I’ve spent a lot of time on my show railing against American “nationalism.”
Why?
Simply put, it’s one of the most pernicious myths in American history. There never has been an American “nation.”
This expertly development narrative only appeared after the War. Granted, Americans used the terms “nation” and “one people” prior to the War, but everyone knew that this was an attempt by “innovative” opportunists to make America into something it wasn’t, a consolidated government.
Lincoln just batted cleanup during the War.
Besides, “nationalism” and “patriotism” are two distinct “isms.”
The latter is vital for a free people and a vibrant political culture. It reflects a love of land, home, family, and place, not the worship of some fabricated place or an abstract government sealed by borders.
Southerners were patriotic during the War, as were some Northerners (particularly Democrats who opposed the War), but going off to fight to maintain a “government” or to force a region and a people you do not possess to bend to your will is not patriotism.
We must also dispense with the idea that Northerners were committed “nationalists” at any point before the War. Their goal was simple: sectional domination.
As Charles Sumner consistently chirped, he wanted to make America New England.
That isn’t real “nationalism” and it certainly isn’t “patriotism.”
Either way, our current political discourse has involved a lot of talk about nationalism.
This piece at Law and Liberty attempts to define the word. I don’t think it does a very good job, but at least the author shows that “nationalism” has become worthless as a useful political term.
I discuss the topic on Episode 810 of The Brion McClanahan Show.
Are We Headed for a “French Revolution” in America?
Victor Davis Hanson thinks we are headed for a “French Revolution” in America.
He is rightly worried about the culture war, but like all Lincolnites, Hanson does not understand that we’ve already had a “French Revolution.”
It took place between 1861-1865.
This is why I constantly say if you wish to “conserve” Lincolnian Republicanism, you are conserving a leftist revolution.
Leftists are starting to lean into this narrative.
They call the Constitution after the 14th Amendment the 1868 Constitution as opposed to the original Constitution.
They know they own it, and American “conservatives” who argue that Lincoln was, in fact, a conservative don’t have much evidence.
The 1860s Republicans called their opponents “conservatives.”
If we correctly view the 1860s as a revolution, then we would understand that the South was the last section in America attempting to resist the centralizing forces of the nineteenth century.
American conservatism has to be based on the Southern tradition or it never existed.
Yes, there were Northern conservatives, and some were interesting like Fisher Ames and some of the New England secessionists, but the real center of American conservatism was located south of the Mason Dixon.
Everyone knew it, even in the antebellum period.
Regardless, Hanson’s essay made for great Podcast fodder, so I cover it on Episode 809 of The Brion McClanahan Show.
Do We Need a Bigger Congress?
If anyone thinks they have adequate representation in Congress, they are either clueless or rich.
Maybe both, because the only “people” represented in Congress are corporations, special interest groups, and political action committees.
In other words, not you.
In fact, the representative ratio in Congress is somewhere around 750,000:1.
When the Constitution was written in 1787, George Washington insisted that for good “republican” government, we needed a representative ratio of 30,000:1.
This has been a problem for a long time, but because most Americans are functionally illiterate and lack basic knowledge of American government, we think “the people” are still in charge.
Progressives are starting to take notice.
This is good and bad.
You see, they think every issue needs to be settled at the “national” level and therefore want to add more members to the House of Representatives.
Democracy.
But the real solution isn’t expanding the House or reforming Congress.
It’s federalism and the original Constitution.
If Congress only handled issues of a “general” concern, like commerce and defense, we could live with a 435 member House.
They would be virtually irrelevant.
And the people of the States would have greater control over the issues that matter most. Every State, even California, has a better representative ratio than the United States Congress.
But this issue always makes for great Podcast fodder, so I discuss it on Episode 808 of The Brion McClanahan Show.
A Mainstream Conservative Praises Calhoun?
Maybe we are winning.
When a mainstream conservative can write glowingly about John C. Calhoun, perhaps the Straussian smear tactics against the man aren’t having the desired effect.
Good.
This helps American conservatism.
I know the other argument. Calhoun was a racist. How can we support that?
This is a stupid argument made by historically ignorant and stupid people.
You could probably count on two hands the number of prominent people who weren’t racists in the 19th century.
And that list doesn’t include St. Abraham or Burn ‘Em All Billy Sherman.
Calhoun was arguably the most important and original American political thinker of the nineteenth century.
His prognostications about the Union and the nature of democracy and the Constitution have been proven correct too many times to count.
Of course, SLAVERY!
When you can’t win the argument, use pejoratives.
Calhoun thought a dual presidency might be a good idea. He also favored checks on simple “numerical majorities” in order to protect minority rights.
That is why “conservatives” despise the man. They can’t see that American conservatives are, in fact, a numerical majority that needs protection. When all you care about are progressive talking points, you are going to lose the war. They think of “minorities” in 1960s terms.
We don’t live in 1960s America and the “silent majority” isn’t the majority any longer.
Calhoun, of course, did not favor this type of system at the State level, because the States were the check on unconstitutional federal power. His focus was always on the impact of one section plundering the other.
Either way, the fact that a real mainstream conservative penned an article in a mainstream conservative publication praising Calhoun is noteworthy.
Keep it going.
I discuss the article on Episode 804 of The Brion McClanahan Show.
The Truth About the Iranian Hostage Crisis
During the 1980 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Ronald Reagan continually hammered President Jimmy Carter for being too soft on communism and too weak in the Middle East.
He was on to something with the Reds, though you could make a case that Carter wasn’t really aware of how many commies were floating around D.C.
But the charge against Carter’s policies in the Middle East were based on several brewing problems in the region and amplified by the Iranian hostage crisis.
For nearly a year, Americans had been held by the Iranian government, and Carter seemed unable to bring them home.
That was supposed to be the “October Surprise.” Carter would secure the release of the hostages in time to win the 1980 election.
Except it never happened, and according to a new bombshell accusation, the Reagan campaign is the reason.
This was an open secret in D.C., but no one had any conclusive proof. Congress investigated. A major book charged the Reagan team with underhanded activities. But no one could find a smoking gun.
Lips were sealed and pinky promises were made. It probably helped that the C.I.A. was potentially involved. No one crosses them and lives to tell about it.
At least one Republican who really wanted to be in the administration made sure Reagan would not be undercut by Carter. Former Texas Governor John Connally took a little trip to the Middle East during the election to let it be known that Reagan would cut a better deal for the hostages than Carter.
It worked. Carter lost, Reagan immediately capitulated to the Iranian demands once he was sworn in and the hostages came home.
This was his first glorious victory as President, and Reagan took a victory lap.
Zero evidence exists that Reagan knew exactly what was happening, but he probably knew something, just not enough to destroy deniability. But these decisions weren’t make in a vacuum.
At the very least, his team knew what they were doing.
And Jimmy Carter paid the price. This does not mean Carter would have won had the hostages come home. He was defeated in a landslide, but the hostage crisis didn’t help his chances.
We like to think of politics as a principled game where people run on the issues and are upright members of society who want to do what is right for “the people.”
If they are in politics, think twice.
I discuss this new hostage crisis revelation on Episode 803 of The Brion McClanahan Show.
Monuments to Only One Side
The “contextualization” and removal of Confederate monuments is part of an ongoing process to change the narrative about the War for Southern Independence.
How so, you might ask, as most people do not get their history from monuments.
This is true, but monuments are tourist attractions and do have a lasting impact on the cultural legacy of a people and a place.
You see, to the Righteous Cause Mythologist, Confederate monuments represent defiance.
They must be removed to preserve their vision of what America “should be,” a nationalized, centralized, “United State” centered on a New England vision of the “American people.”
Charles Sumner was an active proponent of this message in the 1850s, and as Susan Mary Grant has pointed out in her book, North Over South, a Northern vision of what it meant to be an “American” became the most important legacy of the War.
Don’t let these modern Righteous Cause dopes fool you into believing that somehow the South really won the War.
That would have been news to anyone who lived through the War and Reconstruction, and even into the 20th century.
This is gaslighting of the highest order.
Virtually every major historian of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries pushed a narrative that the South was wrong in pursing secession and blamed slavery for the War. They respected Southern valor and heroism, but considered Lincoln and the Republicans to be on the “right side of history.”
Even Southerner Woodrow Wilson said as much.
And if the South invented racism and segregation, that would be news to blacks who were segregated in Northern rail cars in the 1840s.
Righteous Cause Mythologists need Confederate monuments removed because they are an obstacle to their power over the historical narrative, mainly that Southerners were nothing but racist traitors who deserved to be punished.
They had no honor, no valor, and are not worthy of respect.
Which is why tearing them downs leaves only one side to the story.
That is what these people want. Even some typically anti-Southern conservatives are finally starting to get it.
I discuss Monuments to Only One Side on Episode 802 of The Brion McClanahan Show.
The Worst President in American History Is?
Donald Trump was arrested today, and if I asked the subject of this email to one of my Ukrainian Flag friends on Twitter, they would surely say Donald Trump.
Or maybe Ronald Reagan. You might get a George W. Bush or a Richard Nixon.
But you would never get an Abraham Lincoln. Nope. The same people who put Ukrainian Flags in their bio also have various other stupid leftist current things in their descriptions while calling anyone who mutters a contrary statement about the War, Lincoln, or the Righteous Cause Myth a white-supremacist. It seems to be a trend, like a club for dorks.
“Hey, Rob, I see you have a Ukrainian Flag in your bio and that you are wearing a mask in your profile pic. Me too! That’s neato. And you think everyone who disagrees with us is a fascist and a racist! Alright! Let’s go to the anti-Trump rally together and chant at neo-Confederates! That’ll show ’em.”
Of course, Lincoln should be at or near the top of the list of worst presidents in American history.
So should FDR, and LBJ, and Wilson, and Truman, and George Herbert Walker William Jefferson Barrack Joseph Donald Obama Clinton Biden Trump Bush.
I could also rattle off many more. It’s why I wrote 9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America.
Every now and then someone posts a worst presidents list that gets some things right, like this one by Chuck Baldwin.
His reasoning may not be the best on a few, but by placing Lincoln at the top, he has accurately pointed out the turning point in American history.
Washington and Jackson set some bad precedents, but Lincoln uprooted America and destroyed the American presidency.
Of course some of you wanted me to talk about Baldwin’s list, so I did on Episode 801 of The Brion McClanahan Show.
It’s fitting that this episode came out on a day that the smug left things they have solved the presidency crisis in America. If only that were true.
Americans Want a National Divorce
According to a recent poll, over 60 percent of Americans want a national divorce.
This is significant. This is probably the largest percentage of Americans who are contemplating the value of union since 1860.
I know there are some righteous cause mythologists on this email list who will immediately cry, “TREASON”, but not so fast.
Many members of the founding generation openly discussed secession. Most did not think it was a good idea–the ratification of the Constitution took place because they feared the effects of disunion–but virtually no one thought it was illegal.
Unwise, but not illegal.
And certainly not treason.
Staunch New England Federalists maintained a secessionist stance until 1815, include “Mr. Union” Daniel Webster.
So did New England abolitionists well into the late antebellum period, which makes you wonder why they were such staunch Unionists during the War.
Perhaps they just hated Southerners enough to kill them. Terrorist John Brown certainly did. The War offered a license to kill.
Either way, their reversal on the issue is telling.
Southerners threatened secession several times leading up to the War and finally pulled it off in 1860-61.
Even Thad Stevens recognized this. He may not have agreed with de jure secession, but he certainly agreed it happened de facto.
The evidence is clear secession was never illegal, no matter what the modern righteous cause dopes suggest.
If it was, no one in the Founding generation would have advanced the idea–and as early as 1794.
Even Washington’s Farewell Address, so often cited as an argument for Union, is in reality a recognition of, and an argument against, secession.
He knew it could happen, legally.
How this would work in 2023 is a bigger mystery. We might have too many “secession is treason” idiots running around to have a serious conversation about the issue, or maybe that is just social media where righteous cause mythologists like to let their stupid show.
If 60 percent of Americans are ready for the conversation, these righteous cause fools aren’t winning.
The States, even if they are divided among red areas and blue areas, are still the best vehicle to pull it off. They are the building blocks of the Union and have all the power.
And by the States, I reference the people of the States, who through popular conventions can pull a State out of the Union. If they can accede to a document, they can certainly secede from it.
That is a reserved power.
We know that most of the American States would be economic powerhouses compared to many other countries around the globe.
I am not sure that all of the issues are going to be easy to solve, but at least we are having the conversation.
That is a start. This couldn’t have happened thirty years ago, and that is why so many of these lunatics on social media are frothing mad. They are losing, and they know it.
I discuss a “National Divorce” on Episode 800 of The Brion McClanahan Show.
Is This The Best Way to Sell Secession?
Marjorie Taylor Greene’s national divorce comment started a national conversation.
Sean Hannity invited her on to his program to find out what she meant by a “national divorce.”
She wavered and waffled and eventually concluded that she didn’t really mean secession.
She meant separation or the ability for red state conservatives to be free from the tyranny of blue state leftists.
This represents the modern equivocation of “conservative, inc.,” even among those who think they are edgy, like Michael Anton.
Anton recently penned a wordy, boring, and poorly written short story about the difference between “secession” and “separation” for a little known online magazine. (This is after he has said conservatives need to embrace literature. It’s almost…almost…as if he has been listening to the Abbeville Institute on this issue for the last 20 years).
The story centers on a conversation between two Californians about the meaning of secession. One, a “conservative,” moved to Texas to get away from high taxes and discovered “separation.” The other, a progressive, lives in California and enjoys his socialist paradise.
The story reads like Edward House’s Philip Dru: Administrator. If you’ve never read that book, don’t subject yourself to the agony. Some have argued that it presented the blueprint for Woodrow Wilson’s time in office. There is some truth to this, but only if you can slog through it’s banal dialogue and boring plot.
Kind of like Anton’s attempt at fiction.
Anton differentiates the terms “separation” and “secession.” You see, secession is illegal and only about slavery. Separation is legal because it could be negotiated. By the way, just two years ago, Anton chided yours truly for thinking secession was a good idea. Maybe, like Lincoln, he just evolves on issues, and forgets what he said before.
I commend Anton for giving this a shot, like I would commend an eighth grader for writing a political short story. That is the depth of his knowledge of the issue.
I understand what Anton, as a good West Coast Straussian, is trying to accomplish. Like Harry Jaffa’s laughable attempt to make equality a conservative principle to avoid charges of racism, Anton is trying to make secession palatable to Lincolnians who think secession is treason.
It won’t work. They will still call you a traitor for supporting “separation” as they will still call you a racist even if you love Lincoln and criticize the South. You might feel better hiding behind your treasury of virtue, but progressives don’t care.
I actually think the leftist foil in his story makes better points than the conservative hero. At least he understands the stupidity of Anton’s “separation vs. secession” dichotomy. Anton, of course, thinks he brilliantly refutes every point.
Not to beat a dead horse, but if you accept Lincoln as your conservative hero you aren’t going to conserve anything.
The Revolution of 1861 will continue, along with the Constitution of 1868.
Secession is the proper word, or better yet independence and self-determination, all American principles.
We can debate if secession is viable or possible in 2023, but we should never capitulate by calling it something else to please the American establishment dopes.
Of course, Anton always makes for great Podcast fodder, so I took on his story–mercifully for you–on Episode 798 of The Brion McClanahan Show.
Do the Founding Fathers Matter?
Many of us spend a lot of time looking to the founding generation for answers to contemporary political problems.
The left doesn’t care.
In fact, they don’t think the founding generation matters. Period.
You see, for years progressives have conditioned people to think of the founding generation as little more than a bunch of dead slave-owning white men who never believed in progressive ideals.
When it became clear that our side was making an impact by pointing out how the founding generation would have recoiled at the size and scope of our current government, they changed the game.
That’s right, they would say, and so what?
The United States was refounded in 1863 with Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and then codified by the “Civil War Amendments.”
Many scholars are starting to emphasize this point, including “conservatives” like Randy Barnett.
In other words, they would argue that we have been right about the founding–to the sheer horror of the Straussians and neocons–but that everything changed in the 1860s, just as the Straussians and neocons have argued.
That is why I have been hammering the point that if you put your faith in some fantasy Lincolnian “conservatism,” you get progressivism.
This is why the Michael Anton’s of the world will always lead us to more progressivism.
You can’t conserve a radical revolution, and that is exactly what the 1860s did to America.
I discuss this point on Episode 796 of The Brion McClanahan Show.
