Recently, Democrats in Virginia decided to rename their annual "Jefferson-Jackson" dinner event, ostensibly because both Democrat presidents were slaveholders. Now their Connecticut counterparts have followed suit:
Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson are history in Connecticut.
Under pressure from the NAACP, the state Democratic Party will scrub the names of the two presidents from its annual fundraising dinner because of their ties to slavery.
Party leaders voted unanimously Wednesday night in Hartford to rename the Jefferson Jackson Bailey dinner in the aftermath of last month’s fatal shooting of nine worshipers at the historic black church in Charleston, S.C.
But who cares, right? It's their dinner, they can call it whatever they want. It's classic "symbolism over substance," the epitome of puerile but harmless temper tantruming.
And that's basically true. But it's the bluster and spittle about "slavery" and "racism" that is the symbolism - unless Dylan Roof somehow managed to astrally contact the leftwingnut-imagined spirits of the Sally Hemmings-raping (he didn't, but work with me here) Jefferson and the Original American-genociding Jackson and they, along with the masterminding Confederate battle flag, overwhelmed him and forced him to go on that Charleston church shooting spree - and something far more...fundamental that is the actual substance:
As briefly discussed here in response to an essay from Jonathan Chait suggesting the Party of Jackson had become the Party of Obama....
Like there's any fundamental difference, other than the skin color of the mob inciter.
....the trouble with identifying the Democrat Party with either of these early presidents goes beyond their status as slaveholders. There’s also Jackson’s championship of virtual genocide against Native Americans, his hard-money policies, and his support for States’ rights, too, though they obviously stopped short of tolerating Nullification. I argued that Jackson’s truest successor was Andrew Johnson, who savagely fought the Confederacy but was a thorough-going racist who opposed not only reconstruction but the Civil Rights Amendments to the Constitution, which pretty much made twentieth century liberalism possible.
As for Jefferson, you could make a decent case that he is the father of “constitutional conservatism” given his strong limited government beliefs yoked to a preoccupation with eternal natural rights — though the claim that he was actually against separation of church and state is absurd. [emphasis added]
He was against it in the sense of how the atheistic Left has twisted it and falsely claimed it's in the Constitution, Mr. Kilgore. Go back and do some more homework.
But that's beside the point in this instance. "Slavery" and "racism" are just the inciting pretexts for what the Left truly hates and loathes: fiscal sanity and responsibility, and constitutional conservatism - and the Constitution itself. Don't ever let yourselves fall for the falsehood that leftwingnuts "don't understand" what the Founders' intent REALLY was every bit as much as we do. They know that the States have original authority and are supposed to control the federal government, not the reverse. They know that the only way "twentieth century liberalism" could ever have come into existence was by the functional evisceration of the Constitution and its "negative liberties," its strict limitations on federal power and recognition of the God-given preeminence of the States and the people. That's why their socialized indoctrination system hasn't taught true constitutionalism for a century, and why we're having to do it ourselves.
And that's what they most fear. Because if today's Americans learn what the Constitution REALLY says, that the Left has brainwashed and oppressed and bamboozled them for all these years in order to "fundamentally transform" their country into Islamocommunist serfdom without their even realizing what was being done to them - and that the same Democrats that were the Party of Slavery in the nineteenth century haven't changed one jot or tittle in the twenty-first - the Left would be finished, at least for a generation or two.
That's why they're frantic to erase our national history and heritage. It's not because of "offensive symbolism". It's because We, the People might find out the truth - including about them. And they will never, ever permit that.
If you ever wondered why it's called a culture "war," now you know.
No comments:
Post a Comment