March 6, 2004
-
I'm going to tell you the darndest story. It ties in with today's musique du jour: 'Armageddon Days Are Here (Again),' by The The.
'Armageddon..' was released on The The's 1989 album 'Mind Bomb.' The importance of this album in my personal story, particularly around the first half of the '90s, is hard to overestimate. It's been out of my life for a while, because I lent the CD to someone about five years ago and they never returned it, before evaporating from my life. So there's been a dry spell where this music wasn't easily accessible. Searching for something else on gnutella brought it back into my field of view, and now within earshot.
Be that as it may, here's the story.
It's 1992, and I'm driving around in the middle of the night. I have 'Mind Bomb' in the tape deck. It's summer in Houston. I have the sunroof open and the windows down. I'm cruising around, singing along with Matt Johnson, such that people in nearby cars are watching me at stoplights. I'm gesticulating wildly; I might as well be the Solid Gold dancers in my little red sports car. I'm beyond caring what they think. I'm filled with the mixture of groove-out bliss and sociopolitical righteousness contained in this album. It flows through me as I flow through the streets of the south side of Houston. I'm crankin' through the Montrose, down through the museum district, past the medical center.
Remember. It's 1992. In 1992, the Republican National Convention was held in Houston, at the Astrodome. At that convention, Pat Buchanan delivered a speech where he likened the presidential election to an all-out culture war between Us and Them. At the time I was driving around, this convention hadn't happened yet, but it had been in the news that the security measures at the 'dome had been stepped up. A literal ring of police cars had been parked around it. There were two sets of barbed-wire fences across the parking lot, with a 30-foot 'kill zone' in between. No shit: Someone in authority was quoted as calling it a 'kill zone' in the paper. It's nice to know that Republicans feel safe in Houston.
So I'm heading down that major thoroughfare, and 'Armageddon Days Are Here (Again)' is playing, booming out of my car. I'm oblivious to where I'm headed; I'm just driving south until I get to interstate 610 so I can head north again. But I'm headed for the Astrodome at 3 AM.
So I'm sitting at a stoplight. I realize I'm at the 'dome. Hey! Check it out! Decked out with red and blue banners... And I'm singing along with the song, belting it out, practically screaming: "If the real Jesus Christ were to stand up today/He'd be gunned down cold by the CIA..." And I look to my right, and there's a very large, very black Suburban with very tinted windows that has pulled up next to me. The driver's window is down, however, and there's a very stern, very somber, very pale face staring at me, unblinking. He leans forward a tiny bit out of the gloom of his truck, just enough so that the streetlight catches his face. He does this just for me. Just so I can see how badass the alpha-male expression on his face really is.
I wish I could say I stared back. I wish I could say I offered him a sip of my Coke. I wish I could say I asked him if he had a good recipe for C4. But I shrank. He sped off through the red light. No singing allowed.
Comments (21)
Yea, land of the free, my ass.
A real life encounter with American freedom. It'll be fascinating to see them build their "kill zone" around Madison Square Garden this summer. Somehow I think they may regret the day they decided to go to New York.
Agent Smith strikes again.
"Infected" made me an anarchist, I'm pretty damn sure of it.
Since 1992 would have been the year when a sitting Republican President was going to be at the Convention I'm sure the security was beefed up. I'm sure the same or similar was seen at the 1996 Democratic National Convention (but with an effort not to provoke images of the 1968 convention) where a sitting Democratic President was in attendence and the 2000 Convention with a sitting VP.
As a matter of fact, it looks like the Democratic Convention in Boston this year is going to be heavy. "Trucks and other large vehicles will be diverted before they reach the FleetCenter, where the convention will be held from July 26-29."
"For the first time in history, a national party convention will get a "national special security event" designation, which will allow the U.S. Secret Service to preside over security at the event...."
"There will also be restrictions on air space, with a military presence."
The Secret Service announcing that "There will be an aggressive security plan in place, and to the extent that it will affect people's normal everyday lives, we will alert them to that."
"The Secret Service is also looking at traffic patterns and may eventually close down roads near the Center."
"North Station may be closed to all commuter rail and subway traffic during the Democratic National Convention in Boston for security reasons, MBTA officials said."
"If North Station is shut down, commuters would change trains north of the city and connect with subways or buses."
"Mitchell said that protesters at the 2004 event will be able to speak their mind peacefully at designated "public viewing areas."
So in other words, security at national Party Conventions in general are high, be they Republican or Democrat. It's not just the Evil Malevolent Republicans you're obsessed with Homer.
Oh yeah, forgot to provide the cites for the quotes.
Here, here and here.
Oh yeah, and these guys at Why War. I still don't agree with them at all, but at least they don't play favorites.
Democrats don't declare culture wars while inside sports stadiums transformed into fortresses. And you have to admit that the security situation was a little different in 1992.
We'd recently finished the first war in Iraq. There were terrorism threats as a follow up from that war, which eventually came true a few months later in Feb 1993 with the WTC bombing.
We weren't at war in 1996 or 2000. I think you will find them to be high as well, though not as high as both Parties for this year.
Even a good many Republican didn't support the Pat Buchanan rhetoric in his speech and blame him and his faction for costing the Party the 1992 election. Pat Buchanan who seen as an extremist by most Republicans. Pat Buchanan who believed and openly criticized alot of the Party for not being being Conservative enough. Pat Buchanan who is NO LONGER A MEMBER member of the Republican Party.
I recall thunderous applause ringing out of my TV as I watched that speech. Certainly the delegates at the convention were pleased as punch at Buchanan.
Many others in the Republican party echoed this 'culture war' rhetoric. It was a big part of the Republican's failure to win the election.
And you'll probably disagree, but the reason Pat Buchanan is no longer a Republican is so that he could monkeywrench the Reform/Natural Law party before it spoiled the last election.
Right, the Party as a whole were so pleased as punch over Pat and his rhetoric that he lost the Party nomination by a wide margin in 1992 and subsequent attempts. If the majority of Republicans supported Pat and his views he would have kicked Bush 41's ass...or later Dole's ass...and got the Party nomination. We don't, so he didn't, simple as that.
And yes, I do disagree with your conspiracy theory about Pat Buchanan. He's out on the fringe. He's a frequent critic of the current administration and those he sees as not being "true Conservatives" in his narrow view. If he garners support in the Reform/Natural Law Party, then that's something the Reform/Natural Law Party should handle IMHO.
Personally, I think as a Republican we are better to be rid of him.
In '92, Buchanan's nomination was averted, but he was still a Republican, and he was cheered by the convention. You can argue that this was because he had given it his all and sane Republicans admired his effort, and so forth, but the fact remains that he was by no means shunned from the party. The Republicans needed someone to voice the hard-line on the culture war, which Buchanan was exactly shameless enough to do.
He quit the party during the 2000 election and monkeywrenched the Reform party's convention. Remember that? He led half the delegation out to another building. You can argue that this was in reaction to Bush's more moderate campaign, but then I can argue that he should have run against Bush if that was his gripe.
The Republican party is way, way better off without Buchanan. Now it's time to get rid of the rest of the ultra-right, don't you think? Are you going to start the campaign to remove them from the party?
Interesting choice of words, "averted". He was defeated. The overwhelming majority of the Party wasn't buying what he was selling either of the times he tried to get the nomination. And when he saw he had no chance in getting the Republican nomination, yet again, quit the Party and declared himself a Reform Party Candidate for President and tried to takeover the Reform Party for his own aspirations. He was able to make alot of headway with Reform at first with those people who sprout wood blindly over *anyone* who would blast the Reps and Dems and the two Party system...even if he was a Pat Buchanan. This is what you get when you follow the "Anyone but Candidate X" dribble. There's always someone worse than your "Candidate X" out there, just waiting to capitalize on some people's blind hate of the other Party or the other candidate.
In anycase he still held his Far Right ideas, and eventually even the Reform Party was split, and that's when he did his little tantrum walkout. When the Repubs wouldn't support him, he took his ball to the Reform Party. When Reform wasn't willing to play his way, he took his ball and went home.
And actually, Pat Buchanan DID run against Bush in 2000 if you will think back. He ran aganist Bush and Gore (and seemed to be running against Clinton) in 2000. Take a look at his 2000 website. He clamed that Bush would carry on Cliton's Legacy. He claimed that Bush was leading the GOP into cultural surrender. He did see the Bush "Compassionate Conservatism" and more moderate campaign as wimpy betrayal of his hardcore "true Conservative" values. And not just Bush, but the Republican leadership. During the campaign he attacked Bush the the Republican Leadership thusly:
While Gov. Bush is a pleasant man and has abilities as a candidate, I think he is basically the embodiment of the political establishment of the Republican Party which has failed us. It is really almost a Xerox copy of the Democratic establishment in this city. It may raise money for the Department of Education beyond what Mr. Clinton does. They applaud an illegal, unconstitutional, unjust war in Kosovo. They embrace even more enthusiastically than Mr. Clinton MFN for China. They are pro-NAFTA. They are pro-WTO. They are in favor of NATO expansion. They will do nothing about immigration. They will not talk about illegal immigration. Simply go down the list of issues about which I've written books and in many cases they are worse than the Democratic Party. That's the political establishment. It is not the heart and soul of the Republican Party, but it is the establishment. We are not going to support that establishment ever again.
As a matter of I've been struggling, along with other moderates within the Party, against the ultra-right since Pat Robertson and his gang swept into the party and tried to sieze total control of all the Party committees in the 1980's. So far I think the we've made alot of strides in moderates regaining control of the Party since then.
But be clear, I don't believe in removing anyone from the Party. That, IMHO, is not the democratic way to do things. The democratic way is to win to war of ideas, build the moderate majority within the Party. The ultra-right (and ultra-left) has just as much right to their opinions and beliefs as I do, and just as much right to express those opinions and beliefs as I do. That is democracy. The job of moderate Republicans is not to wage a self-righteous purge of "ideological undesireables" among the Party ranks, it is to convince and organize and build their majority influence in the Party and support the more moderate path, support the more moderate candidates, and bring more moderates into the Party. If we do our job, the influence of the ultra-right will be even more marginalized by their own smaller numbers and extremist views. And it will done in a democratic way.
If Republicans don't approve of Pat Buchanan-like thinking, how does Tom DeLay hold a leadership position? How did Trent Lott get to be Senate leader? Why is Pat Robertson so welcome around the White House? Why do Republicans keep showing up at Hillsdale College and Bob Jones University? The ultra-right has NEVER had a bigger welcome at the White House.
Narrator:
I would argue that though Right Wing, DeLay and Lott are not Pat Buchanan. Also, Senate Leadership generally gets determined by political tradeoffs internal to the Senate (or House) and who is most skillfull and working the process. This is true of both parties. Keep in mind that Senators are elected to Congress by their state voters, not JUST Republicans and not the nation as a whole. I would suggest you take up your complaints about Lott and DeLay with their constituents. I didn't vote for them.
You ask "Why is Pat Robertson so welcome around the White House?" Define "so welcome around the White House". More so than whom? Less so than whom? I don't mind the guy stopping by, just so long as he isn't moving in.
You said: "The ultra-right has NEVER had a bigger welcome at the White House."
I'd say that the ultra-right was much more welcome during the Reagan Whitehouse than this one, hands down.
You're entitled to you opinion narrator, I don't share it. Like I've said already, the Party has had plenty of chances to give the nod to the ultra-right since 1988 and it hasn't. Robertson, Buchanan, Bauer, et. al. had their shot (Buchanan multiple times) and didn't win. That is the only real and true test. Registered Republicans voting in their Party primaries.
Without the religious right, there is no viable Republican party.
Without the culture war, there is no politically-active religious right.
Thus, without the culture war, there is no viable Republican party.
That was true in 1992, and it's just as true today, if not more so, what with Bush's popularity eroding out from under him.
Congrats on trying to change things, but whatever you're doing doesn't seem to be working.
No, DeLay is far more corrupt than Pat Buchanan. Lott far more racist. From all accounts the leaders of the "Christian Right" have unprecedented access to this administration. Reagan was Reagan, but his government was far more dominated by his "California Mafia." Bush was chosen as "the friendly face" to provide cover for the ultra-right. An obvious example that sejanus is wrong? When Missouri voters dumped John Ashcroft (for a dead guy, remember), who put him in charge of the justice department?
"Abram Olmstead knew he would fit right in at Patrick Henry College, the first college primarily for evangelical Christian home-schoolers. But what really sold him was the school's pipeline into conservative politics.
Of the nearly 100 interns working in the White House this semester, 7 are from the roughly 240 students enrolled in the four-year-old Patrick Henry College"
OK...now I've got a few moments to respond:
Homer Sez:"Without the religious right, there is no viable Republican party. Without the culture war, there is no politically-active religious right. Thus, without the culture war, there is no viable Republican party."
This is a fallacious argument because your essentially begging the question; basing your argument on presupposing as indisputable facts things that are not established as indisputable facts.
As an example of an equally fallacious argument used by the "ultra-right":
Liberals dominate the Democratic Party.
Liberals are anti-American traitors.
Thus, Democrats are traitors.
Such arguments usually come down to matters of subjective opinions and bias more so than debate of facts. You've got your opinions driving your interpretations, I've got mine. I can only say that as someone who is actively involved inside the Party, and has been for over 15 years, there is a very distinct trend towards the centrist elements. Thing is, being a centrist by my definition doesn't mean no strong right or left leaning views. On some issues I line up with the right, on other issues I line up on the left, as a whole I'm balanced out.
Narrator:
Ok, so we've decerned that you believe DeLay is far more corrupt and Lott more racist than Pat Buchanan. This is you're opinion. I'll grant you some level of corruption on DeLay's part simply because no Democrat or Republican manages to rise to such high ranks in Congress over the decades without getting their share of taint. But you want me to buy your claim he is MORE so that Buchanan, you're going to have to do some compare and contrast of the two for me. On the racist charge.... Since people throw loaded words like racist and nazi around at the drop of the hat these days so I instinctively place burden on the claimer to prove their case.
Narrator said:"Bush was chosen as "the friendly face" to provide cover for the ultra-right."
If I read this to mean you're saying that Bush was somehow appointed as the Republican choice by some back room cabal within the Party, not elected by the party membership, then I can only say as someone who works in the Party and who has attended conventions as a delegate you haven't even the slightest ounce of clue about what you're talking about. If that isn't what you're saying...then I have no clue what you are in fact trying to say.
Narrator again said:"An obvious example that sejanus is wrong? When Missouri voters dumped John Ashcroft (for a dead guy, remember), who put him in charge of the justice department?"
Oooookay. I've been wrong about alot of things before. What precisely and specifically am I wrong about in this case. I can't see from what you've said, what John Ashcroft being made head of DoJ actually proves other than that he got a political appointment.
So here are the positions I'm taking in this thread:
1) Security at national Party Conventions in general are high, be they Republican or Democrat.
2) There are good many Republican that didn't support the Pat Buchanan rhetoric in his 1992 Convention speech and blame him and his faction for costing the Party the 1992 election.
3) Pat Buchanan is seen as an extremist by most Republicans.
4) Pat Buchanan has openly criticized the Republican Party Leadership and George Bush for not being being Conservative enough.
5) Pat Buchanan is no longer a member of the Republican Party.
6) If the majority of Republicans supported Pat and his views he would have gotten the Party nomination.
7) Personally, I think as a Republican we are better to be rid Pat Buchanan.
8) When Pat saw he wasn't going to get the Republican nod for Pres, he ran to the Reform Party. When he saw he wasn't going to get the Reform Party nod for Pres, he led is tantrum walkout.
9) The job of moderate Republicans is not to wage a self-righteous purge of "ideological undesireables" among the Party ranks, it is to convince and organize and build their majority influence in the Party and support the more moderate path, support the more moderate candidates, and bring more moderates into the Party.
11) The only real and true test of who Registered Republicans believe and support is reflected in how they voting in their Party primaries.
So narrator, on which of these positions exactly am I wrong, and what is your reasoning why?
PS - Please provide sources when quoting.
Errr...to avoid cluttering up Homer's blog anymore, I'll repost the message on my own page, should anyone wish to reply to it there.
Sorry for the mess Homer.
My argument about the Republicans resting on the religious right isn't fallacious. Either it's true or it's false. You're not asking me how it's true or how it's false, so apparently you don't care whether or not I can support the statement.
This blog entry aspired to talk about how the Republican culture war isn't anything new, and to give an impression of a time and place in my life.
Getting caught up on the other stuff is all fine and dandy, and you can take it to your 'blog if you want to, but it's no big deal.
Comments are closed.