Matthew Yglesias: "Jacksonian America"

"Jacksonian America"

I've long thought it a bit odd that Bush-lovers would follow Walter Russell Mead in proclaiming their boy the heir of Andrew Jackson's legacy of racism-infused militarism and casual disregard for the US constitution, but with regard to Zell Miller, Instapundit says admiringly that the shoe fits. Or, rather, in typical hack fashion Glenn avoids smearing Zell's slime all over himself by not actually endorsing the Senator's factual, logical, or normative statements. Instead, he merely links to them and then writes a bunch about how effective it all was.

Andrew Sullivan, meanwhile, knows that "Jacksonian" and "Dixiecrat" ain't all that different and correctly views tonight's display as yet another step in the Party of Lincoln's long, strange transformation into the Party of Jefferson Davis.

September 2, 2004 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d834213ad753ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Jacksonian America":

» As Zell Miller prepares to speak... from Daly Thoughts and Dales' Electoral College Breakdown 2004
... I cannot help but wonder why the Democrats did not give similar prominence at their convention to Jim Jeffords... Update: Brit Hume categorized Miller's speech as "strong medicine". Mort Kondrake said that it is about 120% strong, and comes v... [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 2, 2004 11:47:45 AM

» THE DEVIL WENT DOWN TO GEORGIA from Begging To Differ
My associate on this page described Zell Miller's keynote address as "the opening salvo in what will surely be a substantive attack on Kerry's voting record," but I say that's a generous misreading. This speech was the salvo, and it... [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 2, 2004 11:59:27 AM

» Huh? from PoliBlog
Of the many things that one could accuse Zell Miller's speech of being, I am at a loss as to how anyone could accuse it of racism. Yet, that is what some are doing. For example: Matthew Yglesias:I've long thought it a bit odd that Bush-lovers ... [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 2, 2004 1:08:09 PM

» Zell Miller *likes* America from Barefoot And Naked
Instapundit endorses what strikes me as the absolute lamest media criticism I've heard in a while (although admittedly, I haven't been reading Instapundit for quite some time, and found this post through Matthew Yglesias): John McCain was on NBC immedi... [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 2, 2004 2:37:36 PM

» Demanding Satisfaction from Blog or Not?
... Zell Miller apparently wanted to challenge Chris Matthews to a duel : "I wish we lived in the day where you could challenge a person to a duel". This brings more credence to the theory that Zell Miller is channelling the spirit of Andrew Jackson--J... [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 2, 2004 5:45:23 PM

» Dem Delusions from Wizbang
One of the problems I've had since I've entered the blogosphere is my love/hate relationship with the word "delusional." I simply don't know of another word to describe the mental state of many liberals. I've been to the thesaurus but... [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 2, 2004 9:15:34 PM

Comments

"...and correctly views tonight's display as yet another step in the Party of Lincoln's long, strange transformation into the Party of Jefferson Davis."

Ha. Great line.

Posted by: G C | Sep 2, 2004 3:23:02 AM

... another step in the Party of Lincoln's long, strange transformation into the Party of Jefferson Davis.

Would that be a "factual, logical, or normative statement," Matthew?

Posted by: Beldar | Sep 2, 2004 4:58:57 AM

Well, Beldar: if you're making an incompetent attempt to be sarcastic, Matt's statement is perfectly factual.

The Party of Lincoln ceased to be such all the way back in 1876, when it sold out the civil rights of Southern Negroes in order to put Rutherford B. Hayes in the White House. But its actual transformation into the Party of Davis (and Strom Thurmond) began with Goldwater in 1964 (as he said about the GOP appealing to white Southern racists in that year, "We ought to go hunting where the ducks are"), was continued by Nixon and Reagan, and is now complete. (You know, Beldar, it WAS Ashcroft who in 1998, as part of his preparations for his abortive run for the 2000 Presidential nomination, told the openly racist and pro-slavery "Southern Partisan" magazine --noted for its frequent references to "the tyrant Lincoln" -- that it was an outrage to say that Davis, Lee and Stonewall Jackson were supporting "an immoral cause".)

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw | Sep 2, 2004 5:37:20 AM

Well, Beldar: if you're making an incompetent attempt to be sarcastic, Matt's statement is perfectly factual.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw | Sep 2, 2004 5:39:52 AM

When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act , he said that he was signing away the Democratic South. But he did it anyway.

The Republicans stopped being the Party of Lincoln when he was assasinated. The Union's policy was like that of the victors in WW I. Besides the responsibility of starting the war, the South had the moral odium of slavery. But there was no Keynes to point out the consequences. Even as late as 1948, the Dixiecrats had to form their own party, because white voters wouldn't go along with cutting a deal with Republicans. It took another 20 years for racial prejudice to trump regional resentment.

Posted by: Roger Bigod | Sep 2, 2004 6:31:25 AM

"Andrew Sullivan, meanwhile, knows that 'Jacksonian' and 'Dixiecrat' ain't all that different and correctly views tonight's display as yet another step in the Party of Lincoln's long, strange transformation into the Party of Jefferson Davis."

In other words, this demonstrator has it right?

Posted by: Michael | Sep 2, 2004 7:10:12 AM

What did Miller say that was supposed to be so slimy? Did he call Kerry's daughters alcoholics or something?

Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | Sep 2, 2004 7:30:29 AM

Miller on Kerry, March 2001:

http://miller.senate.gov/speeches/030101jjdinner.htm :

"My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders – and a good friend.

"He was once a lieutenant governor – but he didn't stay in that office 16 years, like someone else I know. It just took two years before the people of Massachusetts moved him into the United States Senate in 1984.

"In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington. Early in his Senate career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so.

"John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment. Business Week magazine named him one of the top pro-technology legislators and made him a member of its 'Digital Dozen.' John was re-elected in 1990 and again in 1996 – when he defeated popular Republican Governor William Weld in the most closely watched Senate race in the country.

"John is a graduate of Yale University and was a gunboat officer in the Navy. He received a Silver Star, Bronze Star and three awards of the Purple Heart for combat duty in Vietnam. He later co-founded the Vietnam Veterans of America.

"He is married to Teresa Heinz and they have two daughters.

"As many of you know, I have great affection – some might say an obsession – for my two Labrador retrievers, Gus and Woodrow. It turns out John is a fellow dog lover, too, and he better be. His German Shepherd, Kim, is about to have puppies. And I just want him to know … Gus and Woodrow had nothing to do with that.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, please welcome Senator John Kerry."

As to what REALLY makes Zell tick, I've finally found someone who knows enough about the history of Georgia politics over the last 40 years to explain it: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=zeitz090104 . (Hint: the initials of the principle are "A.P.O." -- and it ain't "All Pissed Off".)

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw | Sep 2, 2004 7:30:44 AM

"What did Miller say that was supposed to be so slimy? Did he call Kerry's daughters alcoholics or something?"

Well, no, Paul, he didn't. As Andrew Sullivan and William Saletan have now pointed out, he merely called everyone who questions any aspect of Bush's current foreign and military policies a traitor.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw | Sep 2, 2004 7:43:21 AM

Zell said some nice things about John while introducing John at a dinner as a speaker.

So the best you've got is Dinner remarks?

DINNER REMARKS?

This is typical of Democratic response.

The initial resopnse sounds good, but the moment you look into the evidence it falls apart and makes the Democrats look petty and silly.

Posted by: MYGoodness | Sep 2, 2004 7:47:47 AM

See? Republicans can lie when the give dinner remarks! Everyone knows this! You Democrats are sure desperate!

Posted by: Rob | Sep 2, 2004 8:23:41 AM

he merely called everyone who questions any aspect of Bush's current foreign and military policies a traitor. Really? Where did he say that?

Posted by: piraeus | Sep 2, 2004 8:24:45 AM

Looked like aRIGHT-WING HATEFEST to me.

Posted by: Andrew Edwards | Sep 2, 2004 8:56:45 AM

"Even as late as 1948, the Dixiecrats had to form their own party, because white voters wouldn't go along with cutting a deal with Republicans. It took another 20 years for racial prejudice to trump regional resentment."

That's unfair to the old fashioned Republicans of the 40's and 50's, Roger. Dewey was a strong supporter of civil rights, and Republican votes enabled LBJ to get the Civil Rights Act passed. It wasn't until Goldwater in '64 and the Nixon campaign in '68 that the Republicans sold their souls to Satan . . .

Posted by: rea | Sep 2, 2004 9:01:34 AM

rob -

If the best the DNC can do is point to a dinner speech that Zell Miller gave saying nice things about Kerry before Kerry helped the Georgia Democrats, then they should just pack it in.

I look at it this way, if Kerry&Co. can't beat the eeevil triumvirate of Bush/Rove/James Baker, then what shot do they have against actual evil?

Posted by: MYGoodness | Sep 2, 2004 9:04:59 AM

After watching last night, especially the audience reaction, I don't think it's the "Party of Andrew Jackson" as much as it's the "Party of Paranoid Schizophrenics".

Posted by: Tim H. | Sep 2, 2004 9:08:36 AM

Bruce, I notice that you -- like the KE2004 organization that quoted that previous speech of Sen. Miller's -- managed to leave out the date on which it was delivered: March 1, 2001. Some folks think the world has changed since then, and others ... don't.

And I repeat my question to our host: Factual, logical, or normative? The party of Jefferson Davis stood for states' rights to leave the Union and the maintenance of slavery. I'm not defending either position, I'm simply pointing out what it stood for and why it fought the Civil War. Make whatever arguments you want about how racist you think the GOP has become. My specific question is, can you point to a single line in Zell Miller's speech that has anything to do with states departing from the Union or slavery -- or anything else specifically identified with the party of Jefferson Davis?

I don't think that you can. Which means that instead of stating something factual, logical, or normative, our host, Mr. Yglesias, was simply pointing his finger and shouting, "Racist!" Sincere, perhaps. Impressive, as a factual, logical, or normative argument? Not at all. Not even close.

Posted by: Beldar | Sep 2, 2004 9:09:49 AM

Bruce, I beg your pardon. I see that you did include the date, and commend you for that important bit of context. I see that indeed, you got the full date from the Senator's website. I don't think it was accidental that KE2004 left the day and month reference out of their press release, however.

Posted by: Beldar | Sep 2, 2004 9:13:07 AM

"racism-infused militarism"

When did race come up? How is it racism-infused?

Posted by: Chad | Sep 2, 2004 9:42:15 AM

What I'm struggling to understand is how Republicans are trying to expropriate various aspects of other American traditions -- I've seen Bush as a Wilsonian, Bush as a Hamiltonian, Bush as a Jeffersonian ... at the end of the day, Mead's typology has little practical value.

Posted by: praktike | Sep 2, 2004 9:43:57 AM

Chad, MY is referring to Andrew Jackson.

Posted by: praktike | Sep 2, 2004 9:44:59 AM

OK, like a lot of Republicans, I'd been unaware of Miller's past record on racial issues. Which, of course, had nothing to do with his speech last night.

But, Matt, the GOP asked Miller to speak to explain his grievances with his party. He wasn't there as a Republican or a representative of what Republicans think, just of what's wrong with the Democrats.

Now, if you're not old enough to remember this, let me ask you: is it worse to have a guy like that speak in that capacity - or to have him give the keynote nominating speech at the Democratic convention, as Zell did as governor of Georgia in 1992? I sure as heck don't remember anybody in the media having a problem with Zell's past back when he was not only a Clinton supporter but seen as representative of the "New Democrats" Clinton sought to embody.

Bill Clinton: a candidate Jefferson Davis would have liked? By your standard, Matt, the answer would be yes.

Posted by: Crank | Sep 2, 2004 9:48:23 AM

factual, logical, or normative statements.

Well, Matt, weren't you having problems with those just a few threads back? Denying that the Communists occupied Austria...ring a bell?

Might be a good idea for you to lay off engaging those "factual statements" for a while...they're sharp, you might hurt yourself.

Posted by: alpha | Sep 2, 2004 9:53:35 AM

Yeah. My question to all of you who are now saying that Zell Miller is a throwback racist Dixiecrat: Where were you when he keynoted the DEMOCRAT convention in '92?

Oh right, I forgot:
When Zell Miller speaks to Democrats, he's a popular, education-reforming governor.
When Zell Miller speaks to Republicans, he's a racist dixiecrat.

You folks are so idiotic.

Posted by: Al | Sep 2, 2004 9:56:22 AM

I think Al really liked the part of Miller's speech when he talked about Wendell Willkie. I hear Al's a big fan of Wendell Willkie.

Posted by: r | Sep 2, 2004 10:01:10 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.