11 January 2016

Seceding from the Party of Lincoln?

For much of last year, Donald Trump was under pressure to pledge that, should he fail in his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, he would endorse and support the actual nominee. Trump has made the pledge, but some Republicans don't trust him to keep it. The other candidates have made similar pledges, presumably assuming with egoistic confidence that they won't have to support Trump, but what of Republican voters? One of them, the columnist Michael Gerson, raises the specter of a conservative anti-Trump third party should the billionaire win the nomination. Even while conceding that such a move probably would throw the election to the Democratic candidate, most likely the hated Hillary Clinton, Gerson argues that a third party may be necessary to "preserve something of conservatism ... in the hopes of better days." Trump is unacceptable to Gerson as a Republican presidential candidate because Trump "would make the GOP the party of racial and religious exclusion." Trump's opportunistic "ethno-nationalism" is contrary to the Republican tradition going all the way back to Abraham Lincoln, he argues. Gerson is right and wrong about this. The Republican party became one of the country's two major parties by defeating a more explicitly "ethno-nationalist" movement, but has also courted that movement's constituency for much of its history.

The collapse of the Whig Party ended what historians call the Second American party system. The Republicans, dedicated mainly to keeping slavery out of the territory conquered from Mexico, hoped to take the Whigs' place in a new party system. They were challenged by the American or "Know-Nothing" party, which argued that the real threat to America came from Catholic immigrants. The Republicans prevailed, of course, but it looked like a near thing for a few years. Lincoln himself despised the Know-Nothings, but so long as Democrats remained the party of immigrants, Republicans were tempted to pander to anti-immigrant (and particularly anti-Catholic) feeling. While "nativist" sentiment had other causes, including inter-ethnic competition for jobs, the long-enduring political argument was that Catholics were subservient by upbringing in a way Protestants were not, and thus were handicapped when it came to democratic-republican citizenship. The great fear was that Catholics would be told whom to vote for in elections by their priests, and would vote en bloc to advance a Catholic political agenda, presumably including an eventual overturning of the First Amendment so that Catholicism could become a state church, taxing the other denominations for its support and possibly handicapping the others in the public sector. While there was no reason not to believe that Protestant pastors were as eager to instruct their congregations on voting, that temptation was neatly projected onto Catholics. Leaving conspiracy theories aside, Republicans were bound to resent Democratic success among immigrants and probably were as susceptible then as they are now to the secular conspiracy theory according to which Democrats encourage mass immigration, legal and illegal, in order to win elections by fair means or foul. As late as 1928, anti-Catholic sentiment could be credited with defeating the first Catholic presidential candidate, Al Smith of New York. Smith lost several states in the "Solid" Democratic south, in part due to his faith and his related opposition to Protestant-driven Prohibition. I suspect there was less breast-beating back then than we see today from Republicans like Gerson.

It's also strange to see Gerson emphasize Republican inclusiveness when the story of the last fifty years has been the Grand Old Party's repudiation of its historic defense of blacks in favor of a "Southern strategy" that veiled race prejudice behind a law-and-order facade. Gerson himself may not be guilty of such strategizing, however. I'd guess that many ideological Republicans really believe that anyone -- any individual -- has the potential to become a useful part of the economy and a responsible citizen, no matter where he or she comes from. Such a faith goes with their notions of human nature -- of what people want, how they value themselves, and how a society of such people should work. Republican repudiation of the "nativism" or "populism" or "ethno-nationalism" -- we could as easily say "tribalism" -- to which Trump seems to appeal is in keeping with, though not equivalent to, their disdain for any sort of solidarity. It should be remembered that in Lincoln's free-labor utopia, if people were unable to advance up the economic ladder, if they could never transition from employee to employer or self-employed, it was probably their own fault. Trump and his more populist Republican rivals appeal to a sense of "us" that may be deplorably exclusive but also comes with a sense, howevermuch Trump might betray it in practice, of all of "us" looking out for and having our first loyalty to each other. Mainstream Republican patriotism isn't quite the same thing; their sense of loyalty to "us" often seems tenuous, as their eagerness to bring in immigrants seems to prove to the dissidents favoring Trump. Democrats, of course, try to have it both ways by arguing that "us" is really limitless in scope and thus limitlessly inclusive. That's an admirable ideal, but history is proving a little more complicated, as both major parties are starting to learn to their alarm.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Democrats, of course, try to have it both ways by arguing that "us" is really limitless in scope and thus limitlessly inclusive.

The problem is, they want to include many who do not wish to be included. Those who demand "separate but equal" status that would allow them to live within the United States without surrendering to the obligations a citizen has, while gaining all of the benefits. As well as those with a "tribal" mentality who are simply not interested in being a part of American culture, they simply want access to American markets and wealth. These sorts of people, arguably, do not strengthen the nation in any meaningful way, and, by adding to the divisiveness, pressure, etc. in the culture, they weaken it. Such people should be discouraged from coming here because they will not ever be an integral part of what moves this nation forward.

Samuel Wilson said...

The difficulty with having an honest, objective debate on this subject is a position that's arguably a fallacy. Someone might ask you, "Were the Know-Nothings wrong about the Catholics?" and if you say yes -- presuming you would -- the next thing would be "Then how do you know you aren't wrong about x,y or z?" They would then proceed to ignore whatever arguments or evidence you present, because they're already convinced that "once wrong, always wrong," and they'll say the Know-Nothings, the anti-semites, etc. all had arguments and evidence (of sorts) that history proved wrong. There's a presumption in this that all cultures are either basically the same or basically irrelevant to whether individuals can contribute to the common good -- and, of course, there's an implicit definition of "common good" involved that isn't necessarily yours.

Anonymous said...

I think you know what I'm talking about. Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of the argument (regarding allowing muslims and other undesirables to come here) that "America is all about immigrants". Yeah, we WERE and look where it's gotten us. Perhaps it's time we realize that allowing anyone and everyone who wants to come here is NOT conducive to a secure state. Perhaps we should take a cue from what is going on in too many European nations right now and understand, even "peaceful muslims" are still going to cause trouble simply because of the number of people who don't want them here, and GODDAMMIT, the American people should have some say in who we allow here, political ticks and leeches aside.

Anonymous said...

The common good, by NO FUCKING DEFINITION, includes getting blown the fuck up because you go to work, or run a marathon. Not one fucking muslim can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are not a terrorist; that they are not a lying sack of excrement. NOT ONE. The koran, and therefore islam, does NOT support religious freedom for atheists, for polytheists, for agnostics, basically for anyone who doesn't subscribe to the so-called Abrahamic tradition, so allowing muslims in to this nation is ONLY going to lead to violence - as it has been proven on many occasions. And more violence is sure to follow as long as we allow a single muslim into this nation. As long as one muslim is allowed here, anyone around that person is in danger. That is the FACT too many people on the left are unwilling to face squarely. So to assuage their feelings of guilt, they insist on allowing the scum of the world into the USA, Germany, Britain, etc. As much as I detest the right, I feel I am being forced to start voting for politicians I don't necessarily agree with just because of that one issue.

Samuel Wilson said...

5:11. Who actually can prove to everyone's satisfaction that they are not a terrorist in deed or thought? You take the Koran as proof that Muslims can't be trusted. Fine. You wrote a while back that you trust no one automatically. So how does anyone earn your trust? Is the mere lack of a smoking-gun Koran or Mein Kampf sufficient? You've noted that Christians have been hypocrites throughout history, so their lack of a smoking-gun commandment should mean nothing to you. And now you're thinking of voting for some right-wing scumbag because of an opportunistic campaign promise? You trust that? If you do you deserve what you get, but it probably won't include a Muslim-free America.


Anonymous said...

Most people don't have to "earn my trust" as I have no reason to even think they may be planning on either blowing up other people in a suicide attack, are possibly planning on taking over the USA and instituting a foreign, religious-based system of law in place of the Constitution. Insofar as "voting for some right-wing scumbag" goes, I've voted twice for a good-for-nothing black president who has wasted 8 years in office and accomplished jack shit. Do I trust Trump? Hell no. But if he manages to get elected, it may finally hit the democrap party that they are perceived, by many of their own supporters, as being TOO trusting of foreigners they have no reason to trust, and too spineless when dealing with the criminal element within their own citizenry. It may be the ONLY way to push the left back to the left.

Anonymous said...

Insofar as the muslim scum goes, if they want to earn the trust of non-muslims, let the fucking LOT of them go back to the middle east and put an end to the extremists themselves. Let them PROVE that islam is a religion of peace by rooting out the jihadis and exterminating them once and for all. Let them do what the protestants did and REWRITE the koran, by way of "reformation", editing out all of the calls to violence against non-muslims and all of the religious and sexist intolerance. It is on THEIR shoulders to do whatever it takes to MAKE islam a "religion of peace", rather merely pretending it is. Once that's done, let them STAY THERE. Because even IF they are peaceful, I, for one, don't want their fucking culture over here. It is NOT of western Europe and I am sick of watching MY culture constantly being eroded by low-life scumbags who can't be bothered staying where their culture already exists.

I don't want to look at their fucking robes, their fucking burqas, their fucking beards. There isn't a single thing about their fucking culture I find in the least bit fascinating, interesting or relevant to the 21st century.

Samuel Wilson said...

Jan 14 2:32 -- What exactly would a left "pushed back to the left" through the chastening of a Trump election look and sound like? Do you have a point of reference for when the left in the U.S. got things right? I don't want to make inferences and I'm honestly curious.

Anonymous said...

Depends on whether you equate "left" with "progressive". The current administration has, apparently, taken as its role model that of Neville Chamberlain, when what we need is a Churchill.

Samuel Wilson said...

Both Chamberlain and Churchill were Conservatives. British Tories are different creatures from American conservatives, to a degree -- though you wouldn't know it from the way Republicans, and neocons especially, idolize Churchill -- but neither man is really a "progressive" role model. Try again, please.