Viguerie joins Barr in commending the life of racist U.S. Senator

Third Party Watch owner and prominent Barr backer Richard Viguerie has joined Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr in celebrating the life of recently deceased white-supremacist U.S. Senator Jesse Helms.

Viguerie commends Helms as a leader of the “New Right” — the big-government, pro-militarist “conservatism” that supplanted the anti-war “Old Right” of Howard H. Buffett and Robert Taft. Viguerie says that without Helms, there may not have been a “New Right” — and he thinks this would have been a bad thing.

“Without the New Right,” says Viguerie, “there would not have been a strong, vibrant, and effective conservative movement. Without a strong, vibrant, and effective conservative movement, there would not have been a President Ronald Reagan. And without a President Reagan, the Soviet Union would have lasted many more years and socialism would still dominate and impoverish the people of most countries.”

Most libertarians, particularly those subscribing to the Austrian school of economics, strongly disagree with the notion that “Fed-financed fascism” is what brought down Communism. This anti-capitalist Reagan-exalting distortion of the libertarian view is a recurring theme of the Barr campaign and its supporters.

Jesse Helms’s long support of racially collectivist political activism was covered earlier by IPR when Bob Barr implored Americans to “give Thanks to God” for the “life and work” of one of American political life’s most prominent racists.

Viguerie’s statement can be read in full here.

66 thoughts on “Viguerie joins Barr in commending the life of racist U.S. Senator

  1. G.E. Post author

    It’s important to remember that Barry Goldwater — another false idol of the Barr campaign — was the actual figurehead of the “New Right” (its true leadership was the CIA and CIA proxy and fellow denizen of Hell, W.F. Buckley) and was NOT a Taft Republican. Goldwater was an Eisenhower delegate in the great theft of 1952 when Wall Street “New Right” forces conspired to unseat the black and working-class white southern delegates at the GOP convention and replace them with liberal northern carpetbaggers for Eisenhower.

    And people say the “Old Right” was racist…

  2. Arthur Torrey

    It is also worth pointing out that Barr isn’t the only candidate w/ significant “Helms Heritage.”

    One of McCain’s top aides is a guy named Black (couldn’t find my link w/ his first name) who got his start working for Helms.

    In addition, one of the Republican Party’s leading media experts, Alex Castellanos, got his start working for Helms. Castellanos wrote the 1990 ad that showed a white fist crumbling up a job application, these words underneath: “You needed that job … but they had to give it to a minority,” in the first of Helm’s two races against black Charlotte mayor Harvey Gantt.

    ART

  3. paulie cannoli

    Goldwater was an Eisenhower delegate in the great theft of 1952 when Wall Street “New Right” forces conspired to unseat the black and working-class white southern delegates at the GOP convention and replace them with liberal northern carpetbaggers for Eisenhower.

    Interesting bit of history I don’t know as much about as I should. Do you have any internet references handy?

  4. Nexus

    GE, are you suggesting Goldwater was involved in some conspiracy? I’ve read Goldwater’s biography and don’t recall seeing anything like this.

  5. pdsa

    The new right’s claim of association to Barry Goldwater is false, and is just one of the many reasons to distrust the present manifestation that is contemporary conservatism. You make assertions which cannot be backed-up with facts. It is laughable to claim that Goldwater was a racist. It implies a lack of knowledge about the Goldwater family’s Arizona Department store, which did not discriminate when extending credit, and was the first in the state to employ blacks at both retail sales positions and management. The new right jacked Goldwater’s rationales for being against the ’64 Civil Rights legislation, and Goldwater himself had a bit of a turn-around in his later life. He ended up changing his position a bit about it being none of government’s business in private concerns. This extended only as far as there was no government money that was involved, which meant he supported the VMI’s forced acceptance of females as cadets, because they received government subsidies. Care to extend that thought over to FHA mortgage loans?

    “The oldest philosophy in the world is conservatism, and I go clear back to the first Greeks. … When you say ‘radical right’ today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.”

    Barry Goldwater, interview reported in: Lloyd Grove, “Barry Goldwater’s Left Turn“, Washington Post, July 28, 1994

    The fact is, the new right is full of shit when they claim any affinity to Goldwater. He was a proud card-carrying member of Planned Parenthood, and clearly stated that gays had a constitutional right to live the way they wanted, without discrimination. Give me a break, ok?

  6. G.E. Post author

    In response to pdsa

    I did not claim Goldwater was a racist and in fact I think he was specifically NOT a racist, which is admirable given his time. I support his position on the Civil Rights Act and he cannot be blamed for the fact that he happened to share the same position as racists for entirely different reasons.

    He can be blamed for being the figurehead of a liberal-statist Rooseveltian movement that took over the GOP and mainstream conservatism, completely killing and drowning out all anti-imperialist, pro-capitalist voices and firmly establishing militarism as THE chief element of conservatism.

    In response to Nexus

    I am not alleging that Goldwater was “part of a conspiracy” to disenfranchise blacks and working-class whites who supported Taft over Eisenhower in any role other than a pawn. I am alleging that such a conspiracy did exist, that such a coup did take place, and that it has been largely white-washed from history — even to the extent of reversing the roles of participants to make the Eisenhower bullies look like the good guys.

    In response to paulie

    Fred Church found some Internet sources. This is a dreadfully obfuscated incident in American history that was talked about briefly and off-handed in Murray Rothbard’s “Betrayal of the American Right.” Fred found some stuff online that verifies the story but puts a sickening pro-Eisenhower spin on it — acting as if it were the “conservative southerners” (implied racists, but who were actually largely black!) who tried to cheat Eisenhower. What a joke!

  7. G.E. Post author

    My point was that Goldwater was not a Taft Republican, but in fact, a liberal Wall Street Eisenhower backer.

  8. RedPhillips

    “Castellanos wrote the 1990 ad that showed a white fist crumbling up a job application, these words underneath: “You needed that job … but they had to give it to a minority,” ”

    So being against affirmative action is now racist? I thought libertarians were against affirmative action. Can you be against it but you just can’t bring it up in a TV ad?

    So Jesse Helms, who even his political enemies admit was a very decent fellow, is now a “racist” and a “white supremacist” even? Polishing up those PC bona fides G.E.? Whatever is wrong with Bob Barr, at least he is not a self-flagellating, self loathing guilt-ridden white who can’t allow himself to remember a seminal figure on the right because they were allegedly a racist. Good grief!

    A clarification of terminology. The Old Right was long dead when the New Right came along. The New Right does not generally mean the entire post war modern conservative movement which is generally considered to have its origins in the early 50s with the publication of Kirk’s The Conservative Mind and the founding of National Review. The New Right is generally considered to be the more modern manifestation of the conservative movement that coalesced post Goldwater and contained the emerging religious right and Southern conservatives who had traditionally been Democrats. It is really more a term for the new coalition than a political ideology.

    We would all agree that both the post-War right and the New Right were overly interventionist and militaristic because of their excessive emphasis on combating Communism.

    But has it ever dawned on some of you that the reason that the social issues were not a big part of the Old Right is because there was not yet a rigorously secular left pushing their agenda? The social issues did not emerge until the established social consensus started to be challenged by the left. So the “religious right” was a reactive force. Not some new thing against what had previously been a libertarian social consensus. That is a fantasy.

  9. G.E. Post author

    Red – I did not imply that the Old Right had a “libertarian social consensus” — far from it. Much of the Old Right was virulently racist, and on balance, the Old Right was “more racist” than the New Right. I never suggested anything to the contrary, although I may have implied it by correctly stating that many southern blacks supported Taft over Eisenhower.

    Opposition to affirmative action does not require race-baiting. And besides, Helms was CLEARLY FOR “affirmative action” when it benefited whites. His opposition to “reverse racism” on any grounds other than white supremacist ones is obviously bogus.

    My guess is that Carol Mosely Braun would not identify Helms as a “decent fellow.” He was clearly a racist and a white supremacist — why deny this? It is clear as day.

    Kirkian conservatism has its own problems, but although you may be technically right, the New Right took on a much different character than that of Kirk. The New Right does not really even accurately describe Jess Helms, at least not the overtly racist and otherwise intolerant aspects of his character. The New Right, unlike Kirk, is typified by an aggressive foreign policy uber alles.

    Red’s excuse-mongering for white supremacists — even those who were interventionist and antithetical to his alleged views — is very telling.

  10. G.E. Post author

    Yes, Red, because anything less than imploring others to “give thanks to God” for the “life and work” of a racist politician makes one a “self-flagellating, self loathing guilt-ridden ‘white'”

    Hahaha.. I’ve never thought of myself as any kind of “white.”

    What a miserable creed conservatism truly is.

  11. G.E. Post author

    Taxonomy lesson:

    Old Right: Anti-war, decentralism, pro-family and community

    New Right: Pro-war, pro-welfare state, anti-family and anti-community

    Red Right: Pro-white Christian male; anti-everything else.

  12. G.E. Post author

    Oh, and also pro-pictures of big breasted Libertarians posted on blogs for later mastubatory fodder.

  13. RedPhillips

    I didn’t say that you said the Old Right had a libertarian social consensus. But a lot of Old Right supporters do think that, simply because the social issues (moral, not racial) were off the radar screen at the time. That is why I said “some of you.”

    The New Right was overly interventionist, but it is not accurate to say that they were pro-welfare state. (The neocons were.) They were just insufficiently anti-welfare state (They were not rigorous Constitutionalists.) in the name of political pragmatism and fighting the Cold War. There is a difference. Some of what they tolerated led to anti-family results, but it is also not accurate to say they were anti-family. In their zeal to differentiate themselves from the unnatural collectivism of Communism, their rhetoric was often overly individualistic, but thoughtful conservatives, especially in the Kirkean mold, have never been anti-community.

    What is the purpose of such simplistic and sweeping generalizations?

    My long answer to paulie is there for all to see and stands on its own. As I said there, these days I believe vigilant anti-racism is a much bigger problem than is racism because it is used to silence debate. That is why I call it out when I see it. Very telling, indeed. Telling that I’m not a PC grandstander or a thought slave.

  14. G.E. Post author

    War and militarism destroys traditional families and traditional communities. This is why Old Right conservatives (conservatives in the only good sense of the word!) were opposed to militarism.

    Support for militarism = anti-family, and anti-community!

    The military is a welfare-state bureaucracy. Support for an imperialist military IS support for the welfare state. And besides, the New Right had no desire to repeal Social Security, etc. The New Right had very little difference between the Old Left of FDR/Truman.

    Why is correctly identifying someone as a racist and saying that a libertarian should not implore me to “thank God” for the “life and work” of the welfare-leech bureaucrat — without qualification! — equal “vigilant anti-racism” or a desire to be PC?

    As white guilt is a backlash to white racism, whatever you have is clearly an overcompensatory backlash against white guilt.

  15. G.E. Post author

    I’d also like to point out there is no conflict between hardcore individualism and being pro-family/pro-community.

  16. RedPhillips

    “War and militarism destroys traditional families and traditional communities. This is why Old Right conservatives (conservatives in the only good sense of the word!) were opposed to militarism.

    Support for militarism = anti-family, and anti-community!

    The military is a welfare-state bureaucracy. Support for an imperialist military IS support for the welfare state. And besides, the New Right had no desire to repeal Social Security, etc. The New Right had very little difference between the Old Left of FDR/Truman.”

    I generally agree. But that is a more nuanced assessment. I don’t think broad generalizations are helpful or informative.

    The neocons were pro-Social Security. Some “conservatives” intellectually justified a safety net. But the traditional right did not “support” SS initially. They just considered it pragmatic to leave it alone. This later morphed into a defense of it and a desire to “save” it, but here the pragmatism led the ideology.

    I don’t have too much use for the New Right and have no use for political pragmatism as an ends unto itself, but I don’t see any benefit in hyperbole.

  17. Trent Hill

    Ohk GE–now where do I fit?

    Old Right, New Right, Neocon, Theocrat–let’s hear it!

  18. G.E. Post author

    Trent – You fit into the category of libertarian who’s under the delusion that you’re a conservative!

  19. G.E. Post author

    But seriously, I’d say that you definitely fit into the Old Right.

    “Anti-war, decentralism, pro-family and community”

    Where don’t you fit there?

  20. Deran

    “The New Right had very little difference between the Old Left of FDR/Truman.”

    Ouch. But, when you think abt it, there really isn’t a lot of distance, between Stalinism, and let’s be honest, Trotskyism – of that time at least – and what’s become the “New Right/Neocons” of today.

    Authoritarian, imperialist, corporatist (state or private), etc.

    I wouldn’t include the Norman Thomas era-SP in that same camp, though. And, I wouldn’t include the more syndicalist unions like the ILU on the west coast, and the ’30s UAW and UMW, all of which had fairly strong Wobblie/syndicalist heritages, and remained pretty independent of the bolshies and corrupt labor bosses of the AFL. At least until WW2 or so.

    But, as far as Leninism/Stalinism of that era, it is a very apt comparison. Aren’t there a fair number of Neocon intellectuals who were Leninists in the ’60s?

  21. paulie cannoli

    Fred Church found some Internet sources. This is a dreadfully obfuscated incident in American history that was talked about briefly and off-handed in Murray Rothbard’s “Betrayal of the American Right.” Fred found some stuff online that verifies the story but puts a sickening pro-Eisenhower spin on it — acting as if it were the “conservative southerners” (implied racists, but who were actually largely black!) who tried to cheat Eisenhower. What a joke!

    Cool. Haven’t read far down enough to see if they are posted here. If you, or Fred, would post them, I would appreciate it.

  22. paulie cannoli

    “Castellanos wrote the 1990 ad that showed a white fist crumbling up a job application, these words underneath: “You needed that job … but they had to give it to a minority,” ”

    So being against affirmative action is now racist? I thought libertarians were against affirmative action. Can you be against it but you just can’t bring it up in a TV ad?

    The ad implied white people should get all the jobs. It went far above and beyond opposing so-called affirmative action to stir up race hatred
    and to pit “races” (pseudo-scientific concept, but social reality) against each other.

  23. paulie cannoli

    remember a seminal figure on the right because they were allegedly a racist.

    Nothing “alleged” about it, as can be plainly seen from GE’s article.

  24. pdsa

    GE, what is you take on the ’64 Republican Presidential Nomination campaign that pitted NE Republicans backing Nelson Rockefeller against Barry Goldwater? Wasn’t Rockefeller a part of the NE Wall Street elite? I don’t recall Goldwater as being militarist either. He was however gun ho on building up the military and keeping it that way, but he wasn’t one to advocate foreign misadventuring. Is it being honest to accuse Goldwater of militarism, without also giving a nod to liberal militarism: Kennedy’s penchant for the use of military force, and staring down the Soviet using the MAD strategy; Johnson’s build-up of the Vietnam war, or Scoop “Senator Boeing” Jackson, whose staff included many of the well known NeoCons?

    Viguerie is an opportunist and a very dishonest person regarding his support of Reagan. I generally am loath to self-promote, but the blog associated to this pseudo has several posts regarding Richard Vigeurie. He is the godfather of spam, btw.

  25. paulie cannoli

    Opposition to affirmative action does not require race-baiting. And besides, Helms was CLEARLY FOR “affirmative action” when it benefited whites. His opposition to “reverse racism” on any grounds other than white supremacist ones is obviously bogus.

    My guess is that Carol Mosely Braun would not identify Helms as a “decent fellow.” He was clearly a racist and a white supremacist — why deny this? It is clear as day.

    Exactly!

  26. paulie cannoli

    Hahaha.. I’ve never thought of myself as any kind of “white.”

    Me neither. And neither do most white racists. They consider me an “other” or “mud person.”

    Black racists, however, do consider me to be white.

    I think the whole think is worse than a bad joke. I’ve never had any use for it and put down “human” on stupid government forms that ask my alleged race.

    It kept me from joining the Operating Engineers Union in Toledo, Ohio, foreshadowing my break with the Democrats.

  27. paulie cannoli

    Oh, and also pro-pictures of big breasted Libertarians posted on blogs for later mastubatory fodder.

    At least we can all agree on something.

    http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2008/06/kinkiest-towns-in-america-they-love.html

    The kinkiest towns in America: they love Bush!

    There is a legal case that interested me. A lawyer is arguing that his clients, who sells porn, did not violate community standards—that legal whisp of smoke that the courts imposed which is impossible to define. His claim is that google searches showed that community members in that area of the country were keenly interested in sex. He used the “trends” function to determine this.

    That basically measures what terms people search for and where those people are. For instance, you can type in “roses” and find out that the number one city in the world where people, who search for this word, live, is Buenos Aires, Argentina. I can refine it to tell me the city in America that has the most interest in “roses” and see that it Portland, Or. it will let me know which states have the most interest in the term

    And that lead to some wicked thoughts on my part. Given this debate about marriage equality and sexual morality exactly how do the various regions of the US line up. Are “liberal” areas more “perverse” than God-fearing conservative regions? So here is what I found.

    I thought I’d check up on who is looking up “wife swapping”. In first place is Cincinnati, followed by Louisville, Norfolk, Indianapolis and Kansas City. In fact out of the top 10 cities eight are relatively conservative areas. Interesting.

    For “girls gone wild” the number one city for google searches is Kansas City, followed by Salt Lake City, Louisville, Oklahoma City and Elmhurst, Illinois. Go Elmhurst!

    The search term “anal sex” seems to pop up, pardon the pun, most often in Meriden, CT. That is followed by Elmhurst, again; Louisville, Tampa and Rochester, NY. In the top ten we also have Orlando, San Antonio, Las Vegas, Newark and Richardson, TX.

    Considering the reputation that San Francisco has regarding sexual tolerance I kept waiting for the city to show up in the list. Desperate to get them into the list once I tried a search on “homosexuality”. Surely as the gay capital of the United States they would have to come out on top—that pun was unintentional but I’ll leave it in anyway. But no, San Francisco didn’t even fall in the top ten. The top search location for “homosexuality” was Louisville. Maybe its that Kentucky whiskey but Louisville seems to turn up fairly often. It is followed by Baltimore, Columbus, OH; and Cincinnati.

    Next I tried “masturbation”—the search term that is. And our number one city was Elmhurst again. Considering they scored highly with “girls gone wild” and “anal sex” I wouldn’t have thought they’d have time for masturbation. But it appears the people of Elmhurst are proper wankers. Coming in a close second (oh stop it with the puns already) were Salt Lake City; Rochester, NY; St. Louis, and Louisville.

    Moving to the fringes of sexuality I put in a search on “animal sex”. The dubious distinction of coming in first in that search goes to Orlando. It is followed by Richardson, TX, Tampa, Newark and Reston, Virginia. Two more cities in Texas come in the top ten.

    Who is searching for “kiddie porn”? The number one city was Orlando followed by Albany, Oklahoma City, Tampa, and Cincinnati. Salt Lake City is in the top ten also.

    When it comes to “oral sex” our winner, yet again, is the kinky town of Elmhurst with Louisville in second followed by Tampa, Rochester and Philadelphia.

    Searching on “teen ass” is another interesting result. As expected the hyper horny people in Elmhurst came first, following by Richardson, TX; Louisville, San Antonio and Portland.

    “Dog sex” is searched for most often in Oklahoma City, Louisville, Richardson, TX, Orlando and Indianapolis.

    “Mother son sex” is number one in Elmhurst followed by Reston, VA; Richardson, TX, Newark, NJ and Louisville. The folks in Elmhurst also came in first with “brother sister sex” followed by Rochester, Kansas City, Salt Lake City and St. Louis.

    It seems that what ever sexual term, no matter how kinky, that I put in turns up a very high percentage of very conservative towns. So what happens when I try searches that are more chaste and virtuous.

    The term “fidelity” shows up number in Boston followed by nearby Cambridge, then Oklahoma City, San Antonio and Providence, RI. That’s the first time we got more liberal towns in the top five than conservative towns.

    “Wedding” came up number one in Charlotte followed by St. Louis, Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia. Also in the top ten are Boston and Minneapolis. Again a much higher representation of liberal towns than before.

    “Monogamy” was number in Pleasanton, CA, a town in the Bay Area. Also in the top ten were the liberal Texas town of Austin, Portland, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, and Boston.

    Goodness, it appears the liberal towns are searching for monogamy and the conservative town are searching for the index from the latest Hustler. Interesting to say the least. Based on this sampling I’d say the three kinkiest towns in America, in no special order, are Elmhurst, IL; Richardson, TX: and Louisville, KY.

    How does this sort of thing work when it comes to the entire world? Are sexually conservative countries more prone to sexual obsession than liberal countries? Here are some of those results. For the sake of brevity I will list the search term and then the top five cities in the world, in order, where it comes to the percentage looking for the term.

    Boy sex: Delhi, India; Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Chennai, India; Cairo, Egypt; and Jakarta, Indonesia.

    Anal sex: Prague; Izmir, Turkey; Ankara, Turkey, Irvine, CA, USA; Montreal, Canada.

    Brother sister sex: Lahore, Pakistan; Karachi, Pakistan; Delhi, India; Chennai, India, Hyderabad, India.

    Animal sex: Delhi, India; Chennai, India; Rabat, Morocco; Casablanca, Morocco; Mumbai, India.

    It does appear that sexual conservative values on the ground do stimulate a higher degree of interest in the practices than does social liberalism.

    Labels: conservatism, morality, sex

  28. G.E. Post author

    pdsa – You’re completely misunderstanding my point. I am not saying Goldwater was a demon — he was unquestionably the best Republican nominee for president in the history of America. But that is sort of like saying he was the prettiest hideously deformed girl at the dance. Goldwater was unquestionably better than many of his peers and those who came after him. But he is a false idol nonetheless. He was part of the liberal Wall Street establishment versus the “true conservative” Taft wing of the party, and only once that wing was sufficiently crushed could further delineation be made between him and the Rockefeller wing. Militarism was the chief concern of both the “right” and “left” wings of the establishment GOP, which worked together to rid the party of anti-imperialists.

    By no means am I excusing the militarism of JFK and LBJ, etc. Why would you think that? I’m accusing the New Right of continuing the liberal policies of Wilson/FDR/Truman.

    I obviously do not agree with William Jennings Bryan and George McGovern, nor do they agree with each other, but I will say that they were the only two anti-imperialist major-party presidential nominees of the 20th century, and as such, they would have my vote over Goldwater any day (even if he would be third among that sorry lot).

  29. paulie cannoli

    Old right, new right – the right has always been wrong. Just in different ways.

  30. Fred Church Ortiz

    Cool. Haven’t read far down enough to see if they are posted here. If you, or Fred, would post them, I would appreciate it.

    The topic came up in casual conversation some weeks ago, I believe these are the links I found at the time but I might be missing some.

    This link gives a little background and a bit of play-by-play on how the convention went down:
    http://hnn.us/articles/1821.html

    This one tried to relate it to the then-current Hillbama race:
    http://renaissanceruminations.wordpress.com/2008/02/10/obama-and-hillary-should-look-to-eisenhower-for-fair-play/

    This link I just discovered now while looking for the other links, it seems much heavier on detail but I’ve only read a portion in the middle so far:
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3655/is_199601/ai_n8756283/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

    I still haven’t been able to find anything verifying or discrediting Rothbard’s claim of a racial angle.

  31. G.E. Post author

    paulie – The “Old Right” may have been wrong, but not so much as it pertained to the federal government’s role. Plus there were legitimate heroes like Howard H. Buffett among that cohort.

  32. G.E. Post author

    “I still haven’t been able to find anything verifying or discrediting Rothbard’s claim of a racial angle.”

    The interesting thing is the off-handedness with which Rothbard deals with the subject — as if everyone ought to know what he’s talking about. The book was written in the late 60s and I think it was still fresh in people’s minds at the time, but it has been whitewashed out of history — even the personal history of people’s memories — just as the anti-war Right’s existence has been sent down the memory hole.

    Rothbard talks about the “black and tans” — as the black and working-class white delegates to the GOP were known, and I think the “tan” element is probably overstated. After all, this was the 1950s South, where the GOP was still seen as the Party of Lincoln. It had very little support from white southerners, and the southern Democrats were hostile to black equality. So it’s no surprise that the southern GOP would be largely African-American, and further no surprise that they would back Taft over the Wall Street militarist (who opposed integration of the armed forces) Eisenhower. Blacks did support Ron Paul much more than any other Republican in 2007 and 2008.

  33. paulie cannoli

    My long answer to paulie is there for all to see and stands on its own.

    Thanks Red.

    I’ll refrain from calling you a racist, at least until I get a chance to read and think about your reply.

  34. paulie cannoli

    The New Right had very little difference between the Old Left of FDR/Truman.

    That’s what Reagan meant when he said the Democrats left him. Interesting that Barr is reported to have a lot of appeal to “Reagan Democrats.”

  35. paulie cannoli

    paulie – The “Old Right” may have been wrong, but not so much as it pertained to the federal government’s role.

    That’s why I said they were wrong in different ways.

  36. G.E. Post author

    Being “wrong” in matters of personal taste and not wanting to legislate that taste on one hand; wanting to confiscate tax dollars and murder foreigners on the other… There’s no moral equivalence.

  37. paulie cannoli

    Aren’t there a fair number of Neocon intellectuals who were Leninists in the ’60s?

    Trotskyites. yes.

  38. RedPhillips

    “The ad implied white people should get all the jobs. ”

    No it didn’t.

    “I’ll refrain from calling you a racist, at least until I get a chance to read and think about your reply.”

    Gee thanks. That’s real big of you.

  39. paulie cannoli


    “The ad implied white people should get all the jobs. ”

    No it didn’t.

    It most certainly did. Anyone who doesn’t realize this is very dense – probably intentionally so.


    “I’ll refrain from calling you a racist, at least until I get a chance to read and think about your reply.”

    Gee thanks. That’s real big of you.

    You would prefer I make up my mind based on prejudice, without reading first?

  40. RedPhillips

    “You would prefer I make up my mind based on prejudice, without reading first?”

    No, I would prefer that you not call me or anyone else a racist without concrete evidence of overt hate. Not where they stand on a political issue.

  41. paulie cannoli

    Well, that’s what I said – I’ll refrain from calling you one until I examine and think about what you wrote.

    I do recall providing dictionary definitions of racism, and anything involving hate was only one of several definitions.

    There are different types and degrees of racism.

    And once again, I’m not saying you have even a drop of racism until I do my homework.

  42. Trent Hill

    GE,

    For 21st century nominees who recieved more than 1 million votes, my vote go as such.

    -Pat Buchanan
    -John G. Schmitz
    -William Jennings Bryan (he’d be higher,if he hadn’t been involved in the free-silver movement).
    -Eugene McCarthy
    -George Wallace
    -Henry A. Wallace

    And yes, I know 3 of the above are considered racists. Before anyone goes flapping their mouths in mock-protest, notice my 4th and 6th choices.

  43. paulie cannoli

    4 of the above are considered racists by some : Buchanan, Schmitz, Bryan and Wallace.

  44. G.E. Post author

    “Gee thanks. That’s real big of you.”

    How much do you want to bet that Red originally said “that’s mighty White of you,” and then thought better of it?

  45. G.E. Post author

    I think extending the term “racist” to Buchanan goes too far and weakens the word. Buchanan might not be as “cosmopolitan” as Ron Paul (ha), but I’d stop short of calling him “racist,” Paulie. Buchanan in recent years has done a lot of good for the anti-imperialist cause.

    Trent – I don’t know about John G. Schmidtz. I think George Wallace is probably one of the best candidates to win electoral votes, despite my very strong opposition to him on several important issues.

    Although was much too far to the left, I would through Robert LaFollette on that list, too. He won the approval of Rothbard.

    Think how much ground we have lost, though, Trent. Robert Taft was a serious contender for the presidency more than once. He was no Ron Paul (or H.H. Buffett), but imagine how different the world would have been if Taft had been elected in 1948 or even ’52.

  46. Trent Hill

    GE,

    John G. Schmitz was better than Bryan. Anti-war, Old Right-style conservative aligned with the John Birch Society. Being from North California, he didnt have as many racist leanings as George Wallace. He understood Sound Money and War–my main two issues.

  47. G.E. Post author

    Since when were sound money and war two different issues?

    Bob Barr is for the latter and not the former.

  48. Trent Hill

    “Think how much ground we have lost, though, Trent. Robert Taft was a serious contender for the presidency more than once. He was no Ron Paul (or H.H. Buffett), but imagine how different the world would have been if Taft had been elected in 1948 or even ‘52.”

    Taft was a serious contender, Buffet was a congressman from Nebraska, HL Mencken, Albert Jay Nock, Senator James A. Reed, Rep. Hamilton Fish III, the America First Committee.

    We’ve fallen along way. All there is is Ron Paul.
    With some background noise made by a few former congressmen and a few current congressmen who wish they were as good.

  49. paulie cannoli

    How much do you want to bet that Red originally said “that’s mighty White of you,” and then thought better of it?

    Nah, he’d never say that.

  50. paulie cannoli

    I think extending the term “racist” to Buchanan goes too far and weakens the word. Buchanan might not be as “cosmopolitan” as Ron Paul (ha), but I’d stop short of calling him “racist,” Paulie. Buchanan in recent years has done a lot of good for the anti-imperialist cause.

    The two aren’t necessarily in conflict.

    See

    http://realchange.org/buchanan.htm

  51. paulie cannoli

    I think George Wallace is probably one of the best candidates to win electoral votes, despite my very strong opposition to him on several important issues.

    Why?

  52. paulie cannoli

    . Being from North California, he didnt have as many racist leanings as George Wallace.

    SoCal.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Schmitz

    …was expelled from the John Birch Society for “extremism”.

    …He opposed sex education in public schools, …..He was also very critical of the civil unrest that characterized the mid-1960s. He called the Watts riots of 1965 “a Communist operation,” and believed that state universities should be sold to private corporations as a curb against student protests. Some of his remarks had anti-Semitic overtones.

    ….Schmitz won back his state senate seat in 1978. He was named chairman of the Constitutional Amendments Committee. However, his behavior became increasingly erratic. For instance, soon after his election, he advocated a military coup similar to that of Augusto Pinochet in Chile.

    In 1981, he chaired a committee hearing on abortion, which led to the issuance in his name of a press release headlined “Senator Schmitz and His Committee Survive Attack of the Bulldykes”. It referred to his audience at the hearings as having “hard, Jewish, and arguably female faces.” Feminist attorney Gloria Allred, who testified before the committee, sued Schmitz for $10 million, but settled for $20,000 and an apology. Schmitz’s “apology” read, in part, “I have never considered her to be… slick, butch lawyeress”.

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n6p28_schmitz.html

    “John Schmitz, RIP
    Mark Weber

    A good friend of the Institute for Historical Review, John Schmitz, has died. The former US Congressman, Marine Corps officer and political science teacher is remembered with respect by both friend and foe alike as an articulate, witty and fervent champion of his conservative principles.

    He died of cancer on January 10, 2001, at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, surrounded by his family. He was 70. His body was laid to rest with military honors at Arlington National Cemetery.

    Schmitz attended at least two IHR Conferences, and was a subscriber for many years to the IHR’s Journal of Historical Review. From time to time bought extra copies to give away to friends.

    He provided crucial help to the Institute during the difficult Ninth IHR Conference in February 1989. A day before the meeting was set to begin, the southern California hotel where it was to be held cancelled the contract, caving in to threats and intimidation by the Jewish Defense League (JDL). Another hotel was quickly found, but it too succumbed to JDL intimidation. Following the two cancellations, and with no alternative hotel willing to stand up to JDL threats, the speakers and attendees who were arriving from across the country and abroad had no place to meet. It seemed that the Conference might be cancelled just as it was to begin. In this emergency, Schmitz contacted Joe Bischof, a friend who owned the Old World shopping center in nearby Huntington Beach. Bischof graciously offered his facilities, and the Ninth IHR Conference — one of the most spirited ever — was held in a packed basement meeting room, in spite of continued harassment by JDL thugs.

    Also in 1989, when the IHR suddenly needed a lawyer to replace one who had abruptly quit, it was Schmitz who recommended his friend, Bill Hulsy, who ever since has served as the IHR’s main corporate attorney. (Bill Hulsy and his wife, Karen, had been long-time friends of the Schmitz’s, who were god-parents of the Hulsys’ daughter.)”

    Need more?

  53. Trent Hill

    Paulie,

    Do I need to pull up the collectivist rants of Eugene McCarthy? Or the race-baiting of George Wallace? No. I didnt excuse ANY of Schmitz’s positions. Especially the IHR crap pisses me off–as often Constitutionalists and even Libertarians get caught up in such slanderous crap.

    But im getting off target. My point wasnt to say that ANY of them was my ideal choice, although Pat Buchanan comes pretty damned close. If any of them were running against Baldwin/Barr/McCain/Obama/McKinney/Nader this year, I’d choose Buchanan. If Buchanan werent on the list, I’d vote for Baldwin still. The others are not appealing as first votes, but I was rating them.

    I will play devil’s advocate for a moment though. What is worse, being involved in IHR or causing your own holocaust? (via Neocons). Im begging the question, obviously, of wether John G. Schmitz was worse, or George Bush.

  54. paulie cannoli

    Paulie,

    Do I need to pull up the collectivist rants of Eugene McCarthy?

    No. I don’t recall saying E. McCarthy wasn’t a collectivist, but I do recall you saying (Schmitz) “didnt have as many racist leanings as George Wallace.” In point of fact, I don’t think George Wallace was personally racist – although for a period of his career he played a very convincing, vociferous racist in public.

    Basically, what happened was that he lost a political race to a candidate backed by the KKK due to his then liberal views on race. This was a traumatic event for him and he vowed to “never get outniggered again.” The next time he came back with a bunch of vicious race-baiting and won. However, it’s also worth noting that he ended his career as he started it, as a liberal. And, although this is an oft-parodied cliche, some of his best friends were indeed black.

    Schmitz, on the other hand, I am more inclined to believe was genuinely personally bigoted.


    I will play devil’s advocate for a moment though. What is worse, being involved in IHR or causing your own holocaust? (via Neocons). Im begging the question, obviously, of wether John G. Schmitz was worse, or George Bush.

    In terms of what he actually did, certainly Bush was worse. That in no way says anything about what Schmitz may have done had he actually gotten elected POTUS. He seems to have had the motive to do as much or more damage than Bush – he just lacked the opportunity.

  55. pdsa

    FE, I still do not consider Goldwater to have been an imperialist. As to Taft, it was before my political time, and I am woefully uninformed. It’s been placed up high on the back-burner stack, for what that’s worth…

    Goldwater’s ’64 campaign was the first presidential election I took and independent interest in. Goldwater was misportrayed and brutalised by both the NE Republicans and one of the two dim-witted Texas Presidents of my lifetime. He went after Casey’s hide when he discovered what he’d been doing a CIA chief for Reagan. One of his reflections about Reagan seems appropriate in hindsight:

    I believe Reagan did know of the diversion of Iranian funds to the Contras. He had to know. The White House explanation makes him out to be either a liar or incompetent.”

    In the end, Lawrence Walsh went for the incompetent though…

    In the next few days I am doing some perusing through the local Federal Depository library for some research data. I am also planning to pick up some more Goldwater speeches while there. The library’s Congressional Records go back to the early 70’s, I believe. Are you interested in anything specific that I can look for while there?

  56. Steven R Linnabary

    FWIW department: John Schmitz was the father of Mary Kay LeTourneau.

    PEACE
    Steve

  57. Trent Hill

    “Basically, what happened was that he lost a political race to a candidate backed by the KKK due to his then liberal views on race.”

    You needn’t explain George Wallace’s history to me, I know it quite well. He wasn’t a racist, and certainly wasn’t after the mid-70’s. Even while claiming to be a “stuanch negro hater!” he was appointing black Judges in Alabama,a first in 1968.
    As for Schmitz–Im going to admit a mistake. I thought he had revoked his racist tendencies as early as the mid-seventies, when George Wallace did. His involvement in the Institute for Historial Review makes me sick–so im bringing him to 5th,bumping George Wallace to third and Bryan to 2nd,with Buchanan still firmly in 1st.

    I do appreciate your education on Schmitz though. His advocacy of smaller government, the10th amendment, constitutional originalism overshadowed his racism,which was a product of his time. But by the 1980s, anyone who was a racist–was that way because of hatred or ignorance (most likely both).

  58. sunshinebatman

    Have you ever thought as much re: Barr and “drugs”?
    ———
    I don’t think George Wallace was personally racist – although for a period of his career he played a very convincing, vociferous racist in public.

  59. G.E. Post author

    Trent – This Schmitz character seems pretty bad. Look at his personal life. That shows very poor character. He was no Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin or even Bob Barr — hell, he was no Bill Clinton.

    He had children out of wedlock, one of whom his baby-mamma tried to castrate. Wow.

    His daughter became a statutory rapist.

    His sons went on to be neocons in the Reagan and Bush administrations and Blackwater.

    Also, after reviewing Wallace’s history, he is worse than I thought. He was a liberal racist who only supported “states rights” when it helped the racist cause. He advocated bigger Social Security payments, for example. What a bum. I was positively influenced in his direction by Ain’t My America…

    How can you favor Bryan so highly and not McGovern? I think McGovern was better than Bryan because Bryan was more overtly socialist. Bryan’s historical impact, even if he gave voters an anti-imperialist choice vs. McKinely, was devasting, as he helped convert the Democratic Party from laissez-faire to big government. It is Bryan, after all, he opposed the gold standard when it wasn’t a dream but reality!

    See this link:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29

  60. Trent Hill

    GE,

    They are all terrible choices, what do you want from me?

    How bout this. Buchanan.

    DONE. End of discussion. lol. There were only 5-6 candidates in the category I outlined and I enumerated them as best I can. But everyone beneath Buchanan, I would not vote for.

  61. G.E. Post author

    Buchanan is the leading protectionist on the Right.

    Point: There have been no really good candidates to get 1million+ votes.

    You said earlier that Buchanan was better than Baldwin. Why?

  62. Trent Hill

    Did I? I sure hope I didnt.

    If I did, I was lying or confused,haha.

    I do like Buchanan, but not more than Baldwin. Buchanan was far too concerned about the “culture war” while avoiding the subject of the Fed, sound money,and such.

  63. paulie cannoli

    You needn’t explain George Wallace’s history to me, I know it quite well.

    Not necessarily explaining it to you, since we’ve talked about it before and I know you know it. Others reading, I hope.

    Have you ever thought as much re: Barr and “drugs”?
    ———
    I don’t think George Wallace was personally racist – although for a period of his career he played a very convincing, vociferous racist in public.

    Yes. I have no way to know one way or the other, since he evades many clarifying questions, and since I lack any way of knowing whether he was sincere then, is sincere now, both or neither.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *