The conservative movement today is not one that Sen. Jesse Helms would recognize.
Discuss.
« Bye Bye Biofuels? | Main | Ponderable » Ponderable04 Jul 2008 01:07 pm Comments (35)
Yes, he would. Let's discuss how disgusting a human being he was, and wonderful it is that he's dead. That's far more fun. 
You mean, a Republican party with an idiotic and counter-productive foreign policy that obsesses over a very narrow set of supposed dangers ? One willing to use race and mendacious innuendo as a wedge to win elections against a black opponent ? Mmmm. I actually think he inspired what the Party is today.
The bigotry and hatred espoused by Jesse Helms continues today. Technology changes, the nature of human nature, well, that is a different story.
Of course today's conservative movement is one that Jesse Helms would recognize. It's his. And Reagan's. And Newt's. And Tom Delay's. And Dan Quayle's. And W's. It relies on fear, diviseness, race-baiting (see Corker v. Ford in Tennessee) to win elections. Today's "conservatives" are as close minded and polarizing as Jesse Helms ever was. Let's see -- other than spending billions of dollars on their own pet projects and two wars, one of necessity, one of choice, how are todays conservatives any different from the Helms/Reagan/Delay conservatives? Answer: they're not. The GOP is the party of division and fear. Conservatism is about resisting change. Jesse Helms was an overt racist in 1984 and the Tennessee GOP is overtly racist today. Jesse Helms would be proud of today's Republicans. It's too bad for them that change and progress is happening all around them -- and no amount of fear mongoring, divisiveness, distraction or demonizing can stop it. But that's what conservatives do -- they're always on the opposite side of progress and change. They spat upon and terrorized Civil Rights marchers in the south. They resist gay rights, they demonize Muslims, they denied women the vote, they resist minimum wage increases, they resist health care for all, they are against teaching evolution in the schools. They put faith before science. They are antithetical to anything that represents open-mindedness and social progress. Jess Helms would be proud of today's conservatives. But like him and W, they're fading fast if not extinguished, in the rearview mirror of history, like every other fear and greed-based conservative resistence movement.
The conservative movement today, which traffics in self-righteousness, racial polarization, xenophobia, homophobia, anti-feminism, combative foreign policy, top-down class-warfare economics, slash-and-burn campaigning and tactical obstructionism in Congress, is what Jesse Helms helped perfect. The only thing he wouldn't recognize in contemporary conservatism is its failure to attract voters.
If the willingness to use race and mendacious innuendo as a wedge to win elections against a black opponent is a definition of the conservative movement, Helms would recognize a soulmate in Hillary Clinton.
But what should Obama do about this Marc? Surely that's the question.
There is no way Helms wouldn't recognize his own party today. He was instrumental in helping to establish Nixon's Southern Strategy, wasn't he? I would love to hear his conversation with St. Peter.
What they all said, plus what nobody ever says: the Republican Party is a peasant party. The real factional conflict is urban vs. rural and the great puzzle is why the playing field is tilted SO steeply in favor of the peasant perspective. The familiar institutional biases are not sufficient to account for the effect. Urban society has largely abandoned the political arena. The costs of this are immense.
The only thing he wouldn't recognize in contemporary conservatism is its failure to attract voters. allbetsareoff wins the thread. Now I can turn my computer off and enjoy this weekend.
Since there wasn't a comments section for the latest post, I'm putting this here. Hope you don't mind: "Why, then, is the Obama campaign so allergic to the suggestion that, yes, sometimes Obama changes his mind as conditions warrant?" Um, Marc, have you been watching political news coverage? Even on Iraq, which you say hasn't been much of a shift if any, he's been getting absolutely pounded on by the media. This is how narratives develop, and narratives can sometimes define and even determine elections (See: Kerry, John, 2004). With a media so focused on playing 'gotcha' and establishing and perpetuating narratives in lieu of having honest, smart debates about, well, anything, is it really any wonder the Obama campaign isn't gleefully accepting the label of someone who's willing to refine his positions when prudent?
With a media so focused on playing 'gotcha' and establishing and perpetuating narratives in lieu of having honest, smart debates about, well, anything, is it really any wonder the Obama campaign isn't gleefully accepting the label of someone who's willing to refine his positions when prudent? Ah, the ole "gotcha" style of MSM journalism. St. Tim of Buffalo would be proud. Sigh. It's gonna take awhile before Russertism is wrung out of the MSM.
It seems Marc is Mrs Lovejoy in the Simpsons, "Won't somebody think of the children?" but for Obama. Every note is Obama, unless an obese journalist or racist shitbag dies.
Rarely has a political party been more hurt nationally by a successful local politician than the Helms legacy has done to the national party. The GOP is about to collapse for a generation because of the kind of thinking that propelled Helms to power. He'd recognize it, and he'd have a lot of explaining to do to his fellow members on his side of the aisle.
Benjamin said, You mean like this one: http://www.mirrors.org/historical/2001-09-11-World-Trade_Center/wtc/wtc_005.jpg I would call obsession over "global warming" and "health care" far more... idiotic.
Oh, I'm sure he would recognize the racebaiting, the warmongering, and the systematic ratfucking they've done to the country and I bet that he's smiling in hell about it right now while waiting for his partners in crime (BBQ marc, the media and their man crush Old Man Cain). Me, I'm going to dance on his grave tonight.
I actually think he would have found the party quite different. This is a GOP of big budgets and federal power, concepts that are very much anathema to the Helms way of thinking. Perhaps he would have found resonance in someone like Sen. Tom Coburn, but Senator No surely would have found himself at odds with an administration that believed in massive foreign adventures and absurd levels of porkbarrel politics. Criticizing Helms is fine, but I think the movement he lead was certainly quite different than the movement we see here today. It's a rift we'd do well to recognize in understanding the trouble McCain is having putting together a coherent message and firing up a coherent base. In many respects both sides of the spectrum have some significant fissures in their parties. The Democrats are largely successful because they are currently able to definite themselves as the opposite as what the people clearly don't want, a Bush style GOP. If it were not for that prevailing political attitude the divides is party politics would be clearer and clearer. With the death of Helms we see the death of a certain brand of conservatism as well as a certain brand of politics. It's worth it not to conflate the legacy of the politics with the ethos of conservatism. To be fair neither is entirely gone, on either side of the spectrum for that matter. When Clinton and Obama pretended that they had no love for NAFTA this is just a more sophisticated version of the Helms ad where he blames job loss on minorities, but this time it's foreigners as scapegoats. The fact is that Jesse Helms had very little to recommend himself, but instead of speaking ill of the dead using him as way to begin a constructive dialogue about changes in politics and ideology seems like a far better way to spend our time. Happy Fourth everyone!
Helms's conservatism is a different breed than the one today. There is less explicit race-baiting permitted in modern politics. Sadly, Helms never apologized or backtracked from his race-baiting, simply pointing to the fact that James Meredith and others worked for him to show he wasn't as bad on civil rights as we remember. I for one am a Democrat and a liberal on race, gender, gay, and other civil rights issues because of Jesse Helms. Living and growing up in North Carolina, he appalled me. The stuff he was saying in the 1990s was unconscionable to me, and even with his passing, I think we need to remember that - unlike a George Wallace - he never stopped using race (and occasionally) other wedge issues to win. His legacy is the likes of Alex Castellanos, the wizard behind the 'black hands' ad against Harvey Gantt. Castellanos is now given a platform on CNN to say things like Hillary Clinton is a "b****" and it is ok to call women that if the shoe fits. Without being fired of course. The legacy of Helms is all over the media in the guise of 'political consultants' who can no longer race-bait, but now gay-bait and gender-bait. We have seen it with Hillary Clinton this year, we have seen it with Al Gore back in 2000, and we will likely see it against Barack Obama this year. The only plus side I can say about Helms, and what helped him keep winning, is that he was nice to people when he met them in person. I had such a bad view of him that when I met him as a high school student visiting DC, I expected the devil and not a nice grandpa. His legacy is that sometimes nice grandpas can have truly bad policy views and consequences.
Jesse Helms would have been very disappointed with where his party stands today. Adding trillions upon trillions of dollars to the national debt and about to lose to a black guy. http://www.politicalinaction.com
Considering his aid Charlie Black is now working for McCain why shouldn't he recognize it. I'm sure we will see it soon...read below: 'The connection is Charlie' From the right, Reagan biographer Craig Shirley remembers Helms as the man who made the Reagan revolution possible: "If Helms accomplished nothing else in his life, he is the man most responsible for the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Had Helms not engineered Reagan's stunning upset win in the North Carolina primary in 1976, Reagan would have dropped out and faded into oblivion. Reagan staged a furious comeback as a result, losing the nomination to Gerald Ford by only a handful of delegate votes. As a result, Reagan became the frontrunner for the 1980 nomination. None of this would have been possible without Helms. One man simply decided to changes history." And from the other side of the aisle, here's a nice bit of quickly Neixised oppo. from the proverbial sources-who-have-requested-to-remain-nameless recalling McCain chief strategist’s Charlie Black’s work for Helms, and tying him to some of the former Senator’s more racially charged, to put it nicely, campaign tactics. Here’s the full memo, which was sent our way with the remark, “The connection is Charlie.” 1984: Black Advised Helms On Senate Re-Election Bid And Bragged About Victory. The Washington Post reported, “‘It’s a tremendous victory for conservatives,’ Helms’ strategist Charles Black said. ‘It enhances his clout and influence in the Senate in the eyes of the press and his colleagues. He’ll be even more effective than he has been.’” [Washington Post, 11/8/84, emphasis added] Black And Helms Used “Racist Appeals” To Win. Politics reporter Bill Peterson wrote in the Washington Post, “Lesson: A vicious new electronic form of negative politics has evolved and matured. And it is frightening. It is a politics of distortion, half truths and character assassination. Ends are used to justify means. Truth often takes a back seat. … Helms and the National Congressional Club, a political action committee run by his allies, had used negative advertising long before the Senate race began. … Racial epithets and standing in school doors is no longer fashionable, but 1984 proved that the ugly politics of race are alive and well. Helms is their master. A case in point was the pivotal event of the campaign: Helms’ filibuster against a bill making the birthday of the late Martin Luther King Jr. a national holiday. … Helms campaign literature sounded a drumbeat of warnings about black voter-registration drives. His campaign newspaper featured photographs of Hunt [his opponent] with Jesse L. Jackson and headlines like ‘Black Voter Registration Rises Sharply’ and ‘Hunt Urges More Minority Registration.’ Helms shamelessly mined the race issue.” [Peterson, Washington Post, 11/18/84, emphasis added] 1990: Black Advised Jesse Helms. As He Ran Controversial “Hands” Ad Against Black Candidate. Newsday reported that Helms, “through a series of blistering advertisements unleashed just days before, had beckoned the long-simmering issue of race to the surface of this senatorial contest. In doing so, Helms had hurled the campaign into its most bitter and acrimonious phase to date, namely by labeling his opponent, falsely, an advocate of racial job quotas and accusing him of conducting a ‘secret campaign’ in the black community. … On the television commercial, the camera zones in on a white man’s hands, crumpling what apparently is a job rejection letter. The announcer then intones: ‘You needed that job and you were the best qualified. But they had to give it to a minority because of a racial quota. Is that really fair? Harvey Gantt says it is,’ the message continues. ‘Gantt supports Ted Kennedy’s racial quota law that makes the color of your skin more important than your qualifications.’” Black, an adviser to the campaign and a consultant for the Congressional Club – Helms’s political machine – insisted the race would come down to turnout: “‘What it’s going to come down to is turnout,’ said Charles Black, chairman of the Republican National Committee and a Helms adviser. ‘It’s, no question, the biggest challenge at this point.’” [Newsday, 11/4/90] Black Defended “Hands Ad.” Black defended Helms’s “Hands” television ad, which featured white hands crumpling a job rejection letter and linking Helms’s black opponent to racial job quotas. Asked about the ad on the MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour, Black said, “Well there is nothing racial about the campaign.” When asked if there was anything improper about the ad, Black said, “Of course not.” Another guest on the show, DNC Chairman Ron Brown, pressed Black again, saying, “You are a principal adviser of Jesse Helms. Would you advise him to run that kind of ad, Charlie? Do you approve of that ad, Charlie?” Black responded, “I advised Jesse Helms to do what he’s always done.” [MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour, 11/5/90] – Harry Siegel
I confess I went to Wiki...(blush)...so beware. But here's a little gem that jumped out at me. In his first campaign (other than Raleigh city council) in '72 (repub btw--he never ran as a dem unlike Ol' Strom) he was running against a gentleman of Greek ancestry, Nick Galifianakis. His campaign slogan? "Vote for Helms--He's One of Us!" Gosh, I think I keep hearing that same theme recently! Is there an echo in here? Prof Nick. Very sweet of you to post a picture of the World Trade Center wrapped in flames and smoke. Considering the date and all. So now that we've learned about your character--were you trying to make a point? You have to do better than that.
Via the politico....Will MSM pick this up... From the right, Reagan biographer Craig Shirley remembers Helms as the man who made the Reagan revolution possible: "If Helms accomplished nothing else in his life, he is the man most responsible for the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Had Helms not engineered Reagan's stunning upset win in the North Carolina primary in 1976, Reagan would have dropped out and faded into oblivion. Reagan staged a furious comeback as a result, losing the nomination to Gerald Ford by only a handful of delegate votes. As a result, Reagan became the frontrunner for the 1980 nomination. None of this would have been possible without Helms. One man simply decided to changes history." And from the other side of the aisle, here's a nice bit of quickly Neixised oppo. from the proverbial sources-who-have-requested-to-remain-nameless recalling McCain chief strategist’s Charlie Black’s work for Helms, and tying him to some of the former Senator’s more racially charged, to put it nicely, campaign tactics. Here’s the full memo, which was sent our way with the remark, “The connection is Charlie.” 1984: Black Advised Helms On Senate Re-Election Bid And Bragged About Victory. The Washington Post reported, “‘It’s a tremendous victory for conservatives,’ Helms’ strategist Charles Black said. ‘It enhances his clout and influence in the Senate in the eyes of the press and his colleagues. He’ll be even more effective than he has been.’” [Washington Post, 11/8/84, emphasis added] Black And Helms Used “Racist Appeals” To Win. Politics reporter Bill Peterson wrote in the Washington Post, “Lesson: A vicious new electronic form of negative politics has evolved and matured. And it is frightening. It is a politics of distortion, half truths and character assassination. Ends are used to justify means. Truth often takes a back seat. … Helms and the National Congressional Club, a political action committee run by his allies, had used negative advertising long before the Senate race began. … Racial epithets and standing in school doors is no longer fashionable, but 1984 proved that the ugly politics of race are alive and well. Helms is their master. A case in point was the pivotal event of the campaign: Helms’ filibuster against a bill making the birthday of the late Martin Luther King Jr. a national holiday. … Helms campaign literature sounded a drumbeat of warnings about black voter-registration drives. His campaign newspaper featured photographs of Hunt [his opponent] with Jesse L. Jackson and headlines like ‘Black Voter Registration Rises Sharply’ and ‘Hunt Urges More Minority Registration.’ Helms shamelessly mined the race issue.” [Peterson, Washington Post, 11/18/84, emphasis added] 1990: Black Advised Jesse Helms. As He Ran Controversial “Hands” Ad Against Black Candidate. Newsday reported that Helms, “through a series of blistering advertisements unleashed just days before, had beckoned the long-simmering issue of race to the surface of this senatorial contest. In doing so, Helms had hurled the campaign into its most bitter and acrimonious phase to date, namely by labeling his opponent, falsely, an advocate of racial job quotas and accusing him of conducting a ‘secret campaign’ in the black community. … On the television commercial, the camera zones in on a white man’s hands, crumpling what apparently is a job rejection letter. The announcer then intones: ‘You needed that job and you were the best qualified. But they had to give it to a minority because of a racial quota. Is that really fair? Harvey Gantt says it is,’ the message continues. ‘Gantt supports Ted Kennedy’s racial quota law that makes the color of your skin more important than your qualifications.’” Black, an adviser to the campaign and a consultant for the Congressional Club – Helms’s political machine – insisted the race would come down to turnout: “‘What it’s going to come down to is turnout,’ said Charles Black, chairman of the Republican National Committee and a Helms adviser. ‘It’s, no question, the biggest challenge at this point.’” [Newsday, 11/4/90] Black Defended “Hands Ad.” Black defended Helms’s “Hands” television ad, which featured white hands crumpling a job rejection letter and linking Helms’s black opponent to racial job quotas. Asked about the ad on the MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour, Black said, “Well there is nothing racial about the campaign.” When asked if there was anything improper about the ad, Black said, “Of course not.” Another guest on the show, DNC Chairman Ron Brown, pressed Black again, saying, “You are a principal adviser of Jesse Helms. Would you advise him to run that kind of ad, Charlie? Do you approve of that ad, Charlie?” Black responded, “I advised Jesse Helms to do what he’s always done.” [MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour, 11/5/90] – Harry Siegel
If the "white hands" ad was racist and unconscionable, then I'd like to ask the commenters, is there any way to oppose affirmative action and racial quotas in an ad, and not be considered racist? I have the same question about the infamous Willie Horton ad. Is it possible to question Dukakis's judgment in allowing weekend furloughs, especially the case of Horton who raped someone after he took his furlough, without being accused of racism?
I saw this:
Cute. Marc blocks particular stuff in comments. Swell!!
First, Marc, I believe you err drastically by asking if Helms would recognize the conservative movement, singular, of today. Granted, "movement conservatism", whatever, exactly, it is, exists, but speaking broadly of any real conservative movement narrows the conversation and denies the reality of the situation. The Republicans call themselves conservatives. Pat Buchanan, too. I'm close to PJB than to GWB, but I'm not a Buchananite; I'm still a conservative. Do Reihan, Ross, Poulos, Larison, et alia really all fall into one neat "conservative movement"? I don't think so. Second, I believe the respondents in the comment box all too easily and often conflate "conservatism" with "Republican Party", much to the disservice of the debate and those who involve them in it. Would Helms recognize conservatism as the conservatism he knew? Parts of it, yes; parts, no. Maybe those of us whom he wouldn't recognize are the "real" conservatives; maybe he is. It's a pretty loaded word. Would he recognize the GOP? Again, parts yes; parts, no. Many have astutely noted that he'd be appalled by the Leviathan-supporting party of bloated budgets that it's become. He's probably still be comfortable with the party's social policies though. No easy, direct answer to this question, I think.
fat Marc and his Man Crush Old Man BBQ
sitting in a tree, eating BBQ ribs
Terrible spending habits -- he'd be horrified by that. He'd probably approve of the foreign policy. He probably wouldn't care for how racially inclusive President Bush has been. And it's almost a certainty that he'd hate where Bush and McCain are on immigration.
"Why, then, is the Obama campaign so allergic to the suggestion that, yes, sometimes Obama changes his mind as conditions warrant?" Why didn't you include a "comments" section on that ponderable? Just wondering.
What is the conservative movement anyway? The GOP? He'd sure recognize them. He made Rove look like a pussycat. Other sincere conservatives? Maybe not.
Helms would have been right at home with today's GOP, as all his statements from 2000 to 2008 indicate. The upsurge in federal power after 2001 did not bother him, since it was justified in the name of war. The upswing in executive power likewise drew no protest from Helms, since said executive power was exercised by movement conservatives. Today's Republican Party is chiefly committed to laissez-faire absolutism, militarism overseas, and religious nationalism. That's precisely what Jesse Helms fought for (along with racial separatism).
Putting aside the question of Helms, why hasn't anyone in the media more closely reported on the Obama idea to give the acceptance speech outside of the scheduled location of the Dem. convention site? I realize this was announced during the July 4th weekend, but in some ways this is highly unorthodox for a convention that is so closely divided. It would make sense for an incumbent president or someone who won 80% of the delegates. But how quickly we forget that Obama limped across the finish line, gaining about 49% of delegates to 48% of delegates for Clinton. Obama's big venue is clearly an attempt to marginalize Hillary Clinton, her supporters, and especially her female supporters. Why would Obama want a huge speech among 75k people instead of in the convention hall--as the party rules typically suggest? I wish that Howard Dean and the other weak-kneed DNCers would have waited until after the convention to give control of the DNC to Obama, because per the rules he is only the presumptive nominee. Imagine what Obama's speech would look like in the convention hall. Because about 48% of those delegates are Clinton delegates, many of them will be wearing Obama AND Clinton buttons. Obama won't be getting excited support and applause, but instead typical, though unexcited support from the Clinton delegates. The TV will remind us of how split things were in the primaries, and Obama might only appear to be a captivating speaker to about 1/2 of the crowd. Now if Obama has this football stadium acceptance speech, he gets to crowd in more supporters than normally would be allowed in the convention hall given that he only won about 49% of the delegates. It's all about making it look like the DNC is less divided than it actually is. That's the story. Also, a tea leaf? Does this mean Hillary Clinton as VP isn't happening? If Obama-Clinton for the ticket, that DNC hall would be rocking with enthusiasm. But if it is Obama and someone else, who could imagine a few disgruntled Hillary delegates making frowns for the cameras if it were in the conventional hall? But how likely will the camera catch the disgruntled Hillary delegates in a sea of 75k faces? I'm interested in where the actual delegates will get to sit. Will he put the Hillary delegates in the nose bleeds? It is yet another - though unreported by the media - slap in the face to Hillary Clinton and her delegates. It is marginalizing the extent of support that Hillary Clinton actually received by moving the speech venue to a place that Obama can pack with his supporters.
Oh, drop the 'slap in the face' meme. It's ridiculous. By your accounts, HRC has now been slapped in the face more than an S/M porn star. Obviously in 1992, the convention was designed solely to make Jerry Brown and his supporters feel good. Yes its for publicity, PR, to gloss over the friction, and to put on a good show and attention grab. Have Democrats forgotten that the point is to win, not have these idiotic tantrums all the time. and also, drop the 'limped' meme too. If Obama is limping, the HRC is a cripple.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Yes he would.
Posted by neil | July 4, 2008 1:22 PM