This is maybe going to be a weird subject but indulge me because you have nothing better to do or you wouldn't be on the political section of a football message board on a Sunday afternoon during the offseason. Lol. I was going to put this in the Let's Talk Political Edition thread but I thought it might get lost or bogged down or whatever. Also, I was hoping it would create some interesting discussion. I'm not one who is uninterested in others' points of view on things and enjoy discussing things I may not agree with because I believe perspective is important. The following is what I wrote for the other thread but decided to start this one. Bear with me!   I wasn't even sure how to title the subject.

So, I saw a book at the library yesterday titled Dixie Rising by Peter Applebome and decided to check it out. Several of you said I was not a "proper southern woman" and I "must be kidding" when I said I didn't know the name of the tune plays as the General Lee's horn on Dukes of Hazzard. To which I replied I was raised in the south but me and my folks are from Colorado. I was not raised by southern people and was somehow not influenced by my southern surroundings. I had no idea there was a southern tradition of eating black eyed peas and collard greens for the new year until I moved to NC in 2011. 

All that being said, I decide I want to know what I "missed" being raised without southern pride and southern traditions so I checked this book out and started reading it last night. Evidently there was an uprising of conservatives and Christianity in the south that spread across the nation, particularly in the 90s. I have no recollection of this even though I was in my 20s. I guess I was too busy living life and it seems my situational awareness of national events was impaired by my youth. 

Me being the curious person I am decide to research "conservative uprising in the south" to get a timeline of sorts. The Cliff's Notes version if you will. I ended up on the Wiki page "timeline of modern conservatism" which is definitely not a Cliff's Notes version of anything because there is a boatload of information there. I usually do not use Wikipedia for anything serious but I wanted to see what it had to say. 

Wow. This country was very, very different 100 years ago, even just 40 years ago. Politically it was the opposite of today. The timeline starts in the 30s and outlines the political parties, the POTUS at the time and his platform and projects that were passed in his administration; opposition to those platforms and projects in the form of political parties, corporations, the media, etc., and the list goes on. It explains (to me) things I've heard and read about over the years but couldn't quite see the big picture. An example: how the conservatives were for desegregation and democrats were the opposed and definitely not the champion of minorities as late as the 70s from what I understand right now. The late 60s looked very similar to where we are now and many have compared 2020 to 1968 the difference being the adults who participated in the activities of that time were professors of the parents of the current progressives who are driving a lot of America's issues now. These kids now are purists. That's kind of scary. 

Anyway, I know this is random but I wanted to say how the things we think we know are not always as 100% as we think they are. We all come on here and talk about a lot of subjects and we have our ideas, beliefs and opinions that we speak as facts, but do we really know what we're talking about? The book is interesting so far and what I read on the Wiki timeline.....that blew my mind. I just had no idea. I don't remember much from my history classes in school so don't give me a hard time about why didn't I know such and such. School was a long time ago and history was not a priority.

---

History is such a great subject.  The real things that happened are more interesting than any fiction that could be written.  I got a history degree from Indiana and have immersed myself in history my whole life.

But I'm not just interested in "our" history, unless by that you mean the entire history of humanity.  If you're really interested in history, where we come from, the things we have done and the things that have happened to us, I would urge you to leave aside recent history, which is heavily tinged with all sorts of political bias, and look at the entire history of the human race.  That is so much more interesting.  The ancient Greeks, the Romans, the so-called dark ages, the Renaissance, the Civil War, the industrial revolution, WW1 and WW2.  There's so much more to learn about than this recent stuff you refer to, which is so twisted by people with political agendas.

---

History is such a great subject.  The real things that happened are more interesting than any fiction that could be written.  I got a history degree from Indiana and have immersed myself in history my whole life.

But I'm not just interested in "our" history, unless by that you mean the entire history of humanity.  If you're really interested in history, where we come from, the things we have done and the things that have happened to us, I would urge you to leave aside recent history, which is heavily tinged with all sorts of political bias, and look at the entire history of the human race.  That is so much more interesting.  The ancient Greeks, the Romans, the so-called dark ages, the Renaissance, the Civil War, the industrial revolution, WW1 and WW2.  There's so much more to learn about than this recent stuff you refer to, which is so twisted by people with political agendas.

In light of the book i'm reading and what I read today online I was thinking more along the lines of American history. I agree it's hard to find solid reads that don't have a bias. These are the times we live in. 

I've read a great deal about the WW2 and Vietnam eras. I am interested in the Greeks and Romans but our library here is woefully ill equipped and they're just now starting up interlibrary loans again after they were shut down due to Covid. Hopefully I can find some good books. Are there any you recommend?

---

I am a history buff and enjoy reading and learning as much as I can although most of my interestd tends to focus around conflicts at times of great upheaval (for example the fall of the Roman Empire or the Enlightenment in Europe or the American Revolution, etc). I agree that the general thinking of what's happened at various points is frequently at odds with the actual details in reality. But that's what makes learning the real stories so interesting!

---

I'm condescending. That means I talk down to you.

History is written by the winners........ Never forget that.........

---

Instead of a sign that says "Do Not Disturb" I need one that says "Already Disturbed Proceed With Caution."

History is such a great subject.  The real things that happened are more interesting than any fiction that could be written.  I got a history degree from Indiana and have immersed myself in history my whole life.

But I'm not just interested in "our" history, unless by that you mean the entire history of humanity.  If you're really interested in history, where we come from, the things we have done and the things that have happened to us, I would urge you to leave aside recent history, which is heavily tinged with all sorts of political bias, and look at the entire history of the human race.  That is so much more interesting.  The ancient Greeks, the Romans, the so-called dark ages, the Renaissance, the Civil War, the industrial revolution, WW1 and WW2.  There's so much more to learn about than this recent stuff you refer to, which is so twisted by people with political agendas.

In light of the book i'm reading and what I read today online I was thinking more along the lines of American history. I agree it's hard to find solid reads that don't have a bias. These are the times we live in. 

I've read a great deal about the WW2 and Vietnam eras. I am interested in the Greeks and Romans but our library here is woefully ill equipped and they're just now starting up interlibrary loans again after they were shut down due to Covid. Hopefully I can find some good books. Are there any you recommend?

Of course, what book you might enjoy depends on many factors.  A few off the top of my head that I have enjoyed are:  

Washington, by Ron Chernow
The Bruce Catton trilogy about the Army of the Potomac
The Last Days of the Incas by Kim McQuarrie
The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman
Alexander the Great by Ulrich Wilcken

---

This is maybe going to be a weird subject but indulge me because you have nothing better to do or you wouldn't be on the political section of a football message board on a Sunday afternoon during the offseason. Lol. I was going to put this in the Let's Talk Political Edition thread but I thought it might get lost or bogged down or whatever. Also, I was hoping it would create some interesting discussion. I'm not one who is uninterested in others' points of view on things and enjoy discussing things I may not agree with because I believe perspective is important. The following is what I wrote for the other thread but decided to start this one. Bear with me!   I wasn't even sure how to title the subject.

So, I saw a book at the library yesterday titled Dixie Rising by Peter Applebome and decided to check it out. Several of you said I was not a "proper southern woman" and I "must be kidding" when I said I didn't know the name of the tune plays as the General Lee's horn on Dukes of Hazzard. To which I replied I was raised in the south but me and my folks are from Colorado. I was not raised by southern people and was somehow not influenced by my southern surroundings. I had no idea there was a southern tradition of eating black eyed peas and collard greens for the new year until I moved to NC in 2011. 

All that being said, I decide I want to know what I "missed" being raised without southern pride and southern traditions so I checked this book out and started reading it last night. Evidently there was an uprising of conservatives and Christianity in the south that spread across the nation, particularly in the 90s. I have no recollection of this even though I was in my 20s. I guess I was too busy living life and it seems my situational awareness of national events was impaired by my youth. 

Me being the curious person I am decide to research "conservative uprising in the south" to get a timeline of sorts. The Cliff's Notes version if you will. I ended up on the Wiki page "timeline of modern conservatism" which is definitely not a Cliff's Notes version of anything because there is a boatload of information there. I usually do not use Wikipedia for anything serious but I wanted to see what it had to say. 

Wow. This country was very, very different 100 years ago, even just 40 years ago. Politically it was the opposite of today. The timeline starts in the 30s and outlines the political parties, the POTUS at the time and his platform and projects that were passed in his administration; opposition to those platforms and projects in the form of political parties, corporations, the media, etc., and the list goes on. It explains (to me) things I've heard and read about over the years but couldn't quite see the big picture. An example: how the conservatives were for desegregation and democrats were the opposed and definitely not the champion of minorities as late as the 70s from what I understand right now. The late 60s looked very similar to where we are now and many have compared 2020 to 1968 the difference being the adults who participated in the activities of that time were professors of the parents of the current progressives who are driving a lot of America's issues now. These kids now are purists. That's kind of scary. 

Anyway, I know this is random but I wanted to say how the things we think we know are not always as 100% as we think they are. We all come on here and talk about a lot of subjects and we have our ideas, beliefs and opinions that we speak as facts, but do we really know what we're talking about? The book is interesting so far and what I read on the Wiki timeline.....that blew my mind. I just had no idea. I don't remember much from my history classes in school so don't give me a hard time about why didn't I know such and such. School was a long time ago and history was not a priority.

This is by design. 

Republicans and Democrats didn't "switch" sides in the 80's, as they like to have you think, at least not because of racism. The growth of the Christian coalition and the rise of anti-Religion rhetoric among the left is what caused the shift in the south. I think the Christian coalition ultimately hurt Republicans, because they started trying to force their cultural values onto society at large, and that created a backlash, especially since the radical left were intentionally targeting the institutions that could best influence the youth of the nation. Progressivism got a foothold with the boomers, and they brought a lot of the ideology into our modern-day institutions. When you combine that with massive amounts of tech censorship, you have the conditions that we currently have, where it's now the purists on the left that are forcing their values onto society at large, but without the intentional counter-pushback from the right. Any attempts to change the teachings of our children are censored and demagogued as evil. And any attempt to share a message counter to the prevailing narrative is censored. We are in bad times for free speech. 

I think the complete opposite of Marty (go figure). World history has some utility, namely understanding that humans have largely been in the same boat for thousands of years. I read old works, and I'm often dumbfounded how similar human emotion is throughout the ages. However, if you want to really understand our situation, you have to learn modern history. It's how you get the best understanding of our current paradigm. I spent time learning the philosophy of the right and left, and, if for no other reason, the philosophy of the right is superior because it lacks guile. Progressive ideology is steeped in human manipulation. When you get a grasp of the philosophies, then combine that with the history of the movements, it's clear that we are heading backwards. 

The truth is that our government is neither progressive or conservative anymore. It's essentially fascist, but with global aspirations. That said, it knows the left will embrace authoritarianism, so it parrots that message and the enthusiasm of their radical base to harness more and more power. The right's only response is also an authoritarianism of sorts, which is why they are deathly afraid of Trump and his radical followers.

---

History sucks. If you are going to succeed, learn math.

---

That explains a lot.

---

I think the complete opposite of Marty (go figure). World history has some utility, namely understanding that humans have largely been in the same boat for thousands of years. I read old works, and I'm often dumbfounded how similar human emotion is throughout the ages. However, if you want to really understand our situation, you have to learn modern history. It's how you get the best understanding of our current paradigm. I spent time learning the philosophy of the right and left, and, if for no other reason, the philosophy of the right is superior because it lacks guile. Progressive ideology is steeped in human manipulation. When you get a grasp of the philosophies, then combine that with the history of the movements, it's clear that we are heading backwards. 

Regressive not progressive. Devolution, not evolution. Devo was right.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

Regardless of how you think the hot button issues of the 1960s and 1970s should have been addressed, you will find Republicans and Democrats on both sides. 
You will find Republican and Democratic supreme court appointees opposing school prayer, forcing school buses to drive across town, saying the pledge of allegiance isn't mandatory, and saying that women have a right to abort their babies. And you will find elected officials of both parties opposing those stances.
In a few very particular cases, you can say that the parties switched sides, especially in the South.  But it's more correct to say that there was a great ideological sorting that peaked in 1994 and continues to drive politics today. So that where you used to find members of both parties on both sides, now you hardly ever find a member of a party who disagrees with their party about one of these issues.


There is still some hope that the great Trump Disruption will break apart the ideological homogeneity of each party to some extent, but Trump still doesn't recognize the opportunity that his popularity affords him to break the sclerosis in the system.  He could be using his popularity to create a coherent deviation from Republican dogma, by endorsing candidates who agree with him on certain key issues, but so far his only strategy seems to be endorsing based on personal loyalty.  And the value of his endorsement is pretty low now, especially compared to how valuable it was in 2018 or 2020.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Regardless of how you think the hot button issues of the 1960s and 1970s should have been addressed, you will find Republicans and Democrats on both sides. 
You will find Republican and Democratic supreme court appointees opposing school prayer, forcing school buses to drive across town, saying the pledge of allegiance isn't mandatory, and saying that women have a right to abort their babies.  And you will find elected officials of both parties opposing those stances.
In a few very particular cases, you can say that the parties switched sides, especially in the South.  But it's more correct to say that there was a great ideological sorting that peaked in 1994 and continues to drive politics today. So that where you used to find members of both parties on both sides, now you hardly ever find a member of a party who disagrees with their party about one of these issues.


There is still some hope that the great Trump Disruption will break apart the ideological homogeneity of each party to some extent, but Trump still doesn't recognize the opportunity that his popularity affords him to break the sclerosis in the system.  He could be using his popularity to create a coherent deviation from Republican dogma, by endorsing candidates who agree with him on certain key issues, but so far his only strategy seems to be endorsing based on personal loyalty.  And the value of his endorsement is pretty low now, especially compared to how valuable it was in 2018 or 2020.

What sort of "coherent deviation from Republican dogma" would you imagine?

---

Regardless of how you think the hot button issues of the 1960s and 1970s should have been addressed, you will find Republicans and Democrats on both sides. 
You will find Republican and Democratic supreme court appointees opposing school prayer, forcing school buses to drive across town, saying the pledge of allegiance isn't mandatory, and saying that women have a right to abort their babies.  And you will find elected officials of both parties opposing those stances.
In a few very particular cases, you can say that the parties switched sides, especially in the South.  But it's more correct to say that there was a great ideological sorting that peaked in 1994 and continues to drive politics today. So that where you used to find members of both parties on both sides, now you hardly ever find a member of a party who disagrees with their party about one of these issues.


There is still some hope that the great Trump Disruption will break apart the ideological homogeneity of each party to some extent, but Trump still doesn't recognize the opportunity that his popularity affords him to break the sclerosis in the system.  He could be using his popularity to create a coherent deviation from Republican dogma, by endorsing candidates who agree with him on certain key issues, but so far his only strategy seems to be endorsing based on personal loyalty.  And the value of his endorsement is pretty low now, especially compared to how valuable it was in 2018 or 2020.

What sort of "coherent deviation from Republican dogma" would you imagine?

He already changed Republican dogma in two important ways.  
One, you will no longer find any Republican advocating for mercy for any kind of illegal immigrant, regardless of how good they've been, or how young they were when they came over.  Unfortunately, this is an area where there was some cross party agreement before Trump, and he eliminated that. Members of both parties had agreed that they would pass a comprehensive immigration reform that took care of the illegal immigrants that are already here. Trump eliminated that possibility, but he could have at least worked on a reform of how we handle our borders and handle people coming in.  But instead he had a singular focus on getting a wall built.  And he got neither.

Two, you will no longer find any Republican arguing that tariffs are always bad. You will still find some arguing that they should be lower, or more selective, but after Trump, they are no longer the party of unfettered free trade.  This is a stance where they are finding some agreement with Democrats, especially Democrats from Rush Belt states.  So that's a bit of good news in my book. I think something good will come of it.  We will get closer in trade with countries that share our values, and farther from those that don't. Hopefully this takes the form of a new trade law, I wouldn't want our current president or the next one being able to unilaterally reverse these types of things.

So after you look at these two areas where Trump definitely had an impact, I feel like there are so many other areas where he could have had an even bigger impact. He could have forced his allies to tie their efforts to restrict abortion to increased welfare benefits and job security for mothers (about 4 out of 5 women who have abortions are already raising a kid).  He could have proposed laws staking out a middle ground on the new issues of wedding cake baking and transgender rights.  Trump left the gays alone but as soon as he left the scene those culture wars started up again because ignoring the issue is not the same thing as building consensus and healing around that issue.  Name any other hot button issue and you will see that Trump was provocative, increasing the temperature, and increasing the ideological sorting of the two parties. Trump's base would have forgiven him or even agreed with him if he had taken a different stance, and the rest of the Republican party would have been along for the ride, just like they are now.  He had a massive opportunity to change almost every facet of his party, and with the exception of two issues, he wasted it.

Contrast this with Joe Biden, who is much less gifted than Trump. He became the leader of a diverse and disfunctional party, yet on so many hot button subjects he's at least proposed something. Some of his proposals pass, some don't. Some are conciliatory, some aren't, but at least he's putting them out. Trump didn't put in that kind of work. He just wanted to win the next news cycle. He didn't care about the next floor vote.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

What sort of "coherent deviation from Republican dogma" would you imagine?

He already changed Republican dogma in two important ways.  
One, you will no longer find any Republican advocating for mercy for any kind of illegal immigrant, regardless of how good they've been, or how young they were when they came over.  Unfortunately, this is an area where there was some cross party agreement before Trump, and he eliminated that. Members of both parties had agreed that they would pass a comprehensive immigration reform that took care of the illegal immigrants that are already here. Trump eliminated that possibility, but he could have at least worked on a reform of how we handle our borders and handle people coming in.  But instead he had a singular focus on getting a wall built.  And he got neither.

Two, you will no longer find any Republican arguing that tariffs are always bad. You will still find some arguing that they should be lower, or more selective, but after Trump, they are no longer the party of unfettered free trade.  This is a stance where they are finding some agreement with Democrats, especially Democrats from Rush Belt states.  So that's a bit of good news in my book. I think something good will come of it.  We will get closer in trade with countries that share our values, and farther from those that don't. Hopefully this takes the form of a new trade law, I wouldn't want our current president or the next one being able to unilaterally reverse these types of things.

So after you look at these two areas where Trump definitely had an impact, I feel like there are so many other areas where he could have had an even bigger impact. He could have forced his allies to tie their efforts to restrict abortion to increased welfare benefits and job security for mothers (about 4 out of 5 women who have abortions are already raising a kid).  He could have proposed laws staking out a middle ground on the new issues of wedding cake baking and transgender rights.  Trump left the gays alone but as soon as he left the scene those culture wars started up again because ignoring the issue is not the same thing as building consensus and healing around that issue.  Name any other hot button issue and you will see that Trump was provocative, increasing the temperature, and increasing the ideological sorting of the two parties. Trump's base would have forgiven him or even agreed with him if he had taken a different stance, and the rest of the Republican party would have been along for the ride, just like they are now.  He had a massive opportunity to change almost every facet of his party, and with the exception of two issues, he wasted it.

Contrast this with Joe Biden, who is much less gifted than Trump.  He became the leader of a diverse and disfunctional party, yet on so many hot button subjects he's at least proposed something.  Some of his proposals pass, some don't.  Some are conciliatory, some aren't, but at least he's putting them out.  Trump didn't put in that kind of work.  He just wanted to win the next news cycle.  He didn't care about the next floor vote.

I'm against tariffs and I'm for more immigration.   So I guess in those two ways I'm a traditional Republican.

---