One of the dominant strains of political belief of America's political landscape is the phenomenon of the Jacksonian.
Richard Nixon refered to the "silent majority". It is my observation that this "silent majority" is best described as Jacksonian. D's and R's worry about the Base. Populists look for the Jacksonians. When O'Riley says he's "looking out for you", he's talking about the Jacksonians. These are the people who see themselves as neither Republican or Democrat, but are often underrated politically. What they lack in fundamental, grass-roots organization, they make up for in the power of their reactions.
1. Let others know who tagged you.
2. Players start with 8 random facts about themselves.
3. Those who are tagged should post these rules and their 8 random facts.
4. Players should tag 8 other people and notify them they have been tagged.
The Jacksonian Party is an important webpage because its writer, as the "Founding and sole member of the Jacksonian Party" attempts to give you a perspective on American Politics that mirrors, in lots of ways, the dominant themes of both the Right and the Left. But the differences between the Jacksonians and the Left have Democrats stumbling over themselves to find a way of dominating the Jacksonians in our midst.
If you've ever wondered how a guy like
Pat Buchanan ever thought of himself as a national figure, I think it's related to his Jacksonian beliefs. That his attempt to put a national brand on Jacksonian beliefs failed relates to the fundamental core beliefs of the Jacksonian. From "
What It Means to be a Jacksonian":
1) Individuals should make up their own minds on everything within the framework of their own, personal beliefs and that of the greater society they are a part of and support.
2) Jacksonians are very much 'live and let live' individuals.
3) Jacksonians believe that individuals are responsible for their speech in debates and the public forum as seen in point.
4) Jacksonians adhere with strong typing to the Constitution of the United States. Further, as that typing goes, the actual
Preamble is highly meaningful for Jacksonians as it sets out the responsibilities that ALL that fall under the Constitution MUST adhere to.
5) Jacksonians believe that all rights, save those few lent to government, are retained by the People as individuals.
6) Jacksonians see that the Government has very few responsibilities laid out to it and that handing *anything* up to higher in government guarantees loss of responsibilities for the People as individuals and the Rights that are attendant with those responsibilities to ensure that these things are done properly.
7) Government shall make no law with respect to religion and all those in the government agree to have a non-sectarian, non-religious viewpoint on their actual *work* for the People.
8) Courts are the final safeguard of liberty and freedom and the LAST resort in the legal realm to ensuring that they are upheld.
9) Government has no business being a 'Nannystate' and deciding what is safe and good for the People.
10) Jacksonians adhere and believe strongly in the Constitution and that ALL rights emanate from the People and need to have the widest leeway of play and to have the highest degree of individual accountability possible.
Given that Jacksonians (J's) represent such a large part of our national political culture, why is it that Lefties aren't able to gain traction with the J's?
What defines the Lefty for the Lefties?
If it feels like it should be good, force it upon the people you love.
"It" is whatever particular action you propose for whatever problem you perceive. Listening to the democrat candidates for president you get a lot of "should be good". Listening to local and state pols, you get a lot of "should be good". Unfortunately, this "should be good" mentality has led to infantilism in our state and national political dialogue. Led by local luminaries, like Kulongoski, Edwards and Myers the state government moves in opposition to the stated wishes of Oregonians. We vote on same-sex marriage and compensation for use lost by government takings and your government ignores you and passes bills that feel "like it should be good" and therefore must be forced "upon the people you love". I mean, you don't force people you hate to improve themselves, do you?
Kulongoski? Imagine a weekend lost in his fantasy world of how the state should be...it's reminiscent of the "Little Rabbit Fru-Fru" story. The only element missing is the Good Fairy that comes down to alert Governor K that his patronizing is irritating.
Edwards? He runs around the state doing a dog and pony show with AlGore's movie. His tocsin is a bit amusing, rallying a primarily wilderness/rural state to avoid the pitfalls of the perils of Globalization. And this guy controls Billions of Dollars. But he's doing it because it feels good, and he loves you.
Finally, this Myers guy. Does anybody remember what it was like to have an attorney general that actually worked to enforce state law? Lee Johnson was a hoot. Dave Frohnmayer was a saint. The really cool thing was, when you called the AG's office and asked for an opinion on law you got one. The question went to attorneys who would look up the law and then send it for review by the AG. You'd normally get your answer back within hours.
But Myers? Where is his statement on the Constitutional lawbreakers intent on imposing annual sessions?
The Exec, the Money Guy and the Enforcer. K, E, M.
If it feels like it should be good, force it upon the people you love. It's infantile. And has induced a state of political narcolepsy. The dominant political forces in this state are public employee unions. The Oregon Education Association. The Service Employees International Union. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. All these groups further the momentum toward infantilization since their only goal is to impose their brand of group-think on the rest of us.
If it feels like it should be good, force it upon the people you love. Our leaders have an agenda. They have the executive authority to impose their beliefs on others. They have the funding tools to enact their beliefs. They have the legal authority to turn their backs on irregularities.
My major rant on the Republican party has been how the dominant strains of the J's has been expunged by the Reagan Revolution. The identification of the J's with the R's was so strong in the late '60's that Nixon
won the '68 election with 301 electoral votes to Humphrey's 191 electoral votes. In
1972, Nixon won with 520 electoral votes to McGovern's 17. Even in the face of the demonization of Nixon, it is my belief that Gerald Ford would have won the
1976 election if it hadn't been for the split among the Jacksonian wing that was so closely aligned with the Right to Life movement. (As an example, "
Do you support the pro-life and pro-family principles the Republican Party has represented since 1976?")
The Pro-Life/Evangelical wing of the Republican party gained control of the Oregon Republican Party in 1978. But, to the Jacksonian/Republican, this emphasis on "If it feels like it should be good, force it upon the people you love" doesn't fit within the J mindset. And religious fervour feels good to the Pro-Life/Evangelical wing of the Republican party. By
1980 I was working for the John Anderson campaign. In Oregon, we were able to come up with 9.5 percent of the popular vote. Not huge. But significant. And this election helps define states like Massachusetts (15.2%), New Hampshire (12.9%) and Rhode Island (14.4%). Washington crept in at 10.6 percent.
The impulse of the Republican has more consonance with the impulse of the Jacksonian. The question I'm left with is, "at what point will the Jacksonian react to the Lefty impulses of the Democrat party?" And isn't this where the battle lines are now being drawn in the comedy we're watching called the Democrat Presidential Debates?
Oh, and I guess my "random" fact is I once served on the executive committee of the Multnomah County Republican Central Committee.
