of course Kanye West career might be on the way out, but pop stars are like meteors. They flash across the sky and blaze in the heavens and vanish. I don't think his career is going to be that much impacted. What will happen to it will not be that impacted by this. In a month West might be focused on something else and the media will be on some other topic. West's career might go one way or another and these recent remarks will have little impact.

Basically I think that the reaction to Kanye West's statements is in some sectors of the press, selective outrage. Bill Clinton sends letters to the United Daughters of the Confederacy and bringing up the topic is dismissed with annoyance. Obama sends a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument and bring up that as a topic is dismissed with annoyance. Kanye West saying something about slavery being a choice, and all hell breaks loose.

I think the neoliberals see the Trump presidency as some type of inter period. The Blue Wave will come and if they can just keep the Progressives under control everything will be restored to the earlier status quo. Even better they will have sunk the Republicans and thus defeated the neoconservatives as competitors for establishment support.

However, I see the situation as fluid. One of the things that I was taught in ancient history is that when the Western Roman Empire fell it took a while for people to realize it was really over. The empire had lost provinces and restored itself many times before. Maybe the old political regime is gone forever. This doesn't necessarily mean that Trump is the future, but we are entering a new situation.

The Democratic narrative is that with time demographics will mean the doom of the Republican Party. Tomorrow belongs to them is the thinking. The Blue Wave is one idea of inevitable triumph. However, with Kanye West maybe some demographic groups are not locked up after all.

Labor market shows signs of tightening also. Articles talk about companies dropping drug testing for marijuana so they can find more workers, others about wage increases in fast food. Economics counts for a lot in elections and I don’t think the Democrats crediting it to the previous administration will have much effect.

Trumph has invited Colin Kaepernick to the White House. Would a Democratic president do such a thing? I doubt it. Obama invited police officers who had abused Louis Gates. Has Hillary Clinton met with Kaepernick? No. Nor is it likely that would ever happen. Yes, Trump uses the term “Bigly,” and neoliberals can be disdainful, but he did defeat both the Republican and the Democratic establishments with very little money or campaign apparatus. I think he has a type of cunning.

By the way here is another neoliberal lecture being given to Kaepernick for bringing up that the Democratic Party is missing in action about the issue of Black Lives Matter. Kaepernick crime was pointing out Clinton’s comments about “super predators.”

https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/30/opinions/where-kaepernick-lost-me-cane/index.html

It seems that these lectures to African Americans are becoming a regular thing.

The Democratic Party is out of power, neither controlling either house of Congress or the presidency. The neoliberals in particular are out of power, and so they can't necessarily punish dissenters as they might. I think people are realizing that being scolded by the New York Times or the Washington Post isn't quite the thing it used to be.

The whole matter with Kanye West might be just a blip, or it might be the beginning of a trend of African Americans realizing that the Democratic Party doesn't really care that much about their rights. If it is a new trend, in five years it will be proclaimed as an obvious beginning of a new trend, by various pundits and historians, like those who would write for the Washington Post, but I don't really know. I do think that the neoliberals are afraid that it could be a trend, that the African American vote won't be locked up.

Remember the victory in Alabama over Roy Moore? It was due to the Democrats getting an extremely high percentage of the vote of African Americans men, 93%,  and African Americans women, 98%, which gave a sort of nothing Democrat Doug Jones a small percentage win. Of course Roy Moore was a neo-Confederate lunatic and that helps.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/glanton/ct-met-alabama-black-women-dahleen-glanton-20171213-story.html

If the percentages for Doug Jones by African American women had only been 95% against Roy Moore, an African American men 90%, Roy Moore well might be in the U.S. Senate today. Even a small loss of African American votes to the Republicans could have severe consequences to Democratic Party fortunes.

The Democrats have come to depend a lot on extremely high percentages of the African American vote falling their way. Of course it remains to be seen what Doug Jones' election means for African American women.

Well actually it doesn't. Read this article.

https://www.theroot.com/doug-jones-and-the-democratic-party-just-screwed-black-1823802570

That didn't take long.

What the Democrats should be concerned about is that low turnout for voting in the African American community is driven by the fact that voting for Democrats has had limited benefits for the African American community as pointed out by Chance the Rapper quoted above.

As for “choice,” the idea of slaves choosing suicide to avoid slavery goes way back in history. If I remember the accounts of ancient slavery in Pierre Dockes, “Medieval Slavery and Liberation,” Roman slave owners had punishments of throwing slaves into pits of moray eels or crucifixion because slaves were quite willing to commit suicide or get themselves killed to escape the brutal horror of ancient slavery and so death had to be really horrific to be a punishment.

There is in popular culture the whole idea of the captured African committing suicide rather than being a prisoner or slave. The character Killmonger does it in the movie Black Panther, Toni Morrison has a character who does it, in the movie Amistad there is a scene where a woman jumps overboard with a baby to prevent them from being enslaved.

What does this say about those who didn’t commit suicide. Those who survived and those from whom the present generation of African Americans are descended?

This is somewhat a modern and American historical problem. Slavery in the Caribbean and Brazil mostly meant being worked to death as did slavery in most places in most historical times. There sometimes weren't too many survivors. Slaves in mines just died and largely didn't have surviving generations.

The other issue is that race marks out African Americans as being descended from slaves. There were English slaves, villain is derived from the term villianage a type of bondage in early and medieval England. You can't tell among modern day English who was likely descended from slaves. Some of these ideas about choice have a consequence of potentially stigmatizing African Americans.

There are various classes of bound labor also, serfs, peons, etc. What are we saying about their survivors?

Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death.” He was a slave owner. In ancient history soldiers who were captured were enslaved as an alternative to death and this was part of pro-slavery ideology. Are there historical roots of pro-slavery ideology in the narrative of dying rather than be a slave?

I am not saying that one should live under any circumstances. The idea of suicide being a sin is a Christian and Western idea. Japanese and other cultures don’t have a horror of it. I don’t know what the many African cultures thought in the past or think in the present about suicide.

I think that this whole thing about slaves committing suicide hasn’t been thought through.

It could be that with 2016 the neo-liberals win the U.S. House and in 2018 the U.S. Senate and the White House, and we do live in an inter-period and neo-liberalism will be restored but I am not so sure that is the case.

I am not saying that the future will be where Trump or others like him continue in power either. It could be that politics will have a new structure and new contenders and new alliances and configurations. There won't be a restoration of the pre-Trump political world.

Psychiatrists, Trump, 25 Amendment, and secession. UPDATE

When Donald Trump won the election a lot of people who might call themselves liberals suddenly put their powdered wigs on and started to talk in pious tones about the American Founders and the intent of the Electoral College and that the Electoral College should refuse to vote for Donald Trump.

This didn't happen. Had it happened I think it would be disastrous. A few people that most people had never heard of would have nullified an election. It would be a civil war. Imagine every highway in the nation blockaded in the rural counties of the nation. The national guard would have to be called out in every state of the nation.

Now there seems to be a movement to impeach Trump based on psychiatric opinion and the 25 Amendment to the Constitution.

Some members of Congress were foolish enough to invite a Yale Univ. psychiatry professor to speak to them to see if Trump could be impeached on grounds of mental health.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/03/trump-25th-amendment-mental-health-322625

Lawmakers concerned about President Donald Trump’s mental state summoned Yale University psychiatry professor Dr. Bandy X. Lee to Capitol Hill last month for two days of briefings about his recent behavior

This is stupid at so many levels.

First there is a whole history of psychiatry being used for political purposes and for social repression.

There is Soviet psychiatric abuse of dissidents. There is the infamous statement about Barry Goldwater supporters having mental issues. There is the whole history of anti-gay psychiatry. I am sure other examples could be given. Foucault's wrote "Madness and Civilization." Thomas Szasz wrote "The Myth of Mental Illness" and "The Manufacture of Madness." There is the book, "Diary of a Mad Housewife," about how a woman with an inane husband is told that she is crazy. 

Then there is the state of the "science" of psychology which is in disrepute. There is the whole business of scientific results not being replicated. Freud was exposed as a fraud. Perhaps you know that Carl Jung was a Nazi. 

Then there is the ongoing scandal of psychiatric hospitals declaring people insane to collect insurance money. I don't think there is a branch of medial practice or science with lower credibility with the public. 

Being obnoxious, rude, loathsome, inane, stupid, vacuous and vain are certainly undesirable qualities, but they are not insanity. 

However, all of the above means nothing to idiotic partisans. After all, Slate, the publication of the establishment actually published this article doing an analysis of Trump's signature. 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/20/donald_trump_s_horrifying_signature_is_a_cry_for_help.html

The whole problem with psychology and psychiatry is that the profession and its practitioners have tended to see persons who don't share their opinions or beliefs as being mentally ill. 

I have the 25th Amendment supplied with a link at the end of this blog posting. 

The idea is that if the president is mentally unfit, the president could be declared unable to perform the duties of office. 

It is somewhat disturbing that even one congressional representative would have Bandy X. Lee doing a briefing. 

It isn't at all surprising that Bandy X. Lee is doing this. Lee is the editor of "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump," a book with testimonials of "27 psychiatrists and mental health experts assessing the president's level of 'dangerousness.'" 

What might be impeachable is some dealings with a foreign power. However, I think that it needs to be something very clearly a betrayal of the United States, and clear, not to Democrats who are breathing heavy with panic alarm, but the general public. Misfiling paperwork or omitting a form or violating some obscure regulation isn't going to be enough. 

A belief in Democracy is the acceptance of losing the election. Obviously a lot of people haven't accepted losing the 2016 presidential election. 

The precedence for what is happening is a disturbing affair after another radical change in government, the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. This is the infamous Banker's Plot. 

https://www.npr.org/2012/02/12/145472726/when-the-bankers-plotted-to-overthrow-fdr

It needs to be pointed out that bad policy, wrong opinions, poor diplomacy, rudeness, vulgarity are not impeachable offenses. Otherwise someone on some pretext would be calling for the impeachment of any president within an hour of the president assuming office. 

The various right wing secessionist movements are dormant because Trump is the great hope of the demographic to whom they hope to appeal. They are waiting until Donald Trump is no longer seen as a hope for right-wing aspirations. This might happen with the 2018 elections if the Republicans lose both houses of the legislature to the Democrats. 

However, what would even more enable secessionists would be that Trump is removed from office on some basis that doesn't have credibility. It would tell Trump's demographic of supporters that even if they get someone they like elected to office the establishment will by some means or another remove that person from office. 

At the Texas Republican state convention in 2016 a secession resolution lost by only 16 to 14 with one abstention. There is support out there for secession.

If Trump is to be impeached it better be on grounds that are plain and clear and widely understood. Even then, it could really enable secessionists.

UPDATE:

There is a lot of discussion on how smart Trump is. I don't think it is particularly relevant. For those who think ridiculing Trump or dwelling on the extent of his intelligence is important they need to have a broader focus.

Trump has defeated first the Republican Party establishment, then the Democratic Party establishment in 2016. That doesn't mean that Trump is smart. It does mean that with whatever intelligence he has he figured out a way to defeat both establishments with very little resources.

I would use the word that Trump has cunning, but that word is often used when people who we would like to think aren't smart, out smart someone who we think are smart.

The issue is that Trump had a strategy, whether stumbled upon or cleverly devised, which worked well enough to get him elected against all odds.

We might consider that whatever he is doing is working for him. There are a lot of special elections that the Republican Party are losing where they should have been odds on favorites. However, Nov. 2018 is a ways away. How many people initially thought the 2016 Trump campaign was an amusing circus until it wasn't?

It could be that Trump is having a melt down and is crashing and crashing the Republican Party. It looks like he is. I just don't know. I don't think anyone really knows either. 

The 25th Amendment:

SECTION 1 

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President. 

SECTION 2 

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. 

SECTION 3 

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President. 

SECTION 4 

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. 

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Courtesy of this page.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-xxv?gclid=CjwKCAiAqIHTBRAVEiwA6TgJwwbZ2weBoR20K2-QOW8OG3amMjTnOfqPPrCCF27z8kyEqIZhO7kJ_hoC_gIQAvD_BwE

Republican Moore defeated by Democrat Doug Jones is super Republican State. Neo-Confederacy, Steve Bannon defeated

I stay up last night until 100% of the precincts were in to make absolutely sure that Roy Moore was defeated. Turns out that Doug Jones defeated Roy Moore by 1.5% so there won't be an automatic recount. Roy Moore didn't concede but started talking about God being in control. Well maybe God is in control and he wanted Moore defeated.

https://www.politico.com/interactives/elections/2017/alabama/special-election/dec-12/?lo=ap_b1

However, before celebrating too much, Roy Moore did win with the white electorate. It was the turn out of the African American community which saved us. Moore won white voters "by more than-2-to-1 margin, 68 to 30 percent," according to the article of the following link.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/13/alabama-jones-moore-exit-polls-294159?lo=ap_c1

The article referenced by the above link said that African Americans voted for Doug Jones by "96 to 4 percent." Hopefully Doug Jones appreciates fully that fact. Perhaps the Republicans are not going to defend the Confederacy so much.

This is a big loss for Steve Bannon whose Breitbart has campaigned strongly in defense of Confederate monuments as well as for Donald Trump who has also campaign strongly in defense of Confederate monuments.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/i-think-bannon-made-an-ass-of-himself-republicans-rejoice-in-breitbart-chiefs-alabama-humiliation


This is Politico's take on the election. Key item is that Republicans are now fearing what the 2018 mid-terms will bring. Though it is a long ways away.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/13/alabama-senate-jones-moore-takeaways-294163

I can tell you that it has energized Democrats. Locally on Facebook they see 2018 mid-terms as having a tremendous potential.

Dixie Outfitters article, "Donald Trump As President Of The Confederacy."

The capitol letters are exactly as used in the title. Dixie Outfitters are a neo-Confederate retailer of pro-Confederate merchandise.

They have published a lengthy  article, "Donald Trump As President Of The Confederacy" online at this URL.

https://dixieoutfitters.com/2017/07/14/donald-trump-as-president-of-the-confederacy/

I think in some sense they are correct.

Sons of Confederate Veterans Votes a resolution of thanks to Donald Trump

In the Nov./Dec. 2017 issue of Confederate Veteran, the official journal of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV), is a resolution passed at the 2017 National Convention of the SCV held in Memphis, TN.

This is the resolution is as follows:

Resolution 3

A  Resolution Regarding President Donald Trump

WHEREAS, the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, has shown his recognition of the importance to society of the preservation and teaching of the history of the United States and of honoring the heroism of all military veterans, including Confederate veterans as American veterans, and

WHEREAS, President Trump has been an example to all citizens by pledging a portion of of his salary as President for the maintenance and enhancement of National Battlefield Parks, and especially most recently the Battle of Sharpsburg National Park in Maryland, and continuing to honor the presidential tradition of honoring Confederate veterans in Arlington Cemetery.

THEREFORE, the history honor society, the Sons of Confederate Veterans, expresses its gratitude and appreciation to President Trump for his commitment to American history and all veterans.

Submitted by David R. McAllister, Judah P. Benjamin Camp 2210, Tampa, Florida.

Trump back in the news for taking stand to keep Confederate monuments

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/26/trump-ed-gillespie-tweet-monuments-244205

The above is the link to the article.

These are the links to his tweets related to Confederate monuments.

Where are we now and is there an emerging counter revolution on Confederate statues

When a movement is at flood tide it is easy for the people in that movement to believe that their forces are irresistible and that they will sweep away all opposition. History shows that this is very often not true. The opposition is thinking and strategizing. They are testing methods and refining them or changing them if they don't work.

Suddenly an effective opposition emerges or effective tactics and the movement which seemed irresistible now is stalled.

So where are we now?

Seven things are working in favor of the monuments being removed.

1. They are located in center cities which aren't very Republican, have high minority populations, and are more populated by liberals and leftists. The poll for the nation or a state or even the local metropolitan area may be in favor of keeping the statue, but in the center city the polls are very likely to be against the Confederate monument.

An counter strategy might be to put a monument on private land, and the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) have put flags on private plots of land. However, this strategy has limitations. It does show that there is an opposition and an opposition large enough to afford the land and flag pole. However, it isn't on public land and so it doesn't have the cultural authority of a monument on public land.

Further, being a private plot of land and flagpole, the maintenance cost falls on the individuals or group behind the plot of land. Something they have to keep up over decades. Monuments on public land usually are kept up by the local municipal government or they get donors since they are on public land.

2. As monuments go down elsewhere the cities with remaining monuments will look aberrant. The monument will be references as an indicator of what type of town the city is. Corporations will note the monuments when considering locations of a factory or business unit. They will be concerned about recruiting employees to live there and realize that Confederate monuments will be a negative. Competing towns and cities which have removed their monuments will make reference to the Confederate monument in the city.

I have been amazed that Confederate things that only a few specialists like me and the neo-Confederates know about have been removed. What remains will really stick out.

3. Trump has come out for Confederate monuments which has provoked a reaction of many people to suddenly care much more about the issue and be willing to take actions against the monuments. For some people if Trump is for something they are against it. Others were against Confederate monuments but now it is on the top or near top of their agenda. Some people started to think about the issue and now care about removing Confederate monuments.

More importantly a lot of people who might otherwise chatter about rationalizations to keep the monuments are keeping quiet. Trump has discredited for many the arguments they might make.

4. There is an ongoing shift in peoples attitudes to be increasingly against the Confederacy. The high school American history textbooks are still terrible, but they aren't believed. There have been movies giving a more accurate history of the American past.

The percentage of people who grew up with segregated schools is declining. Fewer and fewer people support the Confederacy. The Civil War Round Table population is aging out.

So when there are incidents, like the Charleston Massacre or the murder of Heather Heyer, there is a sudden burst of activity. A lot of people who have rejected the Confederacy already and for them when there is some event they have just had it and they want the Confederate stuff to go.

It was just a few years ago, people who were against neo-Confederacy would tell me solemnly that they couldn't make comparisons to the Nazis. Now it is mainstream. People discuss how the Germans process the historical memory of the Third Reich. They compare honoring the Confederates to honoring other horrific people in history.  The climate has really changed and is changing.

5. Finally for the residents in a lot of cities the failure to remove Confederate monuments will be a big revelation about what city they live in and who the city leaders really are. Residents will ask why does their city still has Confederate monuments when so many others have removed them. This would be a question that some city leaders don't want to make and a revelation about their city and themselves that they don't want residents to make. A mayor who is against the removal of a Confederate monument is just not going to be take seriously when he or she has some pronouncement about Martin Luther King day or has a statement to make in the case of a police shooting of an African American.

6. Politicians who have greater ambitions then elected city office will have to consider how having the retention of a Confederate monument on their resume will impact their political futures.

7. Various scholars and others have folded on this issue, like Kevin Levin. Preservation societies, local historical associations have to consider if they want to have defending Confederate statues as part of their history when they so often go to city hall to appeal for one thing or another.

However, there is an opposition.

Right Wing:

The right wing press is defending the monuments. Breitbart in particular is reporting every incident of excess. There have been calls to remove other monuments that aren't Confederate and this is being reported as an inevitable consequence of Confederate monument removal. It is an appeal to white racial fear.

Donald Trump is in favor of the Confederate monuments thus mobilizing his base in favor of Confederate monuments. He is also the president of the United States which has its advantages.

There is an organized neo-Confederate movement. Many African American conservatives are speaking out to retain monuments. Though this strategy doesn't seem to be that important. This strategy was brilliantly satirized in this hilarious YouTube Video, "Buy Confederate Flags From a Black Guy."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is7SeH-gkHM

I think the right wing opposition will actually fuel more action against Confederate monuments. States with Republican Party majorities will have to wonder whether they want to be the party of the Confederacy. I am sure that in Alabama the Republican legislature has some regrets.

Neo-Confederates:

They aren't that relevant anymore. There aren't many that are going to be persuaded by  arguments for the Confederate monuments because the Confederacy was a good thing.

I think that there will be people dropping out of the groups since they don't want to be explaining to their relatives, fellow club members, fellow church members or co-workers why they are members. They will quit if they aren't purged first.


Centrist Democrats:

The centrist Democrats, aka neo-Liberals are I think a serious factor to consider. I have an earlier blog posting with links to articles where they argue against a campaign against Confederate statues because it is falling into a trap that Trump is setting.

What the real reason they are against it is that they want to get more white voters in the next election. This is part of a campaign among many in the Democratic Party who are saying that "identity  politics" needs to be de-emphasized which can be translated as, "let's drop civil rights from the Democratic Party agenda."

I haven't heard anything from Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton on the issue.

However, what the centrist Democrats can do is limited. They have lost both houses of Congress and lost the presidency to Donald Trump. They have no power in government and they have lost a lot of credibility with Democrats and the general public.  Their politics have led to Donald Trump being in the White House. They have limited ability to control the agenda.

The centrists run the risk that by waffling on Confederate statues or effectively opposing any real action against Confederate statues they will be further revealed as a group that stands for nothing but re-election and fudging on the issues.

Richmond mayor Levar Stoney and Charlottesville mayor Michael Signer are probably now regretting their respective courses of action. They will have eventually to have the monuments taken down, but they will get no credit for it since initially they opposed removal, but they will anger all the supporters of the Confederate monuments.

However, I think that there will be cases where individuals, organizational leaders, and some elected officials will use centrist Democratic arguments to not take action. It will act as a drag in the effort to remove Confederate monuments.

Left:

There are exceptions, like Mother Jones which is covering the movement to remove statues, but a lot of the left publications aren't giving this issue much attention. However, they will continue to drift into irrelevancy and it isn't much of a concern.

OVERALL:

I think at some point the movement to remove Confederate monuments will slow down. One reason is that the monuments that can be easily removed will be removed. The monuments that remain will be in rural areas and small cities where the opposition to Confederate monuments is limited and the support for them is strong. Though in those cases the chamber of commerce will be concerned about their city's image and wish they could just go away.

The centrist Democrats are mobilizing on this issue and more generally on a campaign against "identity politics" which means dump civil rights. Their reasoning is that minorities have no place to go so lets not do much on civil rights. However, I think that there are probably a lot of Democrats who aren't ready to sign up for this. Long term demographics argue against it.

However, I don't think any fraction of the establishment can put a break on this issue. Independent groups, both for and against Confederate monuments, are going to be taking actions on their own which will continue to put the issue before the public. Trump and the conservative media will then comment on this issue. Centrist Democrats will find themselves looking like centrist Democrats. Other Democrats will decide that they don't want to look like centrist Democrats.

This issue of Confederate monument removal after the initial easy removals will then become an issue of protracted struggles over the monuments that remain in cities where the support for monument removal isn't so strong. These struggles will keep it in the news. Right wing media and Donald Trump will keep it in the news.

The struggle will then result in the removal of monuments, one city at a time. After awhile it cities will decide that they don't want the constant agitation and decided that they need to go.

I think that after 2018 we will find it an ongoing struggle. It will require a developed strategy and a focused effort.

However, by the end of the next 12 months there will have been removed a great many Confederate monuments and those remaining will appear to be aberrant, an indicator of backwardness. Many residents in those cities will find them a painful reminder of what type of city they live in.

Also, at that time there should be a campaign about churches hosting neo-Confederate groups, the U.S. military working with neo-Confederate groups, and American history textbooks which pander to neo-Confederate groups. These campaigns will be synergistic with the campaigns to remove Confederate monuments and likely necessary for the success of campaigns to remove Confederate monuments.

Corey Stewart loses by a small margin in Virginia

Corey Stewart lost the Virginia Republican Republican primary by a very small margin. But he lost.

One of his issues he campaigned on was the retention of Confederate monuments which he loudly supported. He also strongly identified with Donald Trump in his campaign.

Here are some articles.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/confederate-statue-supporter-nearly-upsets-in-virginia-governor-race


https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/06/a-trump-loving-confederate-sympathizer-nearly-pulled-off-a-huge-upset-in-virginia/

This is a mixed outcome in some ways. The fact that Stewart was defeated is good since he was a supporter of honoring the Confederacy and keeping Confederate monuments. Had he been successful in the primary we could expect other Republicans in Virginia and elsewhere to be stronger supporters of honoring the Confederacy.

It is bad since Stewart didn't have the Republican establishment support, not as much money as the establishment candidate, and by emphasizing the Confederacy nearly won the primary. By being a loud supporter of the Confederacy Stewart got national attention and was able to counter the resources and support of the establishment Republican candidate.

Republicans in Virginia and elsewhere will note this. They may not want to go on record as being big supporters of the Confederacy, but they won't want to be known as opponents either.

Had Stewart been defeated by a large margin, the prospects of the Confederacy in the South would have been greatly diminished.

So Corey's defeat is a defeat for the supporters of the Confederacy, but it isn't much of a victory of the Confederacy either. It is a step down the road which may prove to be a long road.

"Why Are Eight Confederate Icons Still Proudly Displayed In The U.S. Capitol?"

The link to the Village Voice article is:

https://www.villagevoice.com/2017/06/13/why-are-eight-confederate-icons-still-proudly-displayed-in-the-u-s-capitol/#CivilWarMemory

I think attention is going to turn to Washington, DC and Confederate statues and monuments on federal grounds.

Arlington National Cemetery Confederate monument isn't mentioned.  I think Donald Trump sent a wreath to the monument this year. I wasn't able to find news reporting one way or the other.

We have a petition asking Trump not to send a wreath to the monument and you can sign here.
https://www.change.org/p/edward-h-sebesta-ask-president-trump-not-to-send-a-wreath-to-the-arlington-confederate-monument

When will the Arlington Confederate monument be removed. Why is a Confederate monument okay in DC and not okay in New Orleans

This is my blog on the Arlington Confederate monument, why it is about white supremacy, and my efforts to convince presidents not to send a wreath to it.

http://arlingtonconfederatemonument.blogspot.com/

Latest activity has been to send a certified letter to Donald Trump asking him not to send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument.

However, I think the question should be raised why should their be a Confederate monument in the Arlington National Cemetery.

Certainly in a national park a Confederate monument, which snidely labels Lincoln a dictator and tyrant in Latin, is unacceptable.

Trump has "blundering generation" view of the Civil War. UPDATE.

TRUMP GIVES BLUNDERING GENERATION EXPLANATION FOR THE CIVIL WAR.


This is taught in our school books so it shouldn't be surprising that Donald Trump believes in it.

Not just marginal textbooks, but some of the most prominent and respected textbooks.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/trump-magna-cum-laude-from-the-dunning-school/524892/


UPDATE:

Incidentally, sign our petition asking Trump not to send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate memorial.

http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/sign-2017-petition-to-president-trump.html

Sarah Palin is wrong. Kid Rock and Ted Nugent are not "all American"

https://www.wired.com/2017/04/internet-week-116/

Sarah Palin brought Kid Rock and Ted Nugent to the White House .

Palin stated, "So, yes, I invited my buddies Kid Rock and Ted Nugent, some bold, courageous, all-American dudes who I knew would have good conversation with the president and get to express a lot of good, middle-class, work ethic-type issues and policy proposals that they could all relate to, and that's exactly what happened at the dinner."

Both Kid Rock and Ted Nugent are well known for Confederate flag flying. They are not "all-American" at all, unless your idea of American nationalism is white nationalism.

Neo-Confederate Ron Maxwell upset with Trump, warns Trump on "Breitbart" I think we are on schedule for the rival of right wing secessionism

There has been a lot of reporting about the Alt-Right and other reactionaries being upset with Trump for his military action in Syria. 

It is hard to know whether this is partisan propaganda or is really true so I have been doing some independent checking to see to what extent this is true. It seems to be true. The establishment press would like to see Trump's base alienated from Trump and would work to foster alienation of Trump's base from Trump. However, it does seem to be true, regardless of what the mainstream media's agenda might be.

Similarly about the reporting in the media about divisions in the Trump White House. I suspect that in any presidential administration there are divisions and infighting. I don't know if the infighting in the Trump White House is more than usual. Or it might be expected with a radically different presidential administration representing an entirely new coalition there would be a time of settling out of arrangements. When there is a radical change in government some people probably are disappointed that it isn't all that they imagined or hoped it would be. The mainstream media could have an agenda of fostering division or it could be true regardless of the agenda of the mainstream media. That is both could be true, I just don't know.

A person very influential with neo-Confederates has expressed dismay with Trump over Syria.

"Gods and Generals" movie director Ron Maxwell, who is also an interviewee for Southern Partisan magazine,  has this article at Breitbart. It is more than just criticism of Trump's military action in Syria.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/08/ron-maxwell-america-last/

After all the criticism of Trump getting involved in Syria and Maxwell the article concludes with what I think is the most critical part:

"But yesterday, we heard the president justifying a military attack with words that could have been spoken by Hillary Clinton. Did we have an election or didn’t we?

President Trump has a choice. He can stay the course he set in the campaign, in his inaugural speech and in the first days of his presidency, keeping America First. Or, he can succumb to the selective hysteria of the Corporate Media, to his most ardent critics, to the omnipresent chorus of NeverTrump Republicans and to the beltway’s permanent war party to choose the path of America Last."

Maxwell is wondering if Trump is really going to take America on a right wing path for which Maxwell has hoped he would. I don't know where Trump is headed, but I think it it likely not to be any particular ideological path.

You know Maxwell is really upset and serious, he used the H-word.

Of course with a presidential administration promising radical change there is bound to be some disappointment. It might be thought that Trump supporters would be reasonable and realize that overall they are getting the change they hoped for and that Trump has to keep a coalition together to do any change and that some objectives will be won and others lost but overall they are advancing their agenda. However, I don't think a lot of Trump supporters think that way, do those type of assessments, and a lot will become disillusioned and alienated.

The failure to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act of the Obama administration and the actions of the U.S. House Freedom Caucus I think gives some indication of how little compromise figures in the political calculations and actions of many conservatives.

However, what I think will drive reactionary media attacks on Trump is the fact that these websites live on rage. Right now they can rage against media and celebrity criticism of Trump, they can rage against Trump opponents, but I don't know if this really substitutes for raging against the establishment and the modern world.

Also, this reactionary faction, is focused on denouncing conservatives who they feel are compromised in principle or not sufficiently conservative. They use terms like "cuckservative," a portmanteau of "cuckhold" and "conservative." It is the classic politics of "ultraism" where someone is purer than others.

At some point the different media platforms of rage might see being critical of Trump as being a competitive advantage against other media platforms of rage or perhaps see a niche audience for their platform for rage.

So I think that you will see right-wing secessionist movements start reviving. As time goes on reactionaries will realize that Trump is not leading to the great counter-revolution or not enough of the counter-revolution for which they hoped.

M.E. Bradford became disillusioned with Ronald Reagan's administration carefully avoiding criticizing Reagan. Bradford and others hoped that Reagan was going to undo the civil rights revolution of the 1960s, but Reagan was content to stall it instead.

The revival of right wing secessionists might only be partial or weak. It could be that most Trump supporters will be satisfied enough or hope that Trump has some radical plan that will be forthcoming in the future.

If the Republicans lose the U.S. House and U.S. Senate then Trump would be the embattled president and his base will rally around him and right wing secessionists will find their fortunes bleak.

A sure thing for right wing secessionists would be Democratic party victories and take over of the U.S. House and Senate and the presidency and a sense that there is no hope in national politics. In comparison it will take awhile for disillusion in the Trump movement to become overwhelming with Trump's base, but it could happen. It seems to be progressing towards that end primarily because his base is reactionary and extremist and fully expecting a total counter revolution.

I think also they are quite aware of how the "Reagan Revolution" really failed to advance reactionary politics and they hope to avoid a historical repeat with Trump.

So I think we are still on track for right wing secessionism to revive fall 2017.

Incidentally, Ron Maxwell is another neo-Confederate writer for Breitbart. Not a lot of articles, but some.

http://www.breitbart.com/author/ron-maxwell/

http://www.breitbart.com/author/ron-maxwell-2/

 

White House has finally gotten the letter asking him to not send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument

The date on the return green postcard for the certified letter is March 27, 2017. So the White House just got the letter. It then would get looked at by staffers.

The letter was mailed some time ago, in first half of February, but I think it takes awhile to get through security.

You can read the letter and the supporting bibliography at this web page.

http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/sign-2017-petition-to-president-trump.html

You can go to the Change.org petition either through a link on that page or directly by this link.

https://www.change.org/p/edward-h-sebesta-ask-president-trump-not-to-send-a-wreath-to-the-arlington-confederate-monument

EU official threatens retaliation to support secession of U.S. states

Turns out that the EU official is being humorous.

https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/03/juncker-ohio/521385/

However, I don't think this is good even in jest.