Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, March 31, 2013

OTP: April 2013: Daily Caller: Baseball and the GOP: To rebrand the party, think like a sports fan

This week’s GOP autopsy report, commissioned by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, is a great start in the much-needed task of rebranding the Republican Party. As the chairman acknowledged, “the way we communicate our principles isn’t resonating widely enough” and “we have to be more inclusive.” The report contains 219 recommendations to “connect people to our principles.” To achieve that goal, the party will need a strategic vision of how voters think about politics, which is something that the report lacks. For that, the GOP can learn a lot from another American passion: baseball.

This year, about 75 million Americans will go to the baseball stadium to watch a ballgame, about the same number as those who will vote in next year’s election. We rarely think about why someone becomes a baseball fan, or why they root for a certain team. Nor do we usually think about why someone chooses to vote for a certain political party. But it’s actually a very useful exercise.

When it comes to baseball, fan loyalty has almost nothing to do with the brain, and almost everything to do with the heart. In all of history, there’s never been a baseball fan who rooted for his team because it had the lowest ticket prices, or because it had the most taxpayer-friendly stadium deal, or because its players did the most community service. For the vast majority of Americans, rooting for a baseball team — not to mention, voting for a political party — isn’t really a rational choice; it’s more of a statement of personal identity — a statement telling the world, “This is who I am.” And for most people, defining “who I am” starts with family and community, before branching out into areas like race, age, gender, and class.

Family is pretty straightforward. If your mom and dad are Yankee fans, you’re almost certainly a Yankee fan. The same is true in politics. If your mom and dad are Republicans, you’re almost certainly a Republican.

Community is also pretty straightforward. If you grew up in, say, Philadelphia, chances are pretty great you’re a Phillies fan. Likewise, someone who grew up in Republican territory like, say, suburban Dallas or rural Indiana is much more likely to become a Republican than a nearly identical person from Seattle or Santa Fe.

Cities with more than one baseball team, like New York or Chicago, show revealing breakdowns by race and gender. The racial split in Chicago between Cubs fans on the North Side and White Sox fans on the South Side is well-documented. In New York, there’s an intriguing gender gap between Mets and Yankee fans, with women gravitating a lot more to the Yanks. While there’s a few theories out there trying to explain that, one obvious answer leaps out: Yankees heartthrob Derek Jeter.

In sports, as in politics, people’s convictions can’t be conveniently reduced to who their parents are or what they look like. But those things are an important foundation, upon which more rational sentiments come into being. Once you’re attached to your team on an emotional level — seeing them as a personal reflection of who you are and what you care about most — a rational exterior comes into being through phrases like “the Red Sox are the best team because they have the most heart” or “the Republicans are the best party because they know how to create jobs.”

Tripon Posted: March 31, 2013 at 10:52 AM | 6544 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 14 of 66 pages ‹ First  < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >  Last ›
   1301. Ron J2 Posted: April 08, 2013 at 12:47 PM (#4407495)
#1282 Anybody who doesn't think Jackson was smart really knows nothing of the man.
   1302. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 08, 2013 at 12:48 PM (#4407497)
I personally would not fight to keep any state where the majority want to leave. If they set up a better country, I might move there.

I'd be more agreeable to that sentiment if it were put to a vote that required mandatory participation by everyone of voting age, and if everyone had complete knowledge of exactly what secession would entail. I'd be less likely to think it was a great idea if an uninformed 50% of the adult population participated and passed it by a narrow plurality, only to have second thoughts down the road after the damage was done.

Here's an example of the problem in another area, namely gun control.

A majority of people think that it's better to enforce the gun laws we already have on the books than it is to enact new gun control laws. That's been a common talking point of the NRA for years, and polls throughout the years invariably back them up.

The problem is that when asked a followup question, the majority of people who gave that answer also think that we already ban assault rifle sales; that we require background checks on all gun puchases, even at gun shows; and that no person with a certifiable mental record can legally buy a gun. All of which is false---and obviously so, since if laws like those were already on the books then there wouldn't be any call to pass them today.

And if ignorance is so widespread about a fairly straightforward issue like gun control, just imagine how thorough it would be in the case of secession.
   1303. Mefisto Posted: April 08, 2013 at 12:49 PM (#4407500)
@1285: That's a very handy link. Thanks for posting it.

What I don't understand about secession is that individuals are free to leave a country whenever they want. What makes it ok for those individuals to band together as a sub-group within a polity and to force their own geographic minority to leave?
   1304. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 12:56 PM (#4407506)
I'd be more agreeable to that sentiment if it were put to a vote that required mandatory participation by everyone of voting age, and if everyone had complete knowledge of exactly what secession would entail. I'd be less likely to think it was a great idea if an uninformed 50% of the adult population participated and passed it by a narrow plurality, only to have second thoughts down the road after the damage was done.

Well, you can't enforce mandatory participation. If would say you need aye votes equivalent 67% of eligible voters. I would allow residents of non-seceding states to cast their vote if they are willing to move and renounce their US citizenship for citizenship in the new nation.
   1305. tshipman Posted: April 08, 2013 at 12:57 PM (#4407508)
Neither Meacham nor Sean Wilentz (author of another recent book, Andrew Jackson) defend Jackson's Indian policies, but both make the point Morty does: you have to imagine it in context. Hardly any white politician at the time had more enlightened views, and Jackson imagined himself as a sort of paternalist shepherd of Indian tribes. He was wrong about that; he did way more harm than good; you can say, perhaps, that he was trying to do less harm than others wanted to do.


Jackson used the Indian Removal Act to shore up support among racist slaveholders in Georgia who wanted Indian land to expand slavery. Here's his speech from 1829.

What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms, embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, occupied by more than 12,000,000 happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion?


Jackson was an avowed racist, who knowingly committed genocide for political purposes. He was also a staunch supporter of slavery.

Go back to the recent A-Bomb/fire bombing/war crime thread. Both FDR and Truman authorized worse atrocities.


No. Genocide is a much worse crime than anything done in a time of war. Jackson is the ultimate cocktail of presidential ####-ups. Jackson was:
1. A genocide
2. a racist apologist for slaveholding
3. The largest influence in expanding the spoils system
4. A huge expander of presidential power in corrupt ways
5. An economic idiot who single-handedly plunged the country into a decade long depression for political gain

I do not minimize the horrible, horrible idea that was internment, but Jackson was worse than that.
   1306. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 12:58 PM (#4407509)
What I don't understand about secession is that individuals are free to leave a country whenever they want. What makes it ok for those individuals to band together as a sub-group within a polity and to force their own geographic minority to leave?

Who said they force out the minority? Also, in practice, most people have no other country that would accept them.
   1307. zenbitz Posted: April 08, 2013 at 12:58 PM (#4407510)
No state would consider it without a large majority, and it would require a lot more than the disagreements we currently have.


Also, they have to pay.
   1308. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 01:01 PM (#4407511)
No. Genocide is a much worse crime than anything done in a time of war.

Intentionally killing innocent civilians is the same either way. Would you feel any better if Jackson had declared war on the Indian Tribes first?

It really wasn't genocide. It was garden variety ethnic cleansing, as has happened repeatedly throughout history. Jackson didn't want to kill the Indians, he just wanted them moved, and probably didn't care if some died.
   1309. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 01:02 PM (#4407512)
Also, they have to pay.

They should assume their per capita share of the National Debt.
   1310. Ron J2 Posted: April 08, 2013 at 01:02 PM (#4407513)
#1274 Catton was certainly not a fan of Stevens. Memory say that he was the driving force behind Fitz John Porter's prosecution. I thought he was behind the prosecution of Stone (It's been a while since I've read the article on Ball's Bluff and the arrest of General Stone in Battles and Leaders. Should check that out) but on checking that was probably Sumner.
   1311. tshipman Posted: April 08, 2013 at 01:08 PM (#4407518)
Intentionally killing innocent civilians is the same either way. Would you feel any better if Jackson had declared war on the Indian Tribes first?


Intentionally killing civilians is very different from genocide. Civilians killed as part of a war are tragic and unnecessary, but done as part of achieving an objective that can be evaluated separate from the act. The goal of genocide is as repugnant as the action. Racial purity is far, far uglier as an animating goal than defending territory.

PS: Jackson didn't recognize the Indian Tribes as foreign nations, so he would not have felt it necessary to declare war on them! Congress never declared war on the Seminole.

   1312. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 01:12 PM (#4407520)
Intentionally killing civilians is very different from genocide. Civilians killed as part of a war are tragic and unnecessary, but done as part of achieving an objective that can be evaluated separate from the act. The goal of genocide is as repugnant as the action. Racial purity is far, far uglier as an animating goal than defending territory.

Not to me. Murder is murder. If you intentionally kill innocent people, I don't really care about your motive.

PS: Jackson didn't recognize the Indian Tribes as foreign nations, so he would not have felt it necessary to declare war on them! Congress never declared war on the Seminole.

I know. I'm just saying if he did recognize them, and declare war, it wouldn't have made his actions any better.
   1313. Mefisto Posted: April 08, 2013 at 01:16 PM (#4407522)
Who said they force out the minority? Also, in practice, most people have no other country that would accept them.


In the same sense that those who vote to secede feel forced out. Rather than seceeding, they could just emigrate as individuals. If they vote to secede, then the minority opposing secession should be able to vote within a smaller geographic region within the state and force everyone to remain. For example, if TX were to vote to secede, why couldn't the residents of Austin vote that Austin remains in the Union?

Secession effectively takes a geographically confined majority and says "we don't care to exercise our individual right to emigrate, but those who don't like our decision are free to exercise their individual right to emigrate".
   1314. tshipman Posted: April 08, 2013 at 01:16 PM (#4407523)
I know. I'm just saying if he did recognize them, and declare war, it wouldn't have made his actions any better.


If you're going to wipe out a civilization, you can at least do them the solid of letting them know your intentions so they can fight back.


Not to me. Murder is murder. If you intentionally kill innocent people, I don't really care about your motive.


This is crazy. So Churchill/Roosevelt = Pol Pot/Stalin? That is your syllogism.
   1315. Ron J2 Posted: April 08, 2013 at 01:17 PM (#4407525)
It's possible the North could have done more to build up collaborators in the South and displace the old Confederates without provoking Northern Ireland


One of the problems with this is that many of the southern leaders were men of real ability. You don't have to like or admire (say) John Gordon but there weren't man (any?) men of similar stature available as collaborators.

Longstreet is probably the most high profile willing to work with the Republicans. And the attacks on him really didn't start until Lee died (Lee wouldn't countenance anything of that nature.) but while Longstreet was pretty widely respected he had nothing approaching Gordon's charisma (or energy -- Longstreet was pretty used up by the end of the war.)
   1316. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 01:18 PM (#4407527)
If you intentionally kill innocent people, I don't really care about your motive.


You are a detective. Your department has two unsolved murders.

In one, the murderer killed a Jewish deli owner and left behind a note saying "You'll never catch me! I'm going to kill every Jew in the state!"

The other was a crime of passion, the man killed his wife after a domestic dispute.

How do you propose to split your department's resources on these two cases? 50/50?
   1317. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 01:21 PM (#4407528)
This is crazy. So Churchill/Roosevelt = Pol Pot/Stalin? That is your syllogism.

No, I never said that. I said Churchill/Roosevelt/Truman ~= to Andrew Jackson.

The WW2 bombing deaths walk a fine line. There were defenses of exigency for the Brits early on, and not all bombing was indiscriminate attacks on civilians. The USAAF tried to target factories for most of the War.

Pol Pot and Stalin intentionally killed millions just because they wanted to. there is no defense.
   1318. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 01:25 PM (#4407531)
You are a detective. Your department has two unsolved murders.

In one, the murderer killed a Jewish deli owner and left behind a note saying "You'll never catch me! I'm going to kill every Jew in the state!"

The other was a crime of passion, the man killed his wife after a domestic dispute.

How do you propose to split your department's resources on these two cases? 50/50?


You should make the 2nd one a man kills his wife because he wants the insurance money, otherwise you're comparing 1st or 2nd degree murder to something less.

The likelihood of re-offense affects the deployment of police officers, but not the severity of the crime.

If I were a judge or on a jury, I'd pass the exact same sentence on the robber or the greedy husband, if they each committed one murder.
   1319. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 08, 2013 at 01:29 PM (#4407534)
You are a detective. Your department has two unsolved murders.

In one, the murderer killed a Jewish deli owner and left behind a note saying "You'll never catch me! I'm going to kill every Jew in the state!"

The other was a crime of passion, the man killed his wife after a domestic dispute.

How do you propose to split your department's resources on these two cases? 50/50?


Of course not. The first guy threatened many more repeat murders, therefore more resources should be expended on catching him.

I took Snapper's broader point to be that killing because of racial animus was no worse morally than killing for a host of other reasons. That general observation is quite accurate.
   1320. tshipman Posted: April 08, 2013 at 01:33 PM (#4407539)
Pol Pot and Stalin intentionally killed millions just because they wanted to. there is no defense.


Your statement was that if you "intentionally kill innocent people, I don't really care about your motive." However, the section quoted at the top directly contradicts that. You do care about motive because you view Pol Pot as different from Churchill. You view him and Stalin differently because they killed millions "just because they wanted to."

So which is it? All murder of innocents is the same, or some murders are worse than others?
   1321. zonk Posted: April 08, 2013 at 01:38 PM (#4407547)
As an American appreciative of the nation of my birth and for all its faults, at least the promise of what it can be and sometimes is -- I think I'm grateful for Andrew Jackson.

However, I'm fairly certain that had I been born a couple centuries plus earlier -- I'd have been among those calling him Napoleon come to the shores of America.
   1322. tshipman Posted: April 08, 2013 at 01:51 PM (#4407564)
As an American appreciative of the nation of my birth and for all its faults, at least the promise of what it can be and sometimes is -- I think I'm grateful for Andrew Jackson.


I'm still waiting for someone to make a compelling case for his virtues.
   1323. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 08, 2013 at 02:00 PM (#4407569)
I'm still waiting for someone to make a compelling case for his virtues.


I've literally never read anything about him that makes him look good,I mean even the hagiographies written about him lay out stuff that's just appalling (not that the hagiographer realized it was appalling).
   1324. zenbitz Posted: April 08, 2013 at 02:01 PM (#4407574)
Snapper has a point. However, I don't think it's really fair to say that Pol Pot and Stalin (and Mao to get the Commie axis of evil complete) killed people "just because they wanted to". They killed people to maintain political power. In this way - very similar to his description of AJ in 1308. They had a purpose and they didn't really care who lived or died... for the vast majority of their responsible deaths (particuarlly those caused by famine -- which I believe accounts for the vast majority of Mao and Stalins' "ledger".). Of course, like most brutal dictators, they intentionally had citizens rounded up and killed. This doesn't seem to put them in a special class (except perhaps in magnitude)

Pol Pol... not 100% up on details of Cambodia there. Perhaps he's more Inner Circle Evil HoF than the other 2.
   1325. zonk Posted: April 08, 2013 at 02:04 PM (#4407578)
As an American appreciative of the nation of my birth and for all its faults, at least the promise of what it can be and sometimes is -- I think I'm grateful for Andrew Jackson.



I'm still waiting for someone to make a compelling case for his virtues.


His "personal" virtues -- or his "humanitarian virtues" as a leader? I wouldn't even attempt either of those.

My statement is predicated on a couple of hard-to-prove things...

First, as I alluded on the last page - I'm not so sure the nation survives the nullification crisis or the Civil War doesn't come to pass much earlier if it weren't for Jackson essentially dictatorially willing (and threatening) that the still-fledgling nation would remain a single nation. It's uncomfortable for this liberal to accept, but there are times in history where I do believe that yes, for all the faults of such a person, you sometimes need an iron hand.

Second, we have the term 'Jacksonian Democracy' for a reason... and I think it was the Jackson presidency that continued to bake the batter of our national DNA. Sure - we can look back on the Jacksonian definition with sneers. It wasn't governance by the 'common citizen'.... it was an extension of rights and roles to 'white men', beyond the landed gentry of the original revolution. In context, it was a key step forward towards where we would head, where we are today, and where (I think, at least) we should go tomorrow. You can find no lack of quibbles to be had with Jackson formulated and carried out what he saw as an extension of the Jeffersonian vision, but he pushed the nation much closer towards a representative democracy than anyone since the original Framers. Genocide against native peoples? Abhorrent and worthy of every condemnation imaginable. His battles with the Bank of the US? A lot more defensible, but still certainly led directly to one of the biggest financial crisis the young nation faced.

I'm perfectly fine with saying that the ill Jackson visited is blood that won't wash away -- and by all means, condemn him for that. However, I do believe that like it or not -- Andrew Jackson belongs with Lincoln and the Founding Fathers as someone without whom the current USA does not exist.
   1326. Ron J2 Posted: April 08, 2013 at 02:05 PM (#4407580)
#1322 In one of the 1632 novels one of the characters (Admiral Simpson) says something very close to, he may have been a son of a ##### but he got us Florida.

   1327. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 02:06 PM (#4407583)
Your statement was that if you "intentionally kill innocent people, I don't really care about your motive." However, the section quoted at the top directly contradicts that. You do care about motive because you view Pol Pot as different from Churchill. You view him and Stalin differently because they killed millions "just because they wanted to."

So which is it? All murder of innocents is the same, or some murders are worse than others?


All murder of innocents is the same, the question is determining which deaths (if any) due to WW2 Strategic Bombing were murders, and for those deaths how much culpability Churchill and FDR bear, vs. their Generals and advisers.

It's a muddy picture, unlike mass executions and Gulags.
   1328. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 08, 2013 at 02:15 PM (#4407589)
I'd be more agreeable to that sentiment if it were put to a vote that required mandatory participation by everyone of voting age, and if everyone had complete knowledge of exactly what secession would entail. I'd be less likely to think it was a great idea if an uninformed 50% of the adult population participated and passed it by a narrow plurality, only to have second thoughts down the road after the damage was done.

Well, you can't enforce mandatory participation. If would say you need aye votes equivalent 67% of eligible voters. I would allow residents of non-seceding states to cast their vote if they are willing to move and renounce their US citizenship for citizenship in the new nation.


That still leaves too many problems for my taste, including but not limited to the extraordinary amount of misleading advertising that would precede the vote. That sort of advertising is bad enough in presidential campaigns, but with those at least there's a system of correction four years down the road.

---------------------------------------------

What I don't understand about secession is that individuals are free to leave a country whenever they want. What makes it ok for those individuals to band together as a sub-group within a polity and to force their own geographic minority to leave?


Bingo 1

Secession effectively takes a geographically confined majority and says "we don't care to exercise our individual right to emigrate, but those who don't like our decision are free to exercise their individual right to emigrate".


Bingo 2. Why should the burden of self-deportation be imposed on those who remain loyal to the United States, rather than those who want to leave it? That's about as strange a thought as it gets.
   1329. Flynn Posted: April 08, 2013 at 02:16 PM (#4407592)
The reason many, many, many British people hate Thatcher and are openly celebrating her death is due to her forcefulness as a politician.

Britain had a post-war consensus (Ted Heath, who Thatcher replaced as leader, was a rather liberal Tory) that Thatcher basically napalmed in the space of four years. Unemployment boomed in working-class regions of the country that were the most ill-equipped to handle it due to her philosophy. She relished conflict and had no problems demonizing unions, groups of people, entire cities. Entire countries even...if Scotland becomes independent, it will owe some debt to Thatcher's poll tax. She was a force of nature and there hasn't been somebody like her in US politics for a long time...maybe FDR? Maybe even Lincoln? And there were sure as heck people who were happy when Lincoln died.
   1330. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 08, 2013 at 02:17 PM (#4407595)
I don't know enough about AJ to fairly judge the man or his presidency. He always seemed important but not very admirable to me. I am alwyas leary of judging a man in the past by today's standards.

Regarding nations and seccession, well in a very real sense a nation is defined by its land (there are those that think this is changing, btw). So people coming or going does not threaten the identity of the nation, but land being taken away does very much so. This is one reason why you see wars fought over relatively trivial amounts of land, where the cost of 'blood and treasure' far exceeds the value of the land.

You could argue that a nation is not an organism and doesn't feel anything and one one level that would be true, but a huge majority of how nations end up acting is explained by this. One time it is not is when multiple sections of a nation want to go their own way, in other words when the national identity is already compromised then a split is not really a threat.
   1331. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 08, 2013 at 02:23 PM (#4407608)
And yes I am amused by the need for feinting couches when someone expressed plasure at someones death. I did not and would not speak that way about pretty much anyone, but from the reactions upthread you would think it was the worst thing evah!

Seriously if you think someone is trash you should be able to say so while they are alive, on the day of their death, a year later, a hundred years later. I would not throw it in the face of grieving relatives or anything, but on a chat board, why not? People talk about respect, but personally I don't think it respectful to cover ones true feelings with hallmark BS. Don't hurt peoples feelings, but tell the truth.
   1332. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 08, 2013 at 02:32 PM (#4407615)
Wotta day. First The Iron Lady, and now Mickey Mouse's Mistress.
   1333. greenback calls it soccer Posted: April 08, 2013 at 02:32 PM (#4407616)
3. The largest influence in expanding the spoils system

Is this particularly bad? I don't need to elaborate on the alternatives for achieving influence in politics, both past and present, real and imaginary.
   1334. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 08, 2013 at 02:39 PM (#4407621)
Here's a choice two paragraphs from that Mousketeer obit above, no comment necessary.

“The Mickey Mouse Club” was instantly popular as reflected by orders for 24,000 mouse-eared beanies a day. Annette quickly became the most popular Mouseketeer, and Disney marketed everything from Annette lunchboxes and dolls to mystery novels about her fictionalized adventures.

But she did not receive special treatment. When she lost a pair of felt mouse ears, she was charged $55. It was deducted from her $185 weekly paycheck.
   1335. GregD Posted: April 08, 2013 at 02:39 PM (#4407623)
Jackson is obviously much more impressive than appealing. In terms of Indians, I think it's useful to separate his careers. His early career combination of military leadership/vigilantism/filibustering to drive Indians out of the Gulf region clearly gained him a lot of support among whites in the region but also stood out in the context of his time (in part because he was simply uncontrollable from DC.)

As president dealing with removal, the context is a little different. By then, you have a wild populace in Georgia that is essentially pressing for real genocide, that probably would have voted for extermination if they had been allowed to, and that is punishing every moderate with defeat. Jackson was acting in a world the white people of Georgia created. And also in a world where he's seeing other challenges from South Carolina. What he did in negotiating the removal certainly wasn't heroic or admirable from our viewpoint, but it was also certainly more moderate than white Georgians wanted (there were outcries against giving the Cherokee anything.) And--this is the real conundrum--no one articulated another solution that seems better in retrospect. You have an entire political system centered around murderous rage against a people without the resources to defend themselves successfully. With only a small army at his command, what could Jackson do?

I don't say this to excuse his earlier actions, but to make the point that we put too much weight on Jackson to avoid facing the issue that democracy--as it was constructed then--was the problem. Genocide was popular. Politicians like Jackson operated by and large to moderate public views that were even worse.
   1336. tshipman Posted: April 08, 2013 at 02:42 PM (#4407629)
I'm perfectly fine with saying that the ill Jackson visited is blood that won't wash away -- and by all means, condemn him for that. However, I do believe that like it or not -- Andrew Jackson belongs with Lincoln and the Founding Fathers as someone without whom the current USA does not exist.


I really strongly disagree with this, and the whole case for it is based off hazy counterfactuals. The fact of the matter was that the nullification crisis was handled, and I think most presidents handle it. Lincoln was no one's idea of an "iron hand" before he became president.


#1322 In one of the 1632 novels one of the characters (Admiral Simpson) says something very close to, he may have been a son of a ##### but he got us Florida.


Wouldn't the country be better off with Florida as a home to an integrated ethnically Native American plurality? He didn't get "us" anything. He stole land for slaveholders.
   1337. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 08, 2013 at 02:43 PM (#4407634)
I've literally never read anything about him that makes him look good


I'll partly take that back.

He looks good if you look at December 23 to January 8, 1815.

   1338. Mefisto Posted: April 08, 2013 at 02:46 PM (#4407635)
Ditto to 1331. The nil nisi rule applies to personal relationships and face-to-face dealings. There's no reason for those who recognize Thatcher's evil to remain silent and let the hagiographers prevail.
   1339. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 02:51 PM (#4407640)
There's no reason for those who recognize Thatcher's evil

That's a pretty damn low threshold for evil. I assume you view Ronald Reagan as Satan Personified?
   1340. zonk Posted: April 08, 2013 at 02:52 PM (#4407644)
I really strongly disagree with this, and the whole case for it is based off hazy counterfactuals. The fact of the matter was that the nullification crisis was handled, and I think most presidents handle it. Lincoln was no one's idea of an "iron hand" before he became president.


I think that last statement underestimates Lincoln... He was no one's idea of an 'iron hand' precisely because he was a much better politician (and a better human being) than the autocratic Jackson. Lincoln was very careful to make sure the confederates struck the match that ignited the Civil War... but I am fairly certain that he knew the match would be struck regardless.
   1341. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 08, 2013 at 02:54 PM (#4407648)
As president dealing with removal, the context is a little different. By then, you have a wild populace in Georgia that is essentially pressing for real genocide, that probably would have voted for extermination if they had been allowed to, and that is punishing every moderate with defeat.

Sounds like the current GOP primary electorate!
   1342. zonk Posted: April 08, 2013 at 02:55 PM (#4407650)

That's a pretty damn low threshold for evil. I assume you view Ronald Reagan as Satan Personified?


Relative to traditions and the national fulcrum that existed at the point of assuming office, Thatcher took England a lot further to the right than Reagan did in the US... I mean, Reagan busted up the air traffic controllers union - and certainly continued the decline of the other unions... Thatcher pretty much smashed UK trade union power.
   1343. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 02:59 PM (#4407654)
Relative to traditions and the national fulcrum that existed at the point of assuming office, Thatcher took England a lot further to the right than Reagan did in the US... I mean, Reagan busted up the air traffic controllers union - and certainly continued the decline of the other unions... Thatcher pretty much smashed UK trade union power.

How is that evil? The British trade unions were seriously f-ed up institutions. There were more strike p.a. during WW2 than in the 1930's. These were not nice people.

The fact that someone views any shift right as "evil" goes hand-in-hand with calling any shift left "socialism" in destroying reasonable discourse in our society, and the ability to compromise. If Thatcher's evil than Obama's evil from the opposite perspective. It's childish and stupid.
   1344. tshipman Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:01 PM (#4407657)
As president dealing with removal, the context is a little different. By then, you have a wild populace in Georgia that is essentially pressing for real genocide, that probably would have voted for extermination if they had been allowed to, and that is punishing every moderate with defeat.


Again, I really disagree with this. You have to judge politicians not just on the standards of their own times, but also of history's times. Saying that Jackson was less bad than what some other people wanted to do leads to reductio ad absurdem.

It was definitely politically possible to resist the attempts to slaughter Native Americans. Jackson however, wanted to earn that political capital to dismantle the Bank of the United States. He used disastrous ends to achieve a disastrous goal. How is that in any way laudable?
   1345. Mefisto Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:02 PM (#4407658)
The idea that evil is a spectrum rather than a point, doesn't seem all that controversial to me. After all, Dante had 9 circles of Hell.
   1346. Lassus Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:02 PM (#4407659)
The fact that someone views any shift right as "evil"

Any?
   1347. spycake Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:05 PM (#4407661)
I don't know enough about AJ to fairly judge the man

Stan Conte knows plenty about him.
   1348. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:05 PM (#4407662)
If Thatcher's evil than Obama's evil from the opposite perspective. It's childish and stupid.

Ted Kennedy never worked a day in his life, committed academic fraud, left a woman to drown in his car, and covered up his involvement in said drowning. He was a drunk and an awful husband.

But he wanted to give other people's money away, so he's a hero.(*) People like Reagan and Thatcher tried to do certain things as one power center in democratic governments with a wide range of power centers, and they're "evil."

So works the leftist mind.

(*) Thus Adam Clymer in his 1999 biography: "Yet his achievements as a Senator have towered over his time, changing the lives of far more Americans than remember the name Mary Jo Kopechne....He deserves recognition not just as the leading Senator of his time but also as one of the greats in the history of this singular institution, wise in its workings, especially its demand that a Senator be more than partisan to accomplish much."



   1349. Delorians Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:06 PM (#4407663)
I assume you view Ronald Reagan as Satan Personified?

Be careful what you ask this crowd. Last month, they didn't want to give him any credit for the end of the Cold War.
   1350. Flynn Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:06 PM (#4407665)
If Thatcher's evil than Obama's evil from the opposite perspective. It's childish and stupid.


That's horseshit. Thatcher had more of an affect on UK politics than any president since FDR.
   1351. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:07 PM (#4407668)
The fact that someone views any shift right as "evil"

Any?


Thatcher's moves were nothing outside the realm of reasonable policies in a Western capitalistic democracy.

Her opponents (and her fellow Tories) just didn't like having a women and the daughter of a grocer beat the crap out of them for 10+ years.

Most resentment of Thatcher was a product of sexism and classism among the British elites.
   1352. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:09 PM (#4407670)
That's horseshit. Thatcher had more of an affect on UK politics than any president since FDR.

So what? Neither she nor FDR was evil.

FDR's policies were largely disastrous; trampling on the Constitution and prolonging the Depression by years. He still wasn't evil.
   1353. BDC Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:10 PM (#4407674)
here weren't many (any?) men of similar stature available as collaborators

And crucially, for radical reconstruction to work, white Southern leaders would have to work with black political leaders, accepting them as colleagues and coalition allies. And the talented white men who were willing to do that were exceedingly thin on the ground. Edmund J. Davis, in Texas (I may have mentioned him upthread) was such a leader; he was a close political ally of George Ruby, the African-American leader in the Texas Senate, and their relationship seems to have been unpatronizing on Davis's part and unreserved on Ruby's. But these guys were 100 years ahead of their time, unfortunately for the century in between.
   1354. zonk Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:12 PM (#4407677)

How is that evil? The British trade unions were seriously f-ed up institutions. There were more strike p.a. during WW2 than in the 1930's. These were not nice people.

The fact that someone views any shift right as "evil" goes hand-in-hand with calling any shift left "socialism" in destroying reasonable discourse in our society, and the ability to compromise. If Thatcher's evil than Obama's evil from the opposite perspective. It's childish and stupid.


I was not attempting to evaluate the qualitative statement regarding evil or your reaction to it... merely the quantitative deficiencies of Reagan >>> Thatcher in context of the metaphor.
   1355. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:14 PM (#4407681)
So what? Neither she nor FDR was evil.

FDR's policies were largely disastrous; trampling on the Constitution and prolonging the Depression by years. He still wasn't evil.


Describing FDR, or Thatcher or Reagan as "evil" is a telltale sign of arrested development. Such a person is essentially unfit for a democratic, pluralist society.
   1356. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:15 PM (#4407682)
I was not attempting to evaluate the qualitative statement regarding evil or your reaction to it... merely the quantitative deficiencies of Reagan >>> Thatcher in context of the metaphor.

OK. But, I'm still waiting for the first actual evil thing she did.
   1357. GregD Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:17 PM (#4407686)
Again, I really disagree with this. You have to judge politicians not just on the standards of their own times, but also of history's times. Saying that Jackson was less bad than what some other people wanted to do leads to reductio ad absurdem.

It was definitely politically possible to resist the attempts to slaughter Native Americans. Jackson however, wanted to earn that political capital to dismantle the Bank of the United States. He used disastrous ends to achieve a disastrous goal. How is that in any way laudable?
I never called him laudable. It's possible you're confusing different people or different response.

Historical thinking begins with context not out of the relativism that leads to ab absurdem but out of certainty that biographical approaches absent context tends toward heroism and villainy that fails to explain what happened, or how people acted within the sequence of events they faced.

Jackson faced a political shitstorm in Georgia that he had not encouraged or quite anticipated. The way to judge his actions in that case is to ask how his actions differed from other actions possible in that sequence. Anything beyond that is a statement about the period--we can in public memory decide to disdain people from bad periods on principle, which is fine as long as we accept that stance tells us nothing about the individuals.

You say his actions were avoidable. Undoubtedly that's true--history is not foreordained. So lay out your scenario. In South Carolina Jackson was a bully because he knew he had lots of people (including those who didn't support him personally) behind him. And he believed--with good reason--the nullifiers were not nearly as strong as appeared to be in their public support. Maybe his judgments were wrong--though the nullifiers accession suggests he wasn't--but he didn't have a magic wand that he chose to wave at South Carolina and then chose not to wave at Georgia.
   1358. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:21 PM (#4407690)
Describing FDR, or Thatcher or Reagan as "evil" is a telltale sign of arrested development. Such a person is essentially unfit for a democratic, pluralist society.

Indeed. Like the children who scream "You cheated!" any time anyone beats them in a game.
   1359. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:24 PM (#4407691)

Wouldn't the country be better off with Florida as a home to an integrated ethnically Native American plurality?


It would be better off with cheap fusion power, too.
   1360. Morty Causa Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:26 PM (#4407692)
Jackson isn't my choice for legal scholarship among presidents, but it was basically accepted by everybody that had South Carolina attempted secession Jackson would have acted precisely as he threatened to.


Jackson may be a big reason we didn't have the Civil War in 1830. He warned South Carolinians, who had voted for him, that if they attempted to make good on their threat to secede, he would personally go there and hang every one of them.

And everyone knew Andrew Jackson didn't make idle threats.

If you were a settler on the frontier, you might have been more tolerant of his views of Indians. Practically everyone was (and is, really) racist, especially back then and especially if you were a frontier state or territory, where you lived in a situation where the "other" could cut your throat and bash your baby's head against a wall. Pacific tolerance is often only the luxury of secure and well-fed.
   1361. GregD Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:35 PM (#4407703)
If you were a settler on the frontier, you might have been more tolerant of his views of Indians. Practically everyone was (and is, really) racist, especially back then and especially if you were a frontier state or territory, where you lived in a situation where the "other" could cut your throat and bash your baby's head against a wall. Pacific tolerance is often only the luxury of secure and well-fed.
This doesn't quite fit the Georgia case though as the Cherokees were largely Christianized and slaveowning. There was a reason they were among the "civilized tribes." They had taken Washington's advice and become like the white men around them (and even after the Removal, many of them held slaves in Indian Territory then Oklahoma, a good number sided with the Confederacy, and some tribes refused to recognized--then and now--to recognize emancipated slaves as members of their nation.)

The Georgians at the core of the Cherokee issue just wanted a straight-out land grab; they saw people they thought lacked political capital, and they went for their land, and they made this effort the defining issue of state politics by successfully voting up the people who backed them and out the opponents.

I think it's important to see Jackson's role--good and bad--in dealing with them, but there's not a lot of reason for relativism about the treatment of the Cherokees by Georgians in those decades. Even by the context of American history, it's pretty outrageous.
   1362. Morty Causa Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:36 PM (#4407704)
It really wasn't genocide. It was garden variety ethnic cleansing, as has happened repeatedly throughout history. Jackson didn't want to kill the Indians, he just wanted them moved, and probably didn't care if some died.


Jackson took a side--the side of his culture and his people. He didn'have the luxury of viewing the matter dispassionately. He was in the game, it was persona, and losing had real effects.
   1363. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:36 PM (#4407705)
FDR's policies were largely disastrous; trampling on the Constitution and prolonging the Depression by years. He still wasn't evil.


trampling on the Constitution
On the free speech front I'll give you that, on the economic front you're dead wrong

and prolonging the Depression by years
also wrong, this is revisionist nonsense that's been coming from the right
   1364. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:39 PM (#4407709)
also wrong, this is revisionist nonsense that's been coming from the right


This. You can't trust what a bunch of Austrian business cycle ideologues want to write post-facto onto the Depression's history.
   1365. Ron J2 Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:39 PM (#4407710)
#1340 I think it was more like hoping that everything would somehow work out. Playing for time because once the shooting starts ...

I mean he was absolutely prepared to trade Sumter for Virginia agreeing not to hold a convention on secession. (I'll trade a fort for a state)

Take no irrevocable steps and hope something comes along.

He was clear that it was a faint hope, but it beats the hell out of a shooting war.
   1366. Morty Causa Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:40 PM (#4407711)
Andrew Jackson is the Ty Cobb of American Presidents and political figures.
   1367. zonk Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:42 PM (#4407715)
and prolonging the Depression by years

also wrong, this is revisionist nonsense that's been coming from the right


Not if you're a Keynesian that thinks FDR's mistake was yanking back the chain of government spending too quickly before the recovery had taken proper hold...

I tend to agree that FDR did prolong the Depression... just not for the same reasons as Heritage, et al.
   1368. spike Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:46 PM (#4407722)
Describing FDR, or Thatcher or Reagan as "evil" is a telltale sign of arrested development. Such a person is essentially unfit for a democratic, pluralist society.

Indeed. Like the children who scream "You cheated!" any time anyone beats them in a game.


That's a terrible thing to say about Karl Rove.
   1369. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:47 PM (#4407724)
Describing FDR, or Thatcher or Reagan as "evil" is a telltale sign of arrested development. Such a person is essentially unfit for a democratic, pluralist society.

I wouldn't necessarily call them "unfit", in that I wouldn't take away their votes. But I don't think that people who throw around "evil" with casual indifference have much to contribute to any serious political discussion, Dante or no Dante.

Along with that, though, I'd add those who repeatedly use "Democrat party" as a thinly veiled insult on the level of a six year old. I'd also say that anyone who labels taxes as "stealing", or calls mainstream Democrats "collectivists" (or calls Reagan Republicans or affirmative action supporters "racists"), is interested in little more than hearing the sound of his or her own voice. They're fully aware of the impact of those words, and they don't care that it makes them instantly dismissed by anyone who's not already in their corner.
   1370. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:48 PM (#4407726)
OK. But, I'm still waiting for the first actual evil thing she did.


In one of the alternative realities visited by the characters in Sliders her name was synonymous with Quisling's...

   1371. Morty Causa Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:50 PM (#4407727)
I've literally never read anything about him that makes him look good


The Battle of New Orleans. Fighting the British when he was 14. Walking 40 miles with smallpox holding on the tail of the horse his brother (who had smallpox, too) was riding. He soon thereafter lost both his brother and his mother, the only family he had left. At 14 he was on his own. Fighting that duel with Dickinson. Facing down as justice of the peace the bully everyone was scared of. The Eaton Affair. His love and devotion to Rachel. He didn't kill all the Indians after what they did at Fort Mims. Beating the crap out of his would-be assassin. If you don't find any of this exhilarating, you're meet the requirements to guard the sultan's harem.

After his death, a lively, intelligent slave women was asked by a reporter if she thought Jackson was going to Heaven. She replied: "If the General wants to go to Heaven, who's going to stop him."

As one historian put, had he lived now, no teacher would write on his record, "plays well with other children". He led, you follow; if you weren't going to follow, there was going to be a problem, and it was going to be solved only one way.
   1372. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:50 PM (#4407728)
OK. But, I'm still waiting for the first actual evil thing she did.


when an MP she voted to de-criminalize abortion

:-)
   1373. zonk Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:56 PM (#4407733)
#1340 I think it was more like hoping that everything would somehow work out. Playing for time because once the shooting starts ...

I mean he was absolutely prepared to trade Sumter for Virginia agreeing not to hold a convention on secession. (I'll trade a fort for a state)

Take no irrevocable steps and hope something comes along.

He was clear that it was a faint hope, but it beats the hell out of a shooting war.


I don't know... he was pretty unabashedly and publicly opposed to the Crittenden compromise, even though I think he was at least somewhat predisposed to go along with the Corwin Amendment. Of course, all this happened before he was technically inaugurated.

I just tend to think that people don't give Lincoln enough "credit" (dubious as many are about political skill being worthy of 'credit') for being an extraordinarily wily politician with a keen sense of how to best present events, his reaction to events, and orienting policy to maximize his leverage over such events to the public. The south very much wanted to portray their own 'revolution' as being in the best spirit of the original American revolution.... Lincoln quite smartly and deftly denied them that.

Lincoln was going to make sure that it would be the secessionists that fired the first shot - even though (setting aside our own views on secession for a moment) he ultimately gave them no choice but to do so.

Put Lincoln on the throne of England in place of George III and one can only wonder what becomes of American Revolution...
   1374. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:58 PM (#4407734)
The Battle of New Orleans.

see 1337

also have you seen this?
   1375. zonk Posted: April 08, 2013 at 04:03 PM (#4407739)
The Battle of New Orleans. Fighting the British when he was 14. Walking 40 miles with smallpox holding on the tail of the horse his brother (who had smallpox, too) was riding. He soon thereafter lost both his brother and his mother, the only family he had left. At 14 he was on his own. Fighting that duel with Dickinson. Facing down as justice of the peace the bully everyone was scared of. The Eaton Affair. His love and devotion to Rachel. He didn't kill all the Indians after what they did at Fort Mims. Beating the crap out of his would-be assassin. If you don't find any of this exhilarating, you're meet the requirements to guard the sultan's harem.

After his death, a lively, intelligent slave women was asked by a reporter if she thought Jackson was going to Heaven. She replied: "If the General wants to go to Heaven, who's going to stop him."

As one historian put, had he lived now, no teacher would write on his record, "plays well with other children". He led, you follow; if you weren't going to follow, there was going to be a problem, and it was going to be solved only one way.


Yup...

Like I said, I think Andrew Jackson is pretty much the personification of everything that is good -- and also everything that is bad -- about this country.

An awful lot of American history - for better and for worse - has been made in his image...
   1376. Morty Causa Posted: April 08, 2013 at 04:14 PM (#4407748)
also have you seen this?


Those poor monsters. They chose the wrong man to join issue with. They are going to be re-settled in a galaxy far far away.
   1377. Gaelan Posted: April 08, 2013 at 04:40 PM (#4407766)
Wouldn't the country be better off with Florida as a home to an integrated ethnically Native American plurality?


Assuming I know what this means, it's hard to take seriously someone who could write this sentence.
   1378. Publius Publicola Posted: April 08, 2013 at 04:43 PM (#4407769)
OK. But, I'm still waiting for the first actual evil thing she did.


OK, I'll tell you. And I bet this argument resonates with you too.


Her attitude towards the Long Kesh hunger strikers was nothing short of inhuman.

In case you didn't know, Britain owes a blood debt to Ireland. It is universally acknowledged that the way the British handled the Famine was in essence a form of ethnic cleansing. This after the British crown stole all the land that was worth owning and made the Irish essentially captives in their own country. The British landowners felt there were too many Irish, so a large portion of them starving to death while another large portion were forced to emigrate to the Liverpool, US, Australia, Canada, South Africa- basically anywhere they could get something to eat. The Famine, and its aftermath, changed Ireland profoundly, and made it the sad country it was for a century and a half - The Poor Man of Europe. I don't think it an exaggeration to say the the Famine was the darkest spot on England in a history that had many dark spots.

I am a descendent of one of those emigres. My great, great grandfather had to emigrate in 1842 to avoid starvation.

It took a long time for Ireland to gain back her independence. However, not the whole country was gotten back. 9 counties (now 6) stayed in the British realm. Those Irish who were trapped behind the border, in and out of their own country at the same time, were treated as second class citizens. They were excluded from jobs, living areas, the professions, quality farmland etc. The Irish people living within Northern Ireland had legitimate grievances. The IRA represented a significant portion of those people, and were doing something to correct the historical wrongs that England imposed on Ireland. Whatever you think of the IRA's methods, it's hard to argue that without them, an agreement would never have occurred when it did.

The reason it would not have occurred is because of people like Thatcher, especially Thatcher, who thought England owed nothing at all to Ireland or the Irish, had no historical or moral debt, that the Irish needed to be patient, and so if a few hunger strikers starve to death, what's it to her, or her country? No matter that those hunger strikers were supposed to be British citizens as well, who had legitimate grievances that demanded redress. They were Irish of course, and it was no business of the Tories if a few Irish radicals starved to death.

That's what I dislike about her. She was a vicious, insensitive, unresponsive bigot.

   1379. Morty Causa Posted: April 08, 2013 at 04:56 PM (#4407779)
Wouldn't the country be better off with Florida as a home to an integrated ethnically Native American plurality?

Assuming I know what this means, it's hard to take seriously someone who could write this sentence.

I'll assume it means that Florida would serve as a corral state for various different tribes, and I ask in return: do you realize that the various tribes were fighting with each other long before some of them began fighting with the evil invading Euros?
   1380. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 08, 2013 at 05:02 PM (#4407787)
OK, I'll tell you. And I bet this argument resonates with you too.


Feel free to point out to Snapper that the Irish that Thatcher disliked, the ones who'd been treated as second class citozens for generations in their own land were the CATHOLIC ones
   1381. Publius Publicola Posted: April 08, 2013 at 05:03 PM (#4407790)
LOL. Good one, J S-L F.
   1382. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 08, 2013 at 05:06 PM (#4407794)
I'll assume it means that Florida would serve as a corral state for various different tribes, and I ask in return: do you realize that the various tribes were fighting with each other long before some of them began fighting with the evil invading Euros?

I assumed it meant a Native plurality and white/black minority. Which had no chance whatsoever of being the final equilibrium point.

It was inevitable as anything can be historically that Florida and the rest of America were eventually going to be under the control of the settlers, not the natives. A land and bounty that rich and big and open to ambition and development and improvement was never going to stay in the virtual state of nature in which the white man found it. It was simply never going to happen, and any counterfactual in which it does happen is entirely fanciful.
   1383. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 08, 2013 at 05:10 PM (#4407799)
Feel free to point out to Snapper that the Irish that Thatcher disliked, the ones who'd been treated as second class citizens for generations in their own land were the CATHOLIC ones

Who were routinely referred to by their opponents as PAPISTS.
   1384. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 08, 2013 at 05:15 PM (#4407805)
It was simply never going to happen, and any counterfactual in which it does happen is entirely fanciful.


You mean getting a time machine and sending small pox vaccine back to the 14h Century Mound Building cultures is fanciful?
   1385. Publius Publicola Posted: April 08, 2013 at 05:15 PM (#4407806)
And their religious habits as Popery.
   1386. Mefisto Posted: April 08, 2013 at 05:19 PM (#4407809)
Thatcher supported Sec. 28 of the Local Government Act, which was blatantly anti-gay. Her fulsome praise of Pinochet was disgraceful, as was her position on South Africa. The average citizen of the UK was worse off after her time in office than it was before.

Seems like a pretty fair amount to answer for, and that hardly exhausts the list.
   1387. tshipman Posted: April 08, 2013 at 05:22 PM (#4407812)
I think the discussion on Jackson informs the discussion on Thatcher quite nicely.

Why are people so virulently anti-Thatcher? Because otherwise her supporters end up white-washing the history so thoroughly (not aimed at GregD) that the truly awful things she did get swept under the rug.
   1388. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 05:24 PM (#4407813)
Thatcher supported Sec. 28 of the Local Government Act, which was blatantly anti-gay. Her fulsome praise of Pinochet was disgraceful,


Well she was just a fallible civil servant, it isn't as if she was the Almighty's representatives on Earth.
   1389. Greg K Posted: April 08, 2013 at 05:31 PM (#4407821)
My only Thatcher anecdote:

I was on a tour of Dublin Castle a couple years ago, the royal apartments of which were last slept in by Margaret Thatcher while she was in office. Apparently she wanted a hard-boiled egg for breakfast, and the Castle kitchen is not equipped with those little egg-chalice things so they had to send a dude running off to the store to buy one.
   1390. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 08, 2013 at 05:32 PM (#4407822)
Feel free to point out to Snapper that the Irish that Thatcher disliked, the ones who'd been treated as second class citizens for generations in their own land were the CATHOLIC ones

Who were routinely referred to by their opponents as PAPISTS.

And their religious habits as Popery.


Named after a guy who wore a pointy HAT.
   1391. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 05:34 PM (#4407825)
Feel free to point out to Snapper that the Irish that Thatcher disliked, the ones who'd been treated as second class citizens for generations in their own land were the CATHOLIC ones

Who were routinely referred to by their opponents as PAPISTS.

And their religious habits as Popery.

Named after a guy who wore a pointy HAT.


My work is done here. I suppose I'll just quietly leave this and back away.
   1392. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: April 08, 2013 at 05:37 PM (#4407831)
Orthodox Christians have better hats. The galero that the high-ranking Catholics looks like it was stolen from a male strip club.
   1393. Greg K Posted: April 08, 2013 at 05:44 PM (#4407848)
17th century Ireland scoffs dismissively at the summer carnivals that were 1840s and 1980s Ireland!
   1394. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 08, 2013 at 06:03 PM (#4407868)
The average citizen of the UK was worse off after her time in office than it was before.

If things don't turn around in a hurry, the same will be true of the average American after Obama. I'm sure that will be all Bush's fault, though.

Speaking of the U.S. economy, last month 88,000 people found work while an estimated 663,000 (!) left the workforce. I noticed Shipman didn't label it a "good but not great" jobs report, as has been his habit. Perhaps he's finally seeing the Obama economic malaise for what it is.
   1395. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 08, 2013 at 06:11 PM (#4407874)
I'm sure that will be all Bush's fault, though.


No the Republican House and Republican Statehouses share some blame too.


   1396. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 06:12 PM (#4407876)
I will raise no objection if you say four centuries of Irishmen had the right to kill english at will.

I will just say the 1970s and 80sthe version did not share that right.
   1397. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: April 08, 2013 at 06:12 PM (#4407877)
If things don't turn around in a hurry, the same will be true of the average American after Obama. I'm sure that will be all Bush's fault, though.
Joe blames Obama for invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Hopefully, Obama's whitewashers will be as enterprising as Thatchers. Maybe he'll even get the same ones! Either way, let's not waste anymore time examining Thatcher when there's still Obama to attack.
   1398. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 08, 2013 at 06:16 PM (#4407883)
I will just say the 1970s and 80sthe version did not share that right.


How about the Orangmen?, did Irish Catholics still have the right to kill them at will?
   1399. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 08, 2013 at 06:17 PM (#4407885)
Joe blames Obama for invading Afghanistan and Iraq.

??

The bad economy is due to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars?

Either way, let's not waste anymore time examining Thatcher when there's still Obama to attack.

If Thatcher was so horrendous, people should have made more noise at the time. But celebrating the death of an old woman with Alzheimer's is ghoulish, especially since she hadn't been in office in decades.
   1400. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: April 08, 2013 at 06:26 PM (#4407894)
The bad economy is due to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars?
No. Those wars cost no money. The subprime crash and those poisoned CDOs, though, that was all Obama.

If Thatcher was so horrendous, people should have made more noise at the time.
I was just a high school student at the time, but my recollection is that they did. Of course, "they" were all poor and lived far away, so, you know, whatever.

But celebrating the death of an old woman with Alzheimer's is mostly ghoulish, especially since she hadn't been in office in decades.
Who said I'm celebrating? I just thought it was funny that, just like with every topic ever, your one purpose here is to redirect the topic of conversation back to attacking Obama.
Page 14 of 66 pages ‹ First  < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Marc Sully's not booin'. He's Youkin'.
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogTigers To Acquire David Price
(48 - 5:55pm, Jul 31)
Last: Davo Dozier

NewsblogHardball Talk: Calcaterra: Nationals-Orioles TV Money Dispute about to Explode
(21 - 5:51pm, Jul 31)
Last: Yeaarrgghhhh

NewsblogJULY 31 2014 OMNICHATTER/TRADE DEADLINE CHATTER
(323 - 5:51pm, Jul 31)
Last: Davo Dozier

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3938 - 5:47pm, Jul 31)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

NewsblogA's Acquire Lester, Gomes For Cespedes
(125 - 5:47pm, Jul 31)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogWhy the Mets Are Right to Save the New York State Pavilion
(14 - 5:43pm, Jul 31)
Last: Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-31-2014
(18 - 5:41pm, Jul 31)
Last: Sweatpants

NewsblogJim Bowden Caught Stealing From Fake Twitter Account, Deletes Everything
(14 - 5:38pm, Jul 31)
Last: Rennie's Tenet

NewsblogAthletics, Twins Swap Tommy Milone, Sam Fuld
(19 - 5:29pm, Jul 31)
Last: andrewberg

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(547 - 5:18pm, Jul 31)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(1050 - 4:47pm, Jul 31)
Last: clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right

NewsblogGeorge "The Animal" Steele Mangles A Baseball
(152 - 4:09pm, Jul 31)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogCardinals Acquire John Lackey
(87 - 4:05pm, Jul 31)
Last: esseff

NewsblogCameron: Why a July 31 trade deadline just doesn’t make sense anymore
(18 - 4:05pm, Jul 31)
Last: Barry`s_Lazy_Boy

NewsblogRed Sox trade rumors: 'Very good chance' John Lackey and Jon Lester are traded - Over the Monster
(90 - 3:36pm, Jul 31)
Last: Infinite Joost (Voxter)

Page rendered in 0.9080 seconds
52 querie(s) executed