Note: Thanks for permitting the one-week break. It was my birthday last week, and I really didn't feel like writing on my birthday. I also wanted to wait until I could dive into something that caught me. Luckily, I've found a few things to latch onto this week.
There was an election several years ago in which I voted for the American Party candidate — I liked none of the available options, and "American Party" sounded like a fun, patriotic group that I could toss my vote to without a care of it mattering. It was a purely wasted vote. I knew nothing about the candidate and nothing about their positions. I knew nothing about the party, which seems appropriate: This is the actual name of a short-lived party that still exists on the fringes called the Know Nothings.
This topic came to mind recently after a friend compared the modern Republican Party, or at least the President Trump-led populist wing of the GOP, to the Know Nothings. I didn't know if that was an appropriate comparison or not, as my mid-1800s short-lived political party knowledge is limited. So let's take a look at the Know Nothings.
Who Were They?
They were a political party in the 1850s, just before the Civil War, that lasted for less than a decade. The two major political parties just before their rise were the Democrats and the Whigs. The Whigs were rapidly falling apart, mostly over the issue of slavery's expansion to the territories. As the Whigs fell apart, it left a political vacuum for some group in opposition to the Democrats. With politics, things rarely happen for just one reason. So it's partly accurate to say that one of the cohesive bonds of the Know Nothings was that they weren't Democrats, as this united people from the big northern cities in Massachusetts and the rural segments of the Deep South to the cause. But the other unifying principle of this group was being anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant.
What's With the Name?
This was a time when secret societies were kind of a rage, and the Know Nothings started in the same vein. So when asked by reporters or outsiders what they were doing or what they stood for, these folks were instructed to say, "I know nothing." They later chose the name American Party at a convention, but Know Nothings stuck as a name.
What Prompted Their Rise?
This chapter in your high school textbook is high on people as a collective making an impact and low on people as individuals making an impact. In the West, you had loads of Chinese and Japanese immigrants coming in. In the East, you had Irish and Italian immigrants coming in. This latter group has something else in common: Catholicism.
What Did They Stand For?
One historian says that some of their ideas were pretty far ahead for their time: expansion of the rights of women, regulation of industry, and labor reforms. He also listed opposition to slavery, but after researching this, I'd call that a mixed bag — slavery was kind of the issue that drove people away from the Know Nothings, either to the nascent Republican Party (anti-slavery) or to the Democrats (pro-slavery). It's clear from history that, when elected, the Know Nothings focused their attention on being anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic, with everything else being secondary. These days, Know Nothing is used as shorthand for anti-immigration people who embrace a lack of knowledge. This shorthand is a little too easy for me, however. *Quick Note: Abraham Lincoln hated the Know Nothings. He was also adrift after the Whigs fell apart, but wrote to his friend a pretty scathing critique of the Know Nothings.
What Happened to Them?
They won a few elections in the midterm elections of 1854, including sweeping to power in Massachusetts state government. They had a very limited national presence, however — think Tea Party-sized presence. They also won some mayorships in large cities, like Chicago and Washington, D.C. But as I said earlier: Things rarely happen in politics for just one reason. The Know Nothings fell apart separately in the North and the South. They were beaten in the South by pro-slavery Democrats tying them to the northern abolitionists. This was a harsh epithet, especially in a South that was only a few years from being a Confederacy. They never really challenged again. In the North, it became an issue of which was a greater priority, being anti-immigrant or being anti-slavery. And as the nation continued to cleave itself in two, being anti-immigrant while also being anti-slavery seemed to be a strange position, with a foot in two seemingly opposing worlds. So, after one prominent Know Nothing left for the Republican Party, so did about 2/3 of the members of the Know Nothings.
Are They a Good Comparison?
Yes and no. The Know Nothings never had the political success of the populist wing of the GOP, which has already won the Presidency and several seats in Congress, so the populist GOP is already a bigger impact, but it hasn't broken away from an existing party -- just an offshoot of an existing party. However, there are some interesting parallels between the words of 1850 and the words just this weekend on 60 Minutes from Steve Bannon. The target of immigration nowadays is more focused on people of color than people of Catholic religion, though there are still some holding onto those ideals (See: Bannon). I also can't imagine modern populist GOP (alt-right, perhaps?) being particularly coy about their stance on immigrants, etc. — they're quite open about them. The Know Nothings rose to power only because of the collapse of another party, while the populist GOP is, by definition, part of an existing party. The Know Nothings also fell apart because bigger problems pushed their issue aside. It's hard to view current events through the eye of history, so I hate to act definitive about "THIS IS HOW THE POPULIST GOP WILL BE DEFINED." Maybe a larger issue will likewise push the anti-immigration, anti-people of color stance to the side like the Know Nothings. Maybe it's more lasting than that because of their ballot box success. I don't know yet, since history hasn't closed the chapter on the populist GOP yet. So while I see some parallels, I hesitate to accept that the populist GOP can fit in such a clean little box.
On Hillary Clinton's New Book
I suggest you don't read anything that starts off with "Hillary blames 2016 loss on [fill in the blank]," Because that is a drastic oversimplification. As stated earlier, things rarely happen for just one reason in politics. Clinton losing in the electoral college was for a multitude of reasons, many of which Clinton correctly identifies in her book, according to one White House correspondent. According to that reporter, Clinton identifies at least 9 causes for her defeat. She also identifies two more later on: Bernie Sanders and his most ardent supporters and her own decisions in the Midwest (which she incorrectly plays down, though there were larger forces at work).
Identifying more than 11 causes for your own defeat is... pretty reasonable, I'd say. FiveThirtyEight's analysis of those causes gives decent support to her arguments: They say that most have some basis in truth, and they have some facts and polling data to prove it. I though this was a pretty decent critique of the book, even if I think it's a touch too sympathetic to Clinton.
I've heard several people on social media griping about Hillary putting out a book. I think it's a baseless argument. We've not required past candidates to go away or stop being a part of the politisphere or to stop writing books. Even Richard Nixon wrote a book after Watergate! I find a lot of the complaints about her to be shallow or weak when compared to other (notably men) people who have run for president and lost. Bernie Sanders didn't have to go away after he lost. Al Gore and Mitt Romney had movies with themselves at the center. John McCain hasn't gone anywhere. Simply put: the same standards have not been applied. There is a hatred of her that I find hard to pinpoint. Misogyny, whether conscious or subconscious, seems to be an underlying current for many of the complaints. Here's an example: "I didn't vote against that bitch because of her policies, not misogyny!" or "She just wants to make money [Rarely a complaint about men.]." There are arguments to make that don't connect to misogyny. However, those arguments are rare and often involve some mental gymnastics in order to avoid misogyny. Again: Not all complaints about Clinton's book are rooted in misogyny, but almost all of the complaints I've seen have had a foot in that water.
Death to DACA?
There's a chasm between words and deeds here that makes me worried. When President Trump decided to end support of DACA, he seemed to indicate that he was doing it so Congress could codify it into law rather than be an executive branch policy. That it was Obama's executive overreach that was the problem and not the policy itself. Or, plainly: "I'm killing this thing so Congress can bring it back to life." He gave Congress 6 months to solve something they haven't solved in years.
I don't expect DACA to pass Congress, let alone Trump to sign anything that emerges. It's already being used as a political negotiation tool rather than being weighed on its own merits. On its own merits, DACA would almost certainly pass both the House and the Senate, as I've seen some counts of more than 60 votes in the Senate in support. DACA is good policy, but Trump's claim that his reasons for rescinding it are not policy-based is false — if it were good policy, leave it in place until Congress passes a law. There may be some movement with the Democrat leaders ("No deal" as of this morning), but I have my doubts.
Summary Judgments
I've got a lot in this category today. • • • This happened in my town this week. Nothing says "I'm not a racist" like being as racist as possible. This is either the guy with four Confederate flags in his yard, or someone else. In the latter case, our town has at least two racists. • • • Democrats are pushing forward with a child care bill. Set aside the headline re: Ivanka Trump. A child care bill is much-needed and you don't need any other motivation than that. • • • I think I've posted it before, but it's a really incredible video: The saddest plate appearance of all time in MLB. A guy who never bats and is trying to strike out v. a guy who only comes in to games when they're out of hand. It goes... surprisingly. • • • Half as Interesting with a completely interesting video about how bird poop is important to claiming new lands for the U.S. Yup, bird poop. • • • Obamacare repeal is dead this year, unless something happens in the next month. That won't happen. But Obamacare is being slashed to death by 1,000 paper cuts, and here's a short video explaining some of all that. • • • Wendover Productions (same guy as Half as Interesting) explains the plane of the future, which doesn't yet exist but may soon. However, it does give me hope that in 10-20 years, air travel may be more affordable — that's encouraging! • • • I had a good 10K run on Sunday. I walked about .3 miles during the 6.2 mile run, and finished slightly behind the median runner of the nearly 2600-person race. I'm proud! It was fun! It was the first race this year in decent weather! And I don't know if I'll do a 10K again. An hour is just a long time to run. My next run, on Sept. 23, is the last of my 4-mile runs this year. My last run of the year will be a 5K on Thanksgiving. • • • So Roland's had a couple of good potty days at day care this week. He's still in diapers, but we're at least working on him now. We're moving him up to pull-ups, and Alyson took him to Target to get some yesterday. The boy loves pink and "girl" things right now. After negotiating him away from princess and Minnie Mouse, they settled on Doc McStuffins pull-ups. Daddy needs to start pushing superheroes and Star Wars (though I think Evie likes Star Wars more than Roland).
No comments:
Post a Comment