Steve Benen had an interesting post a few days ago about Republicans’ desire to repeal the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments. He pointed out something that I had forgotten, that under Bush, Republicans also wanted to add several new amendments:
Indeed, by the mid-point of his presidency, George W. Bush was on record supporting at least six different proposed amendments to the Constitution: (1) prohibiting flag burning; (2) victims’ rights; (3) banning abortion; (4) requiring a balanced budget; (5) prohibiting same-sex marriage; and (6) allowing state-endorsed prayer in public schools. As a wise blogger noted at the time, Bush “really seems to think the Constitution is just a rough draft.”
At the same time, of course, Republicans like to paint themselves as the ultimate defenders of the constitution. I can’t help but be reminded, once again, of how much constitutional fetishists resemble hard-core Christianists. In the Catholic Church, anyone who favors reproductive rights is derided as a “cafeteria Catholic”, while those who oppose reproductive rights but favor the death penalty, wars, and the destruction of social welfare programs are the keepers of the One Truth Faith.
It’s a neat trick, now conservatives of various stripes accomplish this. I’m not sure how effective it is as a long-term strategy: the Catholic Church and Republican party are in terrible shape in this country right now and, like other aspects of wingnut mythology, it ultimately becomes too complicated for lay people to follow. Which amendments to keep? Which teachings to take seriously? There’s no apparent logic to any of it, so keeping abreast of the correct patriotic/religious positions requires more effort than most people want to expend.
But as a short-term rhetorical strategy, it’s remarkable.
MikeJ
I don’t think they’re wild about the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, or 8th either. Or the 13th.
OldK
Don’t confuse the Catholic League, or other conservative quasi-Catholics, with the Catholic Church. The Church itself is much more consistently (lower-case) pro-life.
And despite what the Catholic League would have you believe, Catholicism is an odd church to pick when talking about “Christianism”. That’s much more strongly associated with Protestant evangelicals.
atlliberal
Notice how many times Republicans want the constitution to restrict rights rather than guarantee them?
Their definition of freedom must be different than mine.
Redshirt
The basic strategy at this point seems to be for the Repugs: Our members are so stupid we could literally say anything and they’ll support it. We could contradict ourselves the next day, and they’d support the contradiction.
Seems to fit all the evidence.
Chat Noir
@MikeJ: And the 19th. They don’t like womenfolk voting.
cleek
the logic is nose-pickingly simple: librulz R bad, mmk.
everything else can be built from that.
did a liberal do something? given that librulz R bad, that something must be bad; work to undo it.
did a liberal propose something? given that librulz R bad, that something must be bad; work to prevent it.
does a liberal like something? given that librulz R bad, that something must be bad; work to keep it away from your kids.
does a liberal dislike something? given that librulz R bad, that something must be fucking awesome; work to encourage more of it.
they don’t call it “reactionary” for nothing…
Chris G.
I half-expect that in the near future the teabaggers will start calling for a return to the Articles of Confederation.
kommrade reproductive vigor
Defend = Keep the parts you like and ignore/discard the rest. That’s the only way to protect it from the DFHs, kw33rs, brown people and women.
See also their “defense” of the Bible, the most extreme case (that I know of) being the effort of P. Schafly’s mentally ill son to re-write it to take out the hippy bits.
And of course these staunch protectors of reaLAMErica’s morals sure have a hard time keeping it in their pants.
In other words, this is just example #7,256,889 of GOPocrisy.
Davis X. Machina
The fundamental challenge of conservatism without a real ancien regime was put this way by Adam Gopnik, in his Dreyfus article last year: in the New Yorker:
Paul L.
So the brilliant argument is that Conservatives do not respect the US Constitution because they support using the Article V amendment process that is written in the US Constitution.
El Cid
The Bush Jr. administration was the most vehemently proud of all I’ve known since the Reagan administration that Constitutional restraints — as they already exist — don’t restrain them.
“Fourth Branch” Cheney? Are you shitting me? Even if they gave that attempt up fairly quickly, they god-damned trotted it out thinking it might work.
And they were backed up both by a Supreme Court which gifted the little fucker with the Presidency, and a 9/11-scared shitless press which didn’t start pushing back on any of this until the whole Katrina / Iraq falling apart* era in 2005.
(* Please don’t let it be in any way suggested that I doubt the holy write of the SURGE having repaired Iraq, hallowed be its name, all press be upon it.)
The Main Gauche of Mild Reason
@Chris G.:
Don’t laugh. I think Ron Paul has made positive comments to that effect in the past.
MikeJ
@Chat Noir: The 23rd (electoral votes for DC), 24th (no poll taxes), and 26th (voting age to 18) also too.
They really wanted to repeal the 22nd when they had an Alzheimer’s victim in office.
Chris G.
@The Main Gauche of Mild Reason: Oh, I’m not laughing. The AofC would pretty much be a teabagger’s dream — no power to tax, no real power over the states, nothing happens without a supermajority or unanimous vote, Wyoming has as much representation as California, no courts, etc. The only downside was the absence of an executive for teabaggers to worship or demonize, depending on that executive’s race and party.
kommrade reproductive vigor
Also from Benen (not even going to futz w/blockquote):
But the real fun comes when we see the other constitutional changes the Republican Party of Iowa wants to see. Surprisingly, the state GOP doesn’t mention repealing the 16th and 17th. It does, however, have its eyes on two others.
“We call for the reintroduction and ratification of the original 13th Amendment, not the 13th Amendment in today’s Constitution.
“We call for the legal ratification of the 14th Amendment and the clarification of Section I as based upon the author’s intent (Senator Jacob Howard).”
The 13th amendment bans slavery, but the amendment that was going to be the 13th would have stripped Americans of their citizenship if they accepted “any title of nobility or honor” from a foreign country. (Sir Rudy Giuliani, pack your bags.) Why would right-wing Iowans still care about this? I have no idea.
The 14th Amendment, another Civil War amendment, does quite a few things, and, the state GOP’s platform notwithstanding, has already been legally ratified. Republican Iowans apparently want a “repeal and replace” here, because 19th-century Michigan Sen. Jacob Howard (R) wanted language that excluded “persons born in the United States who are foreigners” from becoming citizens.
El Cid
@Paul L.: No, that isn’t the argument, shit-head.
Ash Can
@OldK: As a Catholic myself, I agree with your basic point, but in this case — comparing pick-and-choose constitutional “defenders” with pick-and-choose Catholics — the analogy is apt. And the terminology (and lack thereof, as DougJ points out) comparison is apt too — constitutionalist/dogmatist, sure, except for…
Zifnab25
@El Cid: Paul is being a disingenuous hack, as always. But he does have a point. There is nothing Unconstitutional about an Amendment. That said amendments are hard to pass. Republicans usually prefer stacking the courts with hacks and ordering USAs and DoJs to quash dissent.
That’s the real problem with Rethugs. The talk a big game, but amendments never actually make it to the ballot.
BC
@Paul L.: So, are you agreeing it was wrong to criticize Justice Thurmond Marshall for saying the original Constitution was “flawed” and that nation was right to pass Amendments 13, 14, and 15 or are you agreeing with your fellow travelers that the original Constitution was an “inspired” document sent straight from the mind of God to the framers? So hard to figure out what you’re saying so much of the time on these threads, as you are such a WATB.
sven
DougJ,
I’m not so sure that the Republican Party is in ‘terrible shape’.
The Republican party:
Has no governing philosophy.
Makes little attempt to be logically coherent.
Has a party leadership which are hopelessly corrupt (morally if not legally).
Represents a rank-and-file clearly which clearly values identity warfare over any sort of considered approach to public policy.
but…
Being guided only by politics is much easier than trying to govern.
The media (and frankly the electorate) either doesn’t care or doesn’t recognize incoherence anymore. The crazies also seem to be the ones with the microphone.
Republicans have been corrupted by powerful interests which also bring massive financial and political power to the table.
The focus on identity over policy means that the base can be endlessly
betrayedre-educatedshown the political realities without paying a political price…The political process is in ‘terrible shape’ but the Republican Party (as a political party) has a lot going for it.
Punchy
Why do you say this? They’re poised to take over the House, and perhaps Senate. I guess by “now” you mean this very moment, but in 4 months they’ll be controlling 1.5 (2?) branches of the Government.
Seems like they’re about to be in pretty damn good shape.
Mark S.
@kommrade reproductive vigor:
Does this have to do with Obama accepting the Nobel Prize? Why else would they give a shit?
Waynski
@BC: I believe you meant Thurgood.
Downpuppy
Best laugh I’ve had today came from Ross Douthat’s drivel in the NYT:
But conservatives need to recognize that the most pernicious sort of redistribution isn’t from the successful to the poor. It’s from savers to speculators, from outsiders to insiders, and from the industrious middle class to the reckless, unproductive rich.
Yeah. That’ll happen.
FormerSwingVoter
Ugh. Why the hell do people keep saying things like this? Have you talked to anyone in the entire world ever?
PROTIP: If you think people will reject something because it is too stupid, you are wrong.
Tom Hilton
The only legitimate Amendments are 2 and 10. None of the others are really party of the Constitution.
[/wingnut]
Woodrowfan
There was another suggested 13th, that would have protected slavery, that failed in Congress in late 1860…
sven
@FormerSwingVoter: Agreed. Conservatives believe this stuff, liberals don’t believe this stuff, most other people just don’t even know it exists. The whole point of dog-whistle politics is that most people don’t hear it or haven’t yet formed an opinion on the issue.
john b
@Chris G.:
articles of confederation sounds strikingly like the EU to me. . . i guess had to all come full-circle at some point.
artem1s
I’ve always found it interesting that the GOP wastes boatloads of time debating wingnut amendments like banning flag burning but I have yet to hear a serious member of the party propose banning income tax (which they claim to abhor as much as abortion or affirmative action). the extraordinarily well off members channel all kinds of dough into 527s and candidates pockets to support various issues. their lobbyist will hand over fat envelopes of cash to elected leaders to move a road or obtain a defense contract but I have yet to see any of them commit any real funds toward an anti-income tax amendment. I find it hard to believe that they can’t find lawyers who wouldn’t be glad to take $500/hr to work on such a boondoggle. so wassup with that?
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Punchy:
If they manage to kill off all their hosts, like an out of control Cholera outbreak, then the GOP will be in trouble. Until then, they’ll be fine as long as most people in this country insist on drinking from the same
waterinfotainment sources as those which they defecate into, and nobody is able to find and remove the pump handle from the media well.El Cid
@Zifnab25: This isn’t about the legality of changing the Constitution — it’s about, once again, the stunning hypocrisy of the modern conservative movement in claiming to be the party of truest adherence to the Constitution while publicly vowing to ignore it and simultaneously use Supreme Court right wing robots and promises of Amendment magic ponies in order to undermine as many of its core elements they can.
I.e., the only Amendments in the Bill of Rights which should be respected are the 2nd and the 10th. All else is liberal shit to be ignored.
Punchy
(cough)..spellcheck!….(cough)….
El Cid
@Tom Hilton: Oops, sorry I missed that, but I too have harped on that for a long time.
Jonny Scrum-half
The proposed amendments may be stupid, but that doesn’t make the act of proposing to amend the Constitution somehow “anti-Constitutional.” We’ve had quite a few amendments already, and (as pointed out above) the text of the Constitution specifically provides a process for amendments.
El Cruzado
@artem1s: Maybe the rich donors realize at some level that destroying the country is bad for the bottom line.
Better to just nudge it towards some sort of neofeudalism (where they are at the top, obviously).
Davis X. Machina
That’s the one Lincoln signed — though it’s not strictly necessary — that made it impossible for Congress to interfere with the domestic institutions of any state (like, say, gay marriage bans)….
I’m not convinced it’s the titles-of-nobility Original 13th the teabaggers are necessarily hot for.
El Cid
@Jonny Scrum-half: I don’t think anyone here is suggesting that using the legal process of amending the Constitution is illegal or in the literal sense “un-Constitutional”. I would, however, suggest that the modern conservative movement is happy both to seek to ignore and undermine the existing Constitution, claim to be its most fervent adherents, while seeking to use Constitutional amendments to change everything they don’t like about it — i.e., yet further burn up rights to free speech by criminalizing the burning of a colored cloth.
Davis X. Machina
@El Cruzado: The modern GOP is engaged in the ancient maximin problem shared by all conservative regimes — how much can you extract from the peasants and still not have to sleep with one eye open?
Brian J
Damn, that’s a good title. It should become one of the tags around here.
Seriously now, Benen has got a great point. It’s beyond ridiculous and incoherent for them to act like it’s a sacred document that can’t be touched or criticized, but then abandon those beliefs when one or two become a hassle or one that they’d like to see isn’t there. I don’t think they will stop having success with this because what they are proposing sounds reasonable enough to a lot of people. I’d love to be wrong, though.
me
Some can’t wait to repel the 14th so they can undo Epperson v. Arkansas because we don’t have enough ignorant school children in this country.
El Cid
@me: But who will speak at all the homeschooling graduation commencement addresses?
cervantes
the Catholic Church and Republican party are in terrible shape in this country right now
So why are the Republicans considered a lock to make major gains in November and likely take control of the House? They certainly ought to be in terrible shape, they are controlled by lunatics, and much of their rhetoric seems almost calculated to drive away the very voters whose discontent with the status quo is what’s supposed to drive their electoral gains . . .
and yet, and yet, they are winning.
El Cid
Hey! Somebody remembered he represents Massachusetts!
‘Cosmo McTruckNutz’ (H/T to someone here) has said he will vote for financial reform:
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@atlliberal: Their definition of free is “I’m not free if I cannot kill someone and get away with it” and only they want to be free. Everyone else is out to get them and must be restricted.
LikeableInMyOwnWay
I dunno, it’s starting to sound a lot like blogging.
OldK
@Ash Can: I absolutely agree that the comparison is completely appropriate for a number of people who represent themselves as being the exemplars of Catholicism, but I object to DougJ buying into their frame, when it doesn’t match the Catholicism I know.
sparky
i dunno about this. if i understand it correctly (ha!), it presupposes that a voter must/should/ought keep these running battles straight, and that a logical system is easier to keep in mind. in a country where approximately half the people who can vote don’t even bother to do so, and where the vast majority of people don’t seem to have any problem “holding” conflicting beliefs, i don’t think this particular observation holds much water, so to speak. in other words, it works just fine as a strategy and a tactic.
@El Cid: though i often agree with you, i think i must lodge a similar objection here. the goal for these folks is not the Constitution (nor, really, should it be for anyone else either–it’s not an end state in itself) but rather, the end state is Utopia. to that extent hypocrisy (if that’s what it is, and i am not conceding but only assuming it is) is nothing more than a tool or a means to an end, and as such, complaining about it seems, well, rather beside the point.
WTF am i saying? just this: coherence may be considered a value of sorts in the physical sciences; it is unclear to me why it should be valued in politics, except insofar as discussing theories of politics. it’s a makeweight, like “federalism”.
edit: @LikeableInMyOwnWay: er, yes.
sherifffruitfly
(shrug) It only works because the vast majority of Americans are stupid, mean, and bigoted.
Mike in NC
Didn’t he in fact say it was just ‘a goddamn piece of paper’?
Pangloss
@cleek: Yes. This is how George W. Bush became a military hero and John Kerry became a coward in 2004. This is how driving a Hummer, forwarding racist e-mails, supporting torture, and burning Dixie Chicks CDs became an act of “patriotism.”
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@El Cid:
The key to understanding right wing Constitutionalism is that for them the U.S. Constitution and other foundational documents (e.g. the Decl. of Indep.) are sacralized fetishes, not legal documents. They are to be kept in a sacred crypt except on high holy days when they are taken out and paraded around the community, thereby keeping away evil spirits, like the requilary of a particularly powerful and well known Saint back in medieval Europe. Only in this case the parade is rhetorical rather than physical. And in both cases, the condition of the sacred relic and the care, or lack thereof, devoted to its upkeep (and indeed whether it might in fact have been fraudulent in origin) is beside the point. It brings the rains, makes the crops grow, and keeps away tigers, doesn’t it? So shut up, that’s why. Heretic.
Peter J
If we’re talking about republicans wanting to change the Constitution, don’t forget the time when republicans wanted to change the Constitution to allow another movie star to become president.
Dungheap
The argument for those amendments is something along the lines of “if’n the activist socialist heathen judges interpreted the Constitution correctly in the first place we wouldn’t need these amendments, but the heathens have so sullied the Constitution that the only way to get back to the pure Constitution that the founders intended is to amend it.”
I don’t buy it, but that’s what the wingnuts I know tell me. It’s kind of like the “Patriot” types that want to overthrow the government to put in place the government that “the founders intended” claiming to be the real defenders of the Constitution.
DougJ
@FormerSwingVoter:
Yes, I don’t know anyone who understands wingnut mythology that well. For example, I once tried to explain Dijongate to my uncle (a real Chris Matthews fantasy come to life, blue collar, should vote Democrat but often votes Republican, listens to a fair amount of right-wing radio) and he wasn’t able to grasp the cultural significance of spicy mustard.
I don’t doubt that there are people out there who, if you yell “Bear DNA!”, they know to yell “Field mice” back. But those people are a small proportion of the electorate.
DougJ
@LikeableInMyOwnWay:
I agree. And if John and I put out a video calling ourselves “grizzly daddies” I hope that the media doesn’t herald us as political geniuses.
El Cid
@sparky:
I’m not quite disagreeing with that, I’m just okay for the moment focusing on the tool. Occasionally I do talk to people about where I think the movement really would like to go, but I usually get blank stares when I get at this conceptual level.
I don’t think your average anti-democratic right winger has a clear idea where they want to end up, either, and it’s a hodge-podge of reactionary and retro-history fantasies, from medieval feudalism and Christian rule to an idealized view of each family being 18th century American colonial yeomen farmers and militia members, to a society in which someone has finally put in their place all the people who are proud of reading and thinking so much who just might, just might be looking down their nose at these good people, to an idyll of early 20th century Southern plantation and small town culture where either the n****** know their place or maybe have all gone back to Africa… You name it.
KG
@Chris G.: I, for one, wouldn’t mind seeing a new constitutional convention called. I really want to see one here in California, but it’d be fun to see what would come out of a federal convention.
and could you imagine the cable news whorish coverage? especially if the new convention did like the last one and announce that their records would not be released until everyone involved was dead?
While in law school I wrote what should have been a law review article on the European and African Union Constitutions (two weeks after finishing it and turning it in for a class, Ireland rejected the treaty and the Euro one died, so my article became moot). What jumped out at me was that the US Constitution, as written in 1789 ran approximately 228 words. The proposed European Constitution was something like 256 pages. A lot of that has to do with the enumeration of rights that took place in the last couple hundred years.
El Cid
@Pangloss: Hey, burning CD’s could emit foul smells and toxic gases. These people were risking their lives to protect the nation from the Dixie Chicks.
vtr
We all saw the headline in the latest Onion, right?
“Area man defends what he imagines the constitution to be.”
Dungheap
Moderation hold? Let’s try that again sans some modifiers
The argument for those amendments is something along the lines of “if’n the activist heathen judges interpreted the Constitution correctly in the first place we wouldn’t need these amendments, but the heathens have so sullied the Constitution that the only way to get back to the pure Constitution that the founders intended is to amend it.”
I don’t buy it, but that’s what the wingnuts I know tell me.
It’s kind of like the “Patriot” types that want to overthrow the government to put in place the government that “the founders intended” claiming to be the real defenders of the Constitution.
LikeableInMyOwnWay
@DougJ:
Just a matter of time before we see you regularly on Morning Joe!
MeDrewNotYou
@DougJ:
Grizzly Daddies would make a great name for a gay bar catering to bears. Thanks for the mental image of John walking around in leather chaps.
El Cid
@Dungheap: Why don’t all the librul judges interpret the Constushun like the Founding Fathers meant to let the Southern Baptist church and Ronald Reagan do?
DougJ
@MeDrewNotYou:
Reminds me of my all time favorite Bill Simmons mail bag:
Tom Hilton
@cervantes: And yet, winning in November could be the worst thing to happen to them. Because they would figure they won because of, not in spite of, their purge of the moderates. (Look how badly we did when we nominated that RINO John McCain! Look how well we did as the party of Michelle Bachmann and Paul Broun!)
In the long term, of course, that’s a one-way ticket to permanent minority status. (The problem is the damage they can do in the mean time.) That’s why they can be positioned for big pickups this November and still be described, accurately, as “in terrible shape”.
Shalimar
@sven:
One advantage they have that you didn’t mention is that part of the Democratic party (maybe even a majority, though it’s hard to tell with strategic voting) has been corrupted by exactly the same interests. Republicans are worse, and crazier, but there really isn’t an alternative strong enough to take us in a meaningfully different direction.
“At least these guys only screw us part of the time” isn’t an especially effective campaign slogan.
Tom Hilton
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
Similarly, the Bible is not a religious text to be read and interpreted and understood, but a fetish to be worshipped. (My late mom, a (liberal Protestant) minister, used to call this bibliolatry.) I suspect there’s a nearly one-to-one overlap between Constitutional fundamentalism and religious fundamentalism, and I’m pretty sure the approach to the Constitution is an outgrowth of their biblical literalism.
cervantes
I’m glad you’re optimistic Tom Hilton but we still don’t have an explanation of why insanity is popular, even in the short term.
Tom Hilton
@cervantes: This year, insanity is popular because the economy is in shitty shape. Any opposition party would win seats on any platform under these circumstances.
frankdawg
Keeping track of it is really quite simple: what would benefit me right now?
Bush v. Gore is the ultimate F-you to the constitution, not only did the court ignore the document they included languange saying their ruling could not be used as precedent so that it might not be used against them.
Everything on the wish list is designed for short-term gain for one R constituency or another. The ultimate outcome of any of them would be really bad and taken as a whole would create a country only Boy Blunder could love.
Its the same with states rights – on abortion, where they believe they could outlaw it most places & make it difficult everywhere, they want states to decide. On marijuana, where many states would legalize it if they could, they are dead set against letting states decide. Immature assholes behave this way.
Brachiator
@El Cid:
Isn’t this just some kid standing up in his kitchen and thanking his parents?
@Dungheap:
They’re just reading that bit about “in Order to form a more perfect Union” and trying to make things even more perfecter.
And I also suppose that for these people, “strict construction” isn’t strict enough. As others have noted, the impulse here seems to be “correcting” the Constitution, and thus the commonwealth itself, by amending out all the diversity and expansion of rights, even voting rights (as in the call by some for a return to appointed rather than elected senators), and for making patriotism (no flag burning) and narrow religion (explicitly pro-Christian, explicitly anti-gay) mandatory.
The whole thing would be pathetic if it wasn’t also dangerous as the tea baggers and their enablers stoke fear of change into a nasty sense of grievance.
kommrade reproductive vigor
@Mark S.: I wondered that as well but then I thought, ‘Nah, because the NPC is an organization that happens to be based in a foreign country.’ Then I thought, ‘Well we aren’t talking about the brightest bulbs in the chandelier.’
Then I thought, if an evil person wanted to start an uproar, he’d suggest that they’re really talking about titles of honor from Vactican City, and this is all a bid to revoke the citizenship of every member of the Catholic clergy in the U.S.
JadedOptimist
That’s not a bug, it’s a feature! Yes, keeping the logical fallacies sorted out so there’s still some shred of coherence in either belief system is beyond the abilities of most people. Most who try quickly become confused, but that cannot be a problem with mythology, because (for all they know) it has been around, true and unchanging for, well, ever.
So obviously these truths are NOT self-evident. What the masses need is guidance by men (and some women who acknowledge they are propagating the wisdom of these men to the world) who have an understanding, nay, a FEELING for how the disparate and contradictory parts are actually part of a beautiful and perfect Whole.
You can’t grasp how the jumble of ideas and beliefs hold together? Of course you can’t. It’s beyond your capacities. But you’ll be fine if you just do what your Betters tell you to, even if it may not be immediately apparent how their advice is in your best interests.
Now, just lay down for a moment….
Greg
As a kid I was basically told that all that mattered from the Constitution was Freedom Of Religion and the Right To Bear Arms. No matter what complaint you might have about America, it didn’t matter because you could go to the church of your choice (Methodist, Baptist or Presbyterian! Take your pick!) and own a rifle. It’s the Constitutional version of “Look! Something shiny!”
Mark S.
@kommrade reproductive vigor:
Hmmmm, maybe these wingnuts are on to something!
Mnemosyne
@frankdawg:
I can’t remember if you were around for Confederate History Month, but that’s pretty much the organizing principle of the Confederate (currently aka Republican) Party going back to the antebellum days. Slaveholding states wanted the right to own slaves but also wanted the federal government to order non-slaveholding states to ignore their own anti-slavery laws and send runaway slaves back to captivity. States’ rights for me but not for thee. Not much has changed in the intervening 150+ years.
RD
A trick that seems to almost be exclusive to authoritarians and, their close brethren, proto-fascists. War is peace and all that happy jazz.
Oh and white christian supremacy! w00t!!1!!
But don’t let anyone call it that. I’ll bet it’s politically incorrect or something.
A long term strategy has, imo, little to do with the GOP agenda.