|
|
|
|
As I have pointed out before, when
I was a senior editor of the Partisan, they decided
to be Shrewd. Instead of backing the diagonal flag
all living Southerners recognize, some at the magazine
proposed that the Partisan back a square flag. All
they ever showed from then on was the blocky, ugly
square flag.
The Partisan did end up backing the flag we had,
but their constant cries of "Navy Jack!"
did us a lot of harm, and liberals gratefully took
up that cry.
You see, said the Partisan, the Klan waved the diagonal
flag, so they would give that up and ask for a square
flag, the 1860's-style battle flag.
Others have proposed other flags.
But the NAACP doesn't want any of them, so what's
the point, except to begin the surrender process?
Back to the real world. In the Year of Our Lord
2000, there are no square flags flying over the
heads of any living human beings. Every flag on
earth is DIAGONAL, except Nepal's, which is shaped
like snake's tongue. The square flag is a period
piece, a flag that was carried by men long dead.
If the flag is merely a memorial, with no meaning
for modern Southerners, then it should be square.
It should also be pure cotton, made in the South,
and so forth. It should be, in short, a relic.
And that is exactly what will fly behind the Confederate
Monument: a hidden Dead Man's Flag.
For those who are only interested in the South as
a memorial, this is just fine. But the simple fact
is there is no place in modern America for Southern
memorials. We have a Politically Correct national
religion, a single culture, called "Multiculturalism,"
which has been formulated by professors and planners
and changes daily according to the feelings of Federal
judges. No Southern memorial will last.
Just as everybody's property is nobody's property,
everybody's culture is nobody's culture. For those
who consider the Confederate flag to be a Dead Man's
Flag anyway, this hardly matters.
But those of us who live in the real world know
that there is no place for anything Southern in
modern American society. We are a nation or we are
nothing.
|
|
The only reason conservative Republicans
have ever had any influence inside their own party
was because they could point to Democrats of principle.
At the 1948 Republican convention, moderates and
liberals once again took the party away from the
conservative majority and nominated Dewey over Taft.
Republican conservatives all took that kick in the
teeth and came up smiling and backing Dewey.
The only time Republicans ever won nominating a
moderate was when they nominated a war hero or the
Democrats went far, far left. So they lost with
Dewey.
Over at the Democratic Convention of 1948, Southern
Democrats got kicked in the teeth and marched out.
Many of them might have backed Taft. With Dewey,
they backed the hopeless but principled candidacy
of Strom Thurmond. Not one single Northern Republican
offered to join them. So moderates and liberals
would rule Republicanism for almost two generations,
until they made the switch to get Reagan Democrats
to vote Republican.
In 1964, we Goldwater Republicans could point to
conservative Democrats who were willing to desert
the party of their fathers if the Republicans went
conservative. Later, they became Reagan Democrats.
In 1964, when Goldwater faltered, there was talk
of a Wallace third party candidacy. If Goldwater
had lost the California primary, there would have
been a moderate or Rockefeller nominated.
But if Wallace had been the only conservative left,
and Rockefeller had been nominated, how many Republican
conservatives might have lined up behind Wallace?
Probably practically none. Only Democratic conservatives
have ever put principle above party. No matter how
near the Democrats they went, moderate and respectable
conservative Republicans could always depend on
absolutely slavish Republican loyalty.
|
THE APPOMATTOX COMPROMISE
|
Robert E. Lee was an honest man, and no modern conservative.
He would say that he SURRENDERED at Appomattox. He demanded
no conditions. But since Grant unilaterally showed some
mercy to the Confederates, modern conservatives would
say he COMPROMISED.
On April 9, 1865, General Lee reached what a modern conservative
would call a compromise with Union General US Grant. On
the one hand, Lee's country ceased to exist, all the principles
of the South were lost, the South was condemned to Reconstruction
for twelve years and permanent inferiority within the
Union. But Grant, on his own, let Lee keep his sword and
he let Lee's men keep their horses, and Lee was convinced
he was dealing with decent, honorable people.
Lee said later that, if he had known what was in store,
he would never have surrendered.
So Appomattox was what today's conservatives would call
a compromise. It was the sort of compromise that won half
the world for the Communists. They had a regular policy
called, "Two steps forward, one step back."
They would seize something or demand something, and then
the "useful idiots" ruling the West would compromise
with them, giving them half of what they had seized or
demanded. If socialism hadn't been such a silly economic
proposition, they could have ruled the world that way.
So now we have an Appomatox Compromise on the Confederate
flag. We got what the legislature would have given us
if the Republican Party had never existed in South Carolina.
And even that worthless compromise won't last, as we all
know. The liberals demanded two steps forward this time,
but only got the first step by this "compromise."
They'll get the second, as they always do.
And then there's the overarching "compromise"
that probably made the United States unsalvageable. This
is the one where people tell us that Republicans may sell
us out all the time, but one must "compromise."
You have to give Republicans your vote no matter what
they do to us.
I got into this business fighting Rockefeller Republicans.
According to today's conservatives, the Rockefeller Republicans
were right. They said that Rockefeller Republicans were
"more conservative" than the Democrats, so we
should have supported them. But if we had, they would
still control the party.
If we always support someone who is "more conservative,"
no matter what, we will lose everything. We will elect
people who will go along with the liberal "two steps
forward, one step back." That is, after all, exactly
what the "more conservative" strategy is all
about. It means compromising ourselves to death.
We are getting messages from people who want to vote for
turncoats on the flag because they are Republicans, and
are "more conservative."
If South Carolina Democratic legislators, particularly
in districts now controlled by Republicans, find they
can get our vote against traitors, they will become more
conservative, too. So will the Republicans. But if we
give our votes to the traitors, both parties will move
left, as they have been doing.
If you vote for any traitor, you are asking both parties
to move left. And in real world politics, you get what
you ask for.
In the politics of the real world, if Republicans can
say, "conservatives have nowhere else to go,"
all their efforts will be dedicated to be being accepted
and praised by liberals and moderates.
Let me repeat this for the hundredth time: in politics,
you get no more than you ask for. If all you ask for is
that someone be a little more conservative than the other
side, your time would be better spent learning to accept
total defeat.
|
|
|
|
|
Home
| Current Articles | Article Archive | About
Bob Whitaker | Contact Bob | Links
| Privacy
Policy
|
|
|