Thursday, October 19, 2017


October 19, 2017

MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey

Falsifying American and Southern History to Purify America: Victor Davis Hanson and George W. Bush Allies de facto Allies of Cultural Marxism



Friends,

Once again, there is simply too much in my folders that I would like to share with you. So, today, let me begin. 

A recent commentary I wrote (October 7) was picked up and then, after some editing and slight reworking, published online this morning.  I will pass on the published version to you. It is a critique of Victor Davis Hanson’s latest attack on Confederate monuments and, more specifically, his assault on the history of the Confederacy, itself. Hanson enjoys a lauded reputation among the conservative “establishment.” He writes regularly for National Review, has shown up on the Rush Limbaugh program (a rarity for anyone other than Rush), and has been interviewed on Fox News. So, you would think his conservative “bona fides” are secure, yes?

But Hanson is one of the most virulent anti-Confederate heritage individuals  teaching and writing in the nation today and has a history of not just denigrating the Old South, but attempting to draw sharp distinctions between the South, especially the Confederacy—which for him is synonymous with a defense of “slavery” and therefore “racist”—and the modern “conservative movement,” which, since the seizure and consolidation of control by those intellectual emigrants from the Trotskyite Marxist Left, the Neoconservatives, has taken great pains to emphasize its full and total acceptance of the “egalitarian myth” as the propositional principle on which the American nation was supposedly founded.

The great divide today is not between the establishment “conservative movement” and the culturally Marxist Left. No; both agree essentially on a vision of the basic foundational premises and promises of this nation, even if disagreeing on how to reach those goals. The great divide is between them both, with their narratives which originate on the Left, and American traditionalist conservatives.

Hanson can be persuasive and disarming. But his intent is, like other Neoconservative writers, Jonah Goldberg and Dinesh D’Souza, to demonstrate that the modern “conservative movement” is an acceptable partner within the iron clad limits set by the establishment, that it has no connection to and is not in any way stained by opinions of those nasty “racists,” those “Neo-Confederates,” those reactionaries who believe that America was founded by families and communities of like religion and ethnicity who brought their traditions and beliefs with them and who did not come to these shores to establish some “shining city of a hill,” where universalized equality, same sex marriage, and affirmative action would prevail.

Hanson’s latest screed is an effort—the same attempt that Goldberg and D’Souza try with considerably less intellectual credibility or respectability—to tie in the Old South and the Confederacy to the historic Left. It is the same initiative that all three writers engage in, to “purify” the movement by casting off any remnant or reminder of traditional conservatism, the Old South, and anything that would inhibit them from claiming the mantle as the real champions of universal equality and human rights and, ironically, establish them—despite their appropriation of the “conservative” label—as   the real  progressivists.

Two very prominent political examples of Hanson’s views have been expressed in the past few days: first, by John McCain, who specifically condemned “nationalism” and the view that the American nation was founded on the basis of “blood and soil”; then, in a speech just given this morning and aimed specifically at President Trump, former President George W. Bush said practically the same thing, condemning “blood and soil” as basis for the original American republic—indeed, it was almost as if McCain and Bush had the same NeverTrump speechwriter. Again, both men strongly endorsed the Neoconservative myth of a “propositional nation,” based, according to Bush, on the “idea of human dignity” and “equality for everyone,” values that must be shared (=imposed) everywhere in the world. Bush, as well, implicitly endorsed an “open door” immigration policy.

In other words, George W. is the historically ignorant fool we always suspected him of being, and apparently relies on the tendentious intellectual pablum that his speechwriter(s) spoon out….

First, my published response to Hanson, followed by something I published about the Bushes a little over three years ago. While a bit dated, most of what I wrote then continues to be true today.

Dr. Boyd D. Cathey

===================================================================





 


Demonizing the South to Purify the Nation



By Boyd Cathey  Oct 19, 2017

Victor Davis Hanson is one of the most lauded and applauded historians of the “conservative establishment.” Honored by President George W. Bush, a regular writer for National Review, spoken of in hushed and admiring tones by pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, Hanson is rightly regarded as a fine classicist and military historian, especially of ancient warfare. But like other authors who tend to cluster in the Neoconservative orbit, Hanson strays far afield into modern history, American studies, and into current politics—fields where his fealty to a Neocon narrative overwhelms his historical expertise.

And like other well-regarded writers of the Neocon persuasion—the far less scholarly Jonah Goldberg (in his superficial and wrongheaded volume, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning) and Dinesh D’Souza (in his historical mish-mash, The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left)—Hanson when he writes of contemporary politics or modern American history, writes with an agenda. But, unlike them, his arguments are usually more firmly based and less fantastical.

Like Goldberg and D’Souza and other putative Neocon historians, Hanson is at pains to create a “usable past,” to construct a history and tradition that buttresses and supports current Neocon ideology. Thus, he strains to defend the concept of an American nation conceived in and based on an idea, the idea of equality and “equal rights.” And because of that, like D’Souza and Goldberg, he must read back into American history an arbitrary template to demonstrate that premise.

It follows that, as for other Neocons, the Declaration of Independence becomes a critical and underlying document for this historical approach. The words—“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights”—become irreplaceably essential. Avoiding the contextual meaning of the phrase and the meaning clearly intended by the Founders, which was aimed specifically at the British parliament and the demand for an “equal”—just—consideration for the colonists from across the pond, the Neocons turn a very practical bill of grievances into a call for 18th century Rationalist egalitarianism, which it was not. As the late Mel Bradford and more recently, Barry Alan Shain, have convincingly demonstrated, such attempts to read current ideology back into the Founding, runs aground on factual analysis.

But facts have little to do with Neocon ideology. What is demanded is a usable past to support present practice and to give legitimacy to the current narrative.  It follows: if the American nation was founded on the “idea” of equality, then any successive deviances and variations from that idea are wrong and immoral, and, therefore, in some way, “anti-American.”  Thus, those Southerners who “rebelled” against the legitimate—and righteous—government of the sainted President Lincoln are become “traitors,” who not only engaged in “treason” against the legitimate government of the Union, but through their defense of slavery, were enemies of the very “idea” of America—equality.

How many times in recent days in the debates over Confederate monuments and symbols have we heard echoes of such a refrain from the pages of “conservative” publications like National Review or The Weekly Standard? Or from certain pundits on Fox News?

And, more, those Southerners—more specifically, Southern Democrats—who opposed the “civil rights” legislation of the 1960s, who questioned various Supreme Court decisions on that topic (beginning with the atrociously-decided Brown decision), who enforced those evil “Jim Crow” laws, are not and never could have been real defenders of the “American [egalitarian] idea,” and therefore, never could be considered “conservatives.”

Confronted by unwashed, rednecky “Southern conservatives,” most Neocons seek desperately to protect their left flank from criticism from those of the farther Left. They continually and in “alta voz” protest of their bona fides, of how strongly they supported Martin Luther King’s crusade for equality (King was actually a “conservative,” you see), of how they stood on that bridge in Selma with the noble demonstrators—well, at least in spirit!—against the “fascist” Billy club-armed police of “Bull Connor, and how they really do support “civil rights” for everyone, including “moderate” affirmative action, “moderate” feminism, yes to same sex marriage, and yes to transgenderism. Their fear of being called out as and associated with anti-egalitarians far outweighs their fear of confirming the cultural Marxist template, which, in their own manner, they both sanctify and thus, assist to advance.

The Neocon narrative stands history on its head. Not only does it fail as competent history, it simply ignores inconvenient facts, historical context, and the careful investigations and massive documentation of more responsible chroniclers and historians of the American nation, if those facts and documentation do not fit a preconceived narrative. All must be written, all must be shaped, to demonstrate the near-mystical advance and progress of the Idea of Equality and Human Rights in the unfolding of American history. Thus, the incredibly powerful and detailed contributions of, say, a Eugene Genovese (for example, his The Mind of the Master Class:  History and Faith in the Southern Slaveholders’ Worldview, and various other studies), go basically for naught.

Victor Davis Hanson, in a recent essay, adds his own contribution to this historical rewrite, examining what he calls Hollywood’s irrational fascination with what he labels “Confederate Cool.”

It is not the first time he has offered criticism of the Confederacy and Confederate history. In 1999 he authored a strenuous defense of “Sherman’s March” to the sea and through the Carolinas, declaring: “As for the charge that Sherman’s brand of war was amoral, if we forget for a moment what constitutes ‘morality’ in war and examine acts of violence per se against Southern civilians, we learn that there were few, if any, gratuitous murders on the march. There seem also to have been less than half a dozen rapes, a fact acknowledged by both sides. Any killing outside of battle was strictly military execution in response to the shooting of Northern prisoners. The real anomaly seems to be that Sherman brought more than sixty thousand young men through one of the richest areas of the enemy South without unchecked killing or mayhem.”

These comments are as outrageous as they are untrue. Hanson ignores the findings of the very detailed and scholarly study, commissioned by the state of North Carolina, Sherman’s March through North Carolina, by Drs. Wilson Angley and Jerry Cross (North Carolina Office of Archives and History, 1995), as well as W. Brian Cisco’s impressively researched, War Crimes Against Southern Civilians (Pelican Publishing, 2007), and Karen Stokes’ A Legion of Devils–Sherman in South Carolina (Shotwell Publishing, Columbia, South Carolina), plus contemporary accounts, that give the lie to his cavalier dismissal of pillage and savagery by Northern troops along the march.

In his most recent foray into Confederate bashing, “The Strange Case of Confederate Cool,” his argument goes, if I may summarize it, as follows:

–Throughout the 1920s until at least the 1960s (and even beyond), Hollywood and the entertainment industry were kind, even partial, to the South, and in particular, to the Confederacy;

–But Hollywood and the entertainment industry are on the Left;

–Therefore, there were obviously certain elements of the Confederacy and the Old South that were consistent with a Leftist worldview.

Here is the kernel of his argument in his own words (I quote):

Can Shane and Ethan Edwards [“The Searchers”] remain our heroes? How did the Carradines and the Keaches (who played Jesse and Frank James) survive in Hollywood after turning former Confederates into modern resisters of the Deep State?

The answer is a familiar with the Left: The sin is not the crime of romanticizing the Confederacy or turning a blind eye to slavery and secession per se. Instead what matters more is the ideology of the sinner who commits the thought crime. And how much will it cost the thought police to virtue-signal a remedy?

Folksy Confederates still have their charms for the Left. All was forgiven Senator Robert Byrd, a former Klansman. He transmogrified from a racist reprobate who uttered the N-word on national television into a down-home violinist and liberal icon. A smiling and avuncular Senator Sam Ervin, of Watergate fame, who quoted the Constitution with a syrupy drawl, helped bring down Nixon; that heroic service evidently washed away his earlier segregationist sin of helping to write the Southern Manifesto.

Progressives always have had a soft spot for drawling (former) racists whose charms in their twilight years were at last put to noble use to advance liberal causes — as if the powers of progressivism alone can use the kick-ass means of the Old Confederacy for exalted ends….

Literally, it would take a fat book to unravel Hanson’s farrago of misplaced asseverations.

First, in impressionistically reviewing American film history in the 1930s until the upheavals of the 1960s, he makes an assumption that Hollywood was dominated and controlled by the same ideologically cultural Marxism that owns it today. That assumption is not exact. Indeed, there were Communists and revolutionary Socialists working and prospering in the Hollywood Hills during that period—the “Hollywood Ten” and Communist writers and directors like Dalton Trumbo stand out as prime examples. And during World War II, such embarrassing and pro-Communist cinematic expressions as “Days of Glory” (1943) and “Mission to Moscow” (1944, and pushed hard by President Roosevelt), proliferated.

But the fiercely anti-Communist studio bosses back then, Jack Warner (of Warner Brothers Studio), Carl Laemmle (Universal Pictures), Howard Hughes (RKO), Herbert Yates (Republic Pictures) and Walt Disney, were anything but sympathetic to the far Left. They were much more sympathetic to the power of the almighty box office dollar.

And the Hollywood Screen Actors Guild (SAG)—especially under the leadership of Ronald Reagan—attempted to root out Communist influence. It was not uncommon to find dozens of prominent actors supporting conservative or Republican candidates for public office until the 1960s. For instance, during the 1944 election campaign between Roosevelt and Governor Tom Dewey of New York numerous celebrities attended a massive rally organized by prominent director/producer David O. Selznick in the Los Angeles Coliseum in support of the DeweyBricker ticket. The gathering drew 93,000 attendees, with Cecil B. DeMille as the master of ceremonies and short speeches by Hedda Hopper and Walt Disney. Among those in attendance were Ann SothernGinger RogersAdolphe Menjou, Randolph Scott, Joel McCrea, and Gary Cooper, plus many others.

A majority of entertainment personalities did support FDR, just as did a majority of the American voting public, in those years. But, significantly, it was not considered a “social crime” or “cultural sin” for a famous actor back then to openly support a conservative or a Republican.

Hanson views an earlier sympathy of Hollywood for the South as the expression of some Leftist fascination—and a certain identification—with the South’s agrarian, anti-establishment, and populist traditions, and its opposition to an oppressive Federal government.  Thus, he asserts the songster Joan Baez could make popular “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down,” and more recently, post-Vietnam, director Walter Hill could, in “The Long Riders” (1980), turn “the murderous Jesse James gang… into a sort of mix of Lynyrd Skynyrd with Bonnie and Clyde — noble outlaws fighting the grasping northern banks and the railroad companies.” And, torturously, he draws out a Leftist meaning.

He misunderstands the history. Hollywood’s fascination with the Old South and its more or less successful effort sixty or seventy years ago to portray the Confederacy with some degree of sympathy reflected the general tenor of the times then, of the desire for a united nation, of binding up old wounds—and especially when the nation was apparently threatened by external forces: Nazism and Communism.

But that desire for unity and that respect for the Confederacy and Confederate heroes would begin to evaporate in the 1970s.

And the nature of the Hollywood Left would also significantly change. The cautious leftward movement of the 1950s—which mostly did not affect Hollywood Westerns (most studios had their own separate “ranches,” separate from any main studio “contagion”)—was transformed by the growth of a fierce and all-encompassing cultural Marxism in the ‘60s and ‘70s, just as academia and society as a whole were radically transformed. The modern anti-Southern, anti-Confederate bias and hatred emitted by Hollywood and by our entertainment industry today must be seen in that light, and not as simply the seamless continuation of an older ambiguous relationship with the South.

Constructing this narrative permits Hanson and other Neocons to write off the older, traditional South and the Confederacy, while defending their precious narrative of the egalitarian idea of America: “See,” they tell us, “the far Left actually identifies with that anti-democratic, anti-American Southern vision which undermined our progress towards greater unity and progress and”—of course—“equal rights.” The Neocon narrative and version of history is, thus, kept unsullied and ideologically pure, while the attempts by the farther Left to lump them in with associated “neo-Confederates, racists, and the extreme right” are repelled.

The problem is—that view actually undermines a clear understanding of our history and perverts the American Founding and the intentions of those who cobbled together this nation. It is a myth built on a poorly-constructed and poorly-interpreted bill of historical goods. Or, as they say in eastern Carolina, “that dog don’t hunt.”

About Boyd Cathey


Boyd D. Cathey holds a doctorate in European history from the Catholic University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain, where he was a Richard Weaver Fellow, and an MA in intellectual history from the University of Virginia (as a Jefferson Fellow). He was assistant to conservative author and philosopher the late Russell Kirk. In more recent years he served as State Registrar of the North Carolina Division of Archives and History. He has published in French, Spanish, and English, on historical subjects as well as classical music and opera. He is active in the Sons of Confederate Veterans and various historical, archival, and genealogical organizations.

Bush family liberalism: The ghost of Prescott Bush haunts us still



By Boyd Cathey, Communities Digital News JULY 2, 2014

·         Commentary



·         Politics

WASHINGTON, July 2, 2014 — A history of the Bush family, beginning with Yankee patriarch and Wall Street banker, Prescott Bush, is one of calculated pretense to being and sounding like whatever best advances the political and financial fortunes of the family.  But down deep the Bushes, arguably, have never been conservatives. In recent years, the Bushes have, it is true, sometimes sounded “conservative,” but in the darker recesses of their thinking, they reject basic principles that give essential life to conservatism.

Let’s go back and take a look at Prescott Bush. He was the archetypal patrician New England “progressive” Republican.  Just read a few lines from the Wikipedia about him:

 “Prescott Bush was politically active on social issues. He was involved with the American Birth Control League as early as 1942, and served as the treasurer of the first national capital campaign of Planned Parenthood in 1947 [....]
 “From 1947 to 1950, he served as Connecticut Republican finance chairman, and was the Republican candidate for the United States Senate in 1950. A columnist in Boston said that Bush “is coming on to be known as President Truman’sHarry Hopkins. Nobody knows Mr. Bush and he hasn’t a Chinaman’s chance.” (Harry Hopkins [a Communist fellow traveler] had been one of FDR‘s closest advisors.) Bush’s ties with Planned Parenthood also hurt him in heavily Catholic Connecticut, and were the basis of a last-minute campaign in churches by Bush’s opponents; the family vigorously denied the connection, but Bush lost to [William] Benton by only 1,000 votes.”


Prescott became US Senator from Connecticut through appointment in late 1952, and he served until 1963. Continuing on from the Wiki:

On December 2, 1954, Prescott Bush was part of the large (67–22) majority to censureWisconsin Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy after McCarthy had taken on the U.S. Army and theEisenhower administration. During the debate leading to the censure, Bush said that McCarthy had ‘caused dangerous divisions among the American people because of his attitude and the attitude he has encouraged among his followers: that there can be no honest differences of opinion with him. Either  you  must  follow  Senator  McCarthy  blindly,  not  daring  to express any doubts or disagreements about any of his actions, or, in his eyes, you must be a Communist, a Communist sympathizer, or a fool who has been duped by the Communist line’    [....]                  
 “In terms of issues, Bush often agreed with New York GovernorNelson Rockefeller. According to Theodore H. White’s book about the 1964 election, Bush and Rockefeller were longtime friends. Bush favored a Nixon-Rockefeller ticket for 1960.”


This is the kind of silk-stocking, Rockefeller Wall Street Republicanism that George H. W. and succeeding members of the family inherited. And since 1992 the examples that confirm the persistence of this same heritage among the Bushes continue to surface, almost weekly.

Last September, for example, the latest Bush “papabile,” Jeb, made cozy with Hillary Clinton.  Here’s a brief paragraph from The Washington Times (September 13, 2013):

HOUSTON, September 13, 2013 - On Tuesday September 10, Jeb Bush, chairman of the board for the National Constitution Center and former governor of Florida, presented former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with the group’s annual Liberty Medal. [!!!] It is widely speculated that both Bush and Clinton will run for their party’s nomination for the presidency in 2016.”


What this incident actually indicates is something profound about the Bush “establishment” ethos. Indeed, Jeb Bush has a whole bag of occasions where the ghost of Prescott has seeped out for–perhaps unwanted–public view. It’s not just his strong support for Common Core and what amounts to amnesty for illegal immigrants. A quick review of the Internet offers numerous examples of the survival of the spirit of Prescott in this latest representative of the clan.

George Bush the Younger doesn’t escape conservative scrutiny, either. Once again, there are various articles and stories in print and on the Web detailing the emergence of the real “Bush soul,” which is most definitely not conservative. A 2011 article in The Washington Monthly highlighted some of the issues that separated him from conservatives: “Bush was wrong about everything from education (NCLB) to health care (Medicare Part D), immigration (comprehensive reform) to international aid (PEPFAR), national service (AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corp) to foreign policy (growing Republican skepticism about Afghanistan).”

Liberal columnist Richard Cohen also noticed what he termed Bush’s “neo-liberalism,” especially in education and the role of the Federal government:

“Bush has extended the [Education] department’s reach in a manner that Democrats could not have envisaged. I am referring, of course, to the 2001 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, better known as No Child Left Behind. I will spare you the act’s details, but it pretty much tells the states to shape up or face a loss of federal funds. It is precisely the sort of law that conservatives predicted Washington would someday seek — and it did.”


Professor Jack Kerwick, in a fascinating article in the journal, Modern Age ["The Neoconservative Conundrum," Modern Age, Winter/Spring 2013, vo. 55, nos. 1 & 2,  pp. 5-12], wrote recently of a philosophical outlook that he identifies as partaking of the revolutionary “rationalist mind,”  using the measures and research of the late English conservative political theorist Michael Oakeshott. Kerwick identifies this as essentially an ideologically a priori approach to statecraft, which rejects long-standing custom and the organicism of tradition, in favor of an imposed, “progressivist” universal standard based on supposedly self-evident “principles” born out of human reason. It was such a rationalist mindset that guided Bush II through much of his presidency, and it was one of the several reasons that made strong conservatives very uncomfortable with and suspicious of him.

Events have come full circle. Back in 1992 I argued strenuously with some of my Republican friends that voting for Pat Buchanan was the right thing to do. While admitting the deficiencies of George the First, their main argument was that voting for Buchanan would only assist Bill Clinton, and that a Bill Clinton presidency would give the man who couldn’t keep his pants up the opportunity to name Supreme Court justices. When I pointed out the Justices David Souter, Harry Blackmun, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Sandra Day O’Connor, and other Leftists were appointed by Republican presidents, responses were muted.  They continued to insist that a primary contest with Buchanan would weaken Bush in the 1992 general election.  But every poll, including immediate polls right after Buchanan’s famous “culture war” speech at the GOP national convention, gave the lie to such spurious charges. George H. W. lost because of what he did and what he said, and because the American electorate listened to the insidiously seductive and polished oratory and promises of “Slick Willie.”

Since George the First, the national GOP has given us the following presidential candidates: Bob Dole, George the Younger, John McCain, and the hapless Mitt Romney–not a real, philosophical conservative among the lot of them.  In fact, conservatives, who arguably make up a majority of the Republican base, haven’t controlled the party apparatus since Reagan. And even back then, based on the testimony of the few conservatives who worked in the Reagan White House, Reagan permitted George H. W. to control and fill most appointments from the get go. You can imagine what types of folks were approved for service.

The specter of Prescott still casts a spell over the Bush family.  If a few more pusillanimous conservatives had not run for “the tall grass” back in 1992, just perhaps we might have stopped the contagion twenty-two years ago. Pat Buchanan was right in 1992, as he is today. Begrudgingly, some of my friends who supported the Bushes then, recognize this now.

All along, despite some pleasant words, the Bushes have been enablers. As congressional Republicans continue to sell out America on everything from immigration to the debt ceiling, conservatives need to be told, once again, that the Republican “establishment” is not on their side. Prescott Bush’s ghost lives and prospers at the RNC and in the halls of the US Congress. Until it is fully exorcized (and the Karl Roves and John McCains finally interred for good), this nation will have no real opposition to the ongoing, steep decline into neo-Marxist multicultural totalitarianism.

No comments:

Post a Comment

                                                  May 8, 2021     MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey Aggressive Abroad and Despotic at Home:  ...