Jonathan Chait, at New York Magazine, writes about Republicans as the party of white people, about John C. Calhoun’s influence, and about the 1960’s “Southern Strategy”:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/02/white-republican-debate-continues-to-rage.html
“Sam Tanenhaus’s historical essay in the latest edition of the New Republic, on how the GOP is unalterably the party of white America, runs along many of the same lines as my story in last week’s issue of New York. Tanenhaus even discusses in depth the theories of John C. Calhoun, which I mentioned briefly, as did Frank Rich in an essay in the same issue as mine. (For any New York readers surprised at the double citations in a single issue, the explanation is simple: Subscriber surveys have found that our readers want more coverage of mid-priced restaurants south of 50th Street and also much more discussion of the philosophy of John C. Calhoun.) Tanenhaus’s piece is a great read and provides a lot of depth in areas I only touched upon, such as the deep and conscious influence of Calhoun on the twentieth-century thinkers who founded the conservative movement.”
Chait aside: when I was in high school, circa 1965, I spent a lot of time writing a long, ponderous essay on the much maligned (I thought) political philosophy of John C. Calhoun. In retrospect, I might have made better use of my time (girls? learning to play guitar?). But with talk these days of nullification and even secession, I wish I still had that old essay. I’m wondering if folks here have any thoughts on Calhoun or on the constitutionality (never mind the practicality) of nullification and/or secession—those topics have always fascinated me. Maybe they’ve been discussed here already in older posts? For what it’s worth, while I no longer subscribe to Calhoun’s philosophy on those subjects, I still believe that the Civil War was a mistake and that Lincoln should have allowed the Confederate States to go their own way (not that I think war could have been avoided for long in any case). Does that make me a quasi-secessionist or something?
Any thoughts?
The photo accompanying the New Yorker looks to be a crowd at a University of Tennessee event, probably a Lady Vols basketball game. Funny they would use a photo of a university that put women’s basketball on the map. A school that, after Kentucky, had the second black football player in the SEC (Lester McClain – I had a class with Lester, great guy.). A school that was ” the nation’s first co-ed higher education institution.”
Of course, as you, yourself, have demonstrated, hatred has no care for the truth.
Nothing more than a political hit piece. Chait fears the Republican Party attracting minority voters, therefore he must label the Republican Party as “unalterably the party of white America” and play to racist fears. Apparently, the likes of people like Ben Carson scares the bejeessus out of Chait, so Chait resorts to hate mongering and lies.
One simple example of Chaits lies: Why? Because Republicans were winning. They didn’t need to block the majority from working its will because they usually were the majority.
From the 86th Congress (1959) or before (that’s as early as I checked) to the 96th Congress (to Jan, 1981) or later (that’s as late as I checked.) the Democratic Party had the majority in both houses of Congress. Except for the 8 years of Nixon/Ford, they also had the presidency. Yeah, that’s a real majority.
But, keep up the hate mongering. I’m sure you’re convincing the low information voters.
IIRC, Asians going over to the Dem party is actually a pretty new phenomenon. Reagan and Bush I got the majority of their votes.
Steve
DADvocate: I thought–though perhaps I should go back and re-read what I wrote–that I used the Chait piece merely as an introduction to ask what folks thought of Calhoun and of his ideas about nullification and secession, ideas I once found compelling and even now find worth discussing. I’m bewildered by how that makes me guilty of “hate mongering”–I didn’t even commend the Chait piece (assuming that’s what you find to be hateful), I noted it and then said “Chait aside:…” Thanks for the detective work on the photo, though. Final question: is “hate monger” a promotion from “lap dog,” or am I still dropping in your estimation?
I dont see the GP as the party of white people, though they dominate the party. It is a pro-business, not pro-market party. It favors tax cuts, with high levels of spending, especially on defense (judged by actions, not words.) They also favor a number of social issues favored by religiously conservative people. All these values may be more favored by white people, especially older ones, but there is substantial overlap with many other races and cultures. The GOP has been unable to attract immigrants very well, for the most part, because it has a small but very outspoken group that is hostile towards foreigners entering our country. You see the same in many other countries like Japan. Some union members in the Dem party are also inclined to be hostile towards immigrants, but union members make up a very small percentage of our population, and they tend to argue more on economic grounds rather than cultural. It appears that “we dotn want you here because you are criminals” is more repulsive than “we dont want you here because you might take our jobs”.
Steve
because it has a small but very outspoken group that is hostile towards foreigners entering our country.
My good Steve,
If there is such a group, as outspoken GOP members as you say they are you should be able to identify them by name.
Please do so.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
You mean like Pat Buchanan, Tancredo, FAIR, the Washington Times, Pamela Geller, Rep. Peter King, CCIR, Rep Nguyen, Rep Steve King, Malkin, and Rep Mo Brooks? Enough?
Steve
My good Steve,
I don’t mean anything.
It is you, not I, who are claiming “Pat Buchanan, Tancredo, FAIR, the Washington Times, Pamela Geller, Rep. Peter King, CCIR, Rep Nguyen, Rep Steve King, Malkin, and Rep Mo Brooks” are hostile towards foreigners entering our country.
I believe this is false. They object, when they do, to illegal immigration.
Can you actually provide evidence that they – all of them – are indiscriminately “hostile towards foreigners entering our country”, or is it you who are conflating legal immigration with illegal immigration in order to falsely make your point?
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
Okay, I’ll bite, “it has a small but very outspoken group that is hostile towards foreigners entering our country.”
What did Pamela Geller, King, Nguyen, King, Malkin and Brooks said negative about foreigners entering US legally?
Why the distinction? The above describe illegals as criminals and lazy. They malign the character of the people entering the country illegally. They promote ideas like the “anchor baby”, which has been shown to not really exist. When you impugn the character of a people, do you think those people care whether it is aimed at legals or illegals? Even on legal immigration, there is concern that the white race will be overwhelmed, that foreigners are not assimilating.
“The prognosis is grim. Between 2000 & 2050, world population will grow to over 9 billion people, but this 50% increase in global population will come entirely in Asia, Africa, & Latin America, as 100 million people of European stock vanish from the Earth. But the immigration tsunami rolling over America is not coming from ‘all the races of Europe.’ The largest population transfer in history is coming from all the races of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and they are not ‘melting and reforming.”
Buchanan
Steve
Just one of many pieces on immigrants and English.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2013/02/immigration-and-language?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/stolz_amerikaner_zu_sein
“Why the distinction?”
Why the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants? That’s like asking – why draw the line between who earned their wealth and those who stole it. Simple enough?
“The above describe illegals as criminals and lazy.”
They did broke the law though, that’s why they are called “illegal”. As for being called “lazy” – okay, show me where Pamela Geller, King, Nguyen, King, Malkin and Brooks called them lazy. I will wait here.
“They malign the character of the people entering the country illegally. ”
These people came here illegally, right? They broke the law, right? But if you have any actual quotes on who in the list above “maligned the character of” illegal immigrants, I am all ears…
“They promote ideas like the “anchor baby”, which has been shown to not really exist. ”
Okay, let’s examine the evidence. So far it seems like YOU are maligning the character of these conservatives without any evidence.
“When you impugn the character of a people, do you think those people care whether it is aimed at legals or illegals?”
Which people? Since you decided to impugn the character of these conservatives (without any evidence) can you be a bit more clear on who cares at whether “it” is aimed at legal or illegal immigrants? It’s up to you to prove your accusations…
“Even on legal immigration, there is concern that the white race will be overwhelmed, that foreigners are not assimilating.”
Is it factually correct? Is it a valid argument? Do the white people have the birth rate below reproduction in US? Do all foreigners assimilate? Why do we need official documents in 100 different languages if all foreigners assimilated?
Last but not least – I did not ask for the proof of Buchanan’s views, he is just like you is equally hateful of the State of Israel, so I don’t doubt his views on immigration. But how about Michele Malkin, who’s character you impugned? Any evidence that she is “hostile towards foreigners entering our country” – if those foreigners came to US legally? Same for Geller. Any evidence? Or should I assume that this debate will go same way as you claim that filibuster is the reason why Senate cannot vote for Obama’s budget?
“So why, in this narrative, did previous waves of immigration not threaten English, while today’s does?”
Multiculturism and handouts. 100 years you would not expect the government to provide tax-funded translators, nor were the government entities forced to have all documents in 100 different languages. Moreover, back 100 years ago, we did not have a huge portion of the population dependent on government handouts.
These are facts.
RE: distinction between legal and illegal immigrants–Mr. Wired and I used to argue about this a lot, because, as he pointed out, his grandparents all came here legally. I countered that,in those days, all it took to immigrate legally into the US was not having a contagious disease, a police record, or an excessive amount of melanin in one’s skin. For those who obsess about the size of the Internal Revenue Code and Regs, take a look at today’s immigration statutes and regs.
“(See Rep. King Press Release, Jan. 4, 2013) “The current practice of extending U.S. citizenship to hundreds of thousands of ‘anchor babies’ must end because it creates a magnet for illegal immigration into our country.”
http://patriotaction.net/forum/topics/stop-anchor-babies-1
“Across this great country, on Thanksgiving tables nationwide, infidel Americans are unwittingly going to be serving halal turkeys to their families this Thursday. Turkeys that are halal certified — who wants that, especially on a day on which we are giving thanks to G-d for our freedom? I wouldn’t knowingly buy a halal turkey — would you? Halal turkey, slaughtered according to the rules of Islamic law, is just the opposite of what Thanksgiving represents: freedom and inclusiveness, neither of which are allowed for under that same Islamic law.”
Geller
Just for fun, since I get these stupid chain mails, and I forgot Lou Dobbs.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/cost-of-illegal-immigrants/
““Granted, we need to have a sound immigration policy that allows people into our country who are going to produce more than they are going to consume, but the bottom line is illegal aliens consume far more of our tax resources than they generate,” he said. “They commit heinous crimes against American citizens.”
Brooks.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65351.html#ixzz2Kogy95tO
Kind of boring, will stop there.
Steve
Of course, cant resist this.
“[I]f foreign nationals are primarily attracted to our welfare state, how to explain the fact that low-income immigrants are less likely to be receiving public benefits than low-income natives?
Illegal aliens aren’t eligible for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other federal entitlements. But even those low-income immigrants who are eligible for public assistance sign up at lower rates than their native counterparts. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers food stamps, noncitizens who qualify are significantly less likely than citizens to participate. [The Wall Street Journal, 11/13/12]”
Also, you are disingenuous on crime. I break the speed limit everyday, and I bet you do too. We are criminals. Illegal immigrants are guilty of breaking the law by being here. We all know that. What is claimed is that they are committing crimes while here, at abnormally high rates.
Steve
So, you started by talking about particular conservatives (you even named names) who are: “hostile towards foreigners entering our country.
Examples from you…
King, who does not believe that children of illegal immigrant should get US citizenship automatically. Hm. That does not sound like hostility to all foreigners – only illegals.
Geller is upset about creeping Sharia law into our houses. Mkay, nothing about hostility towards foreigners – just a fight for religious freedom.
And lastly, you showed a link to Lou Dobbs (not in the initial list of people), and he too talks about illegal immigrants.
Steve, is it fair to say that you have ZERO evidence to support your claims that “Pamela Geller, Rep. Peter King, CCIR, Rep Nguyen, Rep Steve King, Malkin, and Rep Mo Brooks” dislike foreigners?
My good Jack,
During the election this meme simmered in the form of Mitt Romney’s support in “former states of the Confederacy”; Googling that phrase may bring up some of the articles.
As I type this, Robert Siegel is promoting “Sam Tanenhaus, editor of the New York Times Book Review, about his article on the Republican party and why it is and will remain the party of white people.”
http://www.npr.org/2013/02/11/171737572/why-does-gop-continue-to-be-the-party-of-white-people
Is this all actually true?
Is it news?
Is it a manufactured meme?
Is it a manufactured meme discovered to be news through some autofellational feature of modern journalism?
You decide.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
You could see this piece coming from a few years away. Follow that progressive logic, NPR and NY Times Book Review, all the way back to John Brown’s body, or all the way out to some thin branch on the tree of relativism, or to semi-partisan hackery passing for highminded analysis.
We’re especially polarized, and maybe, just maybe, the kinds of pieces by Tanenhaus make us more so.
He’s late to the party.
ChrisN: “some thin branch on the tree of relativism” is a neat turn of phrase. And it may sadly be the case that, with rare exceptions, all of our media commentary these days is “semi-partisan hackery passing for highminded analysis” (I’d like to think that my own stuff at least rises to that level now and then), though, to be honest, I thought the Tanenhaus piece was reasonable. Once again, though, I should point out–I was hoping for some discussion of Calhoun and especially of nullification, as that doctrine in various forms is once again gaining popularity. I apparently defeated my own purpose by linking folks to the Chait article…ah well.
H.M.: I read the Tanenhaus piece, via the link in the Chait article. I have no idea whether the GOP is “the party of white people,” though if it is, it’s got a major problem in the coming years. I’m not a Republican, so I’ll let members of that party decide for themselves who they are and what they stand for. Is it true? Is it “news”? Is it a “manufactured meme”? Opinions, I suspect, differ. More to the point, I’ve apparently erred in how I posted this–I truly wanted a discussion of Calhoun and his philosophy, but thought I should lead with Chait since that’s what got me thinking about it. I thought my post (and its title) made clear that I wasn’t interested in Chait but in Calhoun; apparently I was wrong, as we’re all talking about the former and not the latter, and DADvocate is accusing me of “hate mongering”–because of my interest in John C. Calhoun? (BTW, I do like your “autofellational feature of modern journalism”)
My good Jack,
If it should turn out Chait was merely trying to lard a superficial contemporary meme with historical gravitas, blame Chait; if it turns out it was you, of course, blame yourself.
Here’s an interesting open question, though: who is a more representative example of “white people”, Javier Bardem (or Penelope Cruz, for that matter) or George Wallace?
If it should turn out that some white people can’t be white people because white people means something different than white people, you see the marsh you’ve wandered into.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
H.M.: Indeed I’ve wandered into a marsh, even a morass, from which I may not be able to extricate myself–but my road to the marsh was paved, I swear, with good intentions. I can’t speak to Chait’s intentions, but I would think that everything I wrote on my post after the [more]/[continue reading] “jump” would have made it clear that I wanted to ignore Chait and discuss Calhoun. But apparently no one else does, or else no one read anything I wrote after the “jump”. As for your question regarding “who is a more representative example of ‘white people,’” I’m tempted to say, “George Clooney,” but then DADvocate would accuse me of being unwilling to take anything seriously. I don’t know, is my answer to your question. Race is a perplexing issue, which is why I wasn’t in the least bit interested in talking about it. Plus, I do my best to avoid generalizations; as a matter of personal temperament I dislike them, and it’s way too easy for people to point to exceptions, as in “Oh yeah? Well, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal to you, buddy, plus Michael Steele and Thomas Sowell and Michelle Malkin!” Nullification, anyone?
I’m wondering if folks here have any thoughts on Calhoun or on the constitutionality (never mind the practicality) of nullification and/or secession—those topics have always fascinated me.
The question of secession seems pretty straightforward to me – the Constitution is silent on the question of whether or not a State can secede.
The Tenth Amendment states:
So since the Constitution does not prohibit secession, then the right to secede is reserved to the States.
JohnE.: thanks for weighing in on secession. I understand your reasoning, but I’m not sure I’m persuaded that “secession” is one of the unstated powers referred to in the Tenth Amendment. It seems like an awfully important “power” not to have been mentioned specifically. I’ve always wondered why the Constitution was silent about the issue, but assume it was because there wouldn’t have been sufficient agreement at the time. But if it was envisioned that a state could leave the Union, I’d think there would have been a process delineated for that…maybe not, and you may be right. Would you happen to know if there was any discussion of secession either in the Federalist Papers or in the anti-Federalist writings?
…but I’m not sure I’m persuaded that “secession” is one of the unstated powers referred to in the Tenth Amendment.
Jack, I don’t know how to respond to that except to say that the text of the Tenth Amendment is clear:
A power not prohibited by the Constitution to the States is explicitly reserved to the States.
Secession is a power not prohibited by the Constitution to the States.
Therefore, the power of secession is explicitly reserved to the States.
QED
I also refer you to our Good Hosts response to Steve of a few days back, which seems relevant to the argument:
Would you happen to know if there was any discussion of secession either in the Federalist Papers or in the anti-Federalist writings?
I must confess my ignorance on that topic.
A quick skim of the Wikipedia article on the Federalist Papers seems to indicate no mention of secession. It does however contain Madison’s concern (in #58) that the number of congressional representatives will not be augmented as the population of the US grows, which in fact is what seems to have happened. We have the same size House now as we had in 1929, despite our population having more than doubled since then. But I digress.
John: But if secession wasn’t considered a legitimate “power” or “right” in the first place, it couldn’t have been reserved to states. On the other hand, I’ve always suspected that the southern states wouldn’t have ratified the Constitution unless they felt there was an escape hatch for them, and I’m aware that even northern politicians threatened secession early in the 19th century. But if it’s as clear-cut as you’re saying, why was there ever any controversy about it in the first place? Why wouldn’t the “right to secede” have been spelled out (like the right to free speech and the right to bear arms) so that there couldn’t be any doubt that it existed? No disrespect to Madison, Jefferson, et al, but I think the Founders deliberately evaded this one, as they did the slavery issue, because they couldn’t have gotten the Constitution ratified if they had insisted on resolution and clarity.
Jack, while all of what you say might be true, it is a fundamental principle of contract law that the parties’ intentions must be discerned from the four corners of the document, and extrinsic evidence may not be considered.
The Federalist Papers, the difficulties of ratifying the Constitution, and the fact that no means of leaving the Union was ever spelled out is not relevant.
And “But if secession wasn’t considered a legitimate “power” or “right” in the first place, it couldn’t have been reserved to states.” is simply an example of assuming your conclusion.
My guess is that it wasn’t brought up as everyone had stars in their eyes. It’s like mentioning a prenup when you pop the question. I simply think there were no plans for secession. There were a lot of compromises in the Constitution to get it ratified. Any mention of secession or God forbid a mechanism in place for allowing it would make the Federal republic a fragile creation, with states threating secession as a tool of obstructionism. Anyway, this was a federation, bound by a constitution, not a treaty.
As an aside to this. The preamble to the US Constitution, the mission statement of the Constitution as it were, begins “We The People…” indicating that sovereignty rest in the people of the US as a whole. Interestingly, the preamble to the constitution of the so-called “Confederate States of America” begins “We the States…” indicating a different concept of the source of national sovereignty.
Kim: good point and good analogy. It would have be awkward, to say the least, if a marriage ceremony included the words “‘Til death do us part…or either of us changes our mind about this.” As it was, states did in fact “threaten secession as a tool of obstruction,” and no doubt would have done so more frequently had the Constitution explicitly endorsed it. Thanks…
yes, this is why I have always believed, as a divorce lawyer, (a) that every couple should have a prenup, and (b) that if at all possible it should be formulated by the families of the couple, or some other relatively impartial third parties.
I simply think there were no plans for secession.
But there were – from:
http://thebilzerianreport.com/can-states-secede-from-the-union/
Volokh on secession.
http://www.volokh.com/2012/11/15/secession/
Steve
Steve–thanks for the link. Volokh seems uninterested in re-litigating Constitutional controversies, and simply accepts as a matter of law that secession is not a recognized right (or, by and large, a serious threat).
I concede that the Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White, 1869 settled the question, in the sense that the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is.
JohnE: and thanks for your link, as well–which complicates the situation but confirms my belief that southern states, at least (and Rhode Island), must have believed (and apparently asserted) from the outset that they could leave the Union when and if they chose. I would disagree with the article’s conclusion: “Secession is an American tradition”; it seems more accurate to say, “Talk of secession is an American tradition.” But that’s just a quibble on my part.
Might I suggest looking into Lysander Spooner’s writings on this topic?
He was a much smarter guy than I am and was alive and writing about these questions before, during, and after the Civil War.
JohnE.: thanks for the reference; I’m not familiar with him, but I’ll check him out.
He was quite a guy. I’m pretty sure you will find him an interesting character if nothing else.
During my sophomore year in high school, we read this play out loud in English class, some of us taking various roles. I was the doctor. From Wikipedia:
In An Enemy of the People (1882), Ibsen went even further. In earlier plays, controversial elements were important and even pivotal components of the action, but they were on the small scale of individual households. In An Enemy, controversy became the primary focus, and the antagonist was the entire community. One primary message of the play is that the individual, who stands alone, is more often “right” than the mass of people, who are portrayed as ignorant and sheeplike. Contemporary society’s belief was that the community was a noble institution that could be trusted, a notion Ibsen challenged. In An Enemy of the People, Ibsen chastised not only the conservatism of society, but also the liberalism of the time. He illustrated how people on both sides of the social spectrum could be equally self-serving. An Enemy of the People was written as a response to the people who had rejected his previous work, Ghosts. The plot of the play is a veiled look at the way people reacted to the plot of Ghosts. The protagonist is a physician in a vacation spot whose primary draw is a public bath. The doctor discovers that the water is contaminated by the local tannery. He expects to be acclaimed for saving the town from the nightmare of infecting visitors with disease, but instead he is declared an ‘enemy of the people’ by the locals, who band against him and even throw stones through his windows. The play ends with his complete ostracism. It is obvious to the reader that disaster is in store for the town as well as for the doctor.
As audiences by now expected, Ibsen’s next play again attacked entrenched beliefs and assumptions; but this time, his attack was not against society’s mores, but against overeager reformers and their idealism. Always an iconoclast, Ibsen was equally willing to tear down the ideologies of any part of the political spectrum, including his own.
Sums up a lot of my position now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Ibsen#Life_and_writings
DADvocate: It takes courage (more than I usually have) to be an iconoclast; “Enemy of the People” was the sort of thing I loved when I was younger, and it’s always relevant. It’s helpful for us to remember that the lone voice crying in the wilderness may actually be right,and even prophetic; it’s also helpful to be aware that sometimes the lone voice is alone for a good reason–i.e. that he’s wrong. I try to keep in mind the dictum that, whatever my opinions, there’s always the remote possibility that I could be mistaken…anyway, thanks for the Ibsen reference; I wish my high-school English teachers had had us reading cool stuff like that.
“the deep and conscious influence of Calhoun on the twentieth-century thinkers who founded the conservative movement”
I think it makes just as much sense to talk about the influence of Pontius Pilate on modern medicine – since it was Pilate who talked about the need to wash one’s hands.
Liberals are so stupid…
HA: I know that when I was growing up in the Goldwater/conservative movement, Calhoun’s principles and philosophies were openly admired–including, as I’ve already said, by me. So I don’t think it’s unfair to mention him as an influence. Opinions,as always, differ. As for Pontius Pilate, I agree with you: he rarely gets the credit he deserves.
A bit part of calhoun’s philosophy was support for slavery. Did Goldwater express support for slavery?
HA: Nope, he did not. And you’re right of course about Calhoun’s position on slavery, which caused a certain amount of angst in the 1950′s and 1960′s conservative movement: the issue being how to preserve and put forward Calhoun’s defense of limited government and states’ rights without having those ideas contaminated by the man’s support for slavery. Re: Goldwater, I actually have no idea whether Goldwater himself ever read Calhoun (I’m not sure, frankly, how much of a reader Goldwater was) or, if so, what he thought of him; my reference was intended to be about the conservative movement that coalesced, at least briefly, around Goldwater–sorry if I wasn’t clear about that.
IIRC, he was fired by the Romans for being excessively brutal, which in those days was saying a lot.
A reasonable point, HA.
And as for the NR (the newspaper of the White People) claim – didn’t the left-wing controlled cities and towns decided to actively resist federal regulations against illegal immigrants and give them “sanctuaries”? Those liberal Calhoun supporters….
HA: You’re correct. Liberals have also encouraged defiance of, or at least non-cooperation with, federal drug laws. In the Sixties, liberal churches provided refuge for war protesters and draft dodgers. A number of left-leaning municipalities expressed their unwillingness to go along with sections of the Patriot Act. Here in Montana, our state Supreme Court recently tried (unsuccessfully) to resist the “Citizens United” SCOTUS ruling, with the full support of liberals like myself. All of that is why I wanted to initiate a discussion of Calhoun, and especially of his theory of nullification–both liberals and conservatives have asserted that right at different times for different reasons, if sometimes only implicitly.
Jack, so this means that liberals are also open proponents of calhoun’s ideas, right?
HA: I guess that depends on what you mean by “open proponents”. On the one hand No, because I don’t think liberals even recognize where those ideas come from; they’re just focused on the policy results they want to achieve. But on the other hand Yes, in that, as I already said, liberals have been known to advocate for policies that stem, albeit unwittingly, from certain of Calhoun’s ideas(not that Calhoun even invented them, but he was the most articulate and systematic advocate of things like nullification and secession). I’ve never known a liberal (other than myself) to actually cite John C. Calhoun as a source of his or her political ideology; but that just goes to show how little we (or maybe just liberals?)sometimes know about our own ideas.
If anyone’s still the least bit interested in this subject:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/why-conservatives-still-share-a-tent-with-calhoun/
Me, I’m going to start researching Lysander Spooner and seeing what I can learn from him…