The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery

[White Trash]

So? So an So? Let's ruin the environment! Support Slave Wages! Have a labor race to the bottom! Ruin Farmers in 3rd world countries! Have a loss of national sovereignty! Have foreign corporations take over parts of your country! Have everything made god knows where, instead of the country you live in! Let's ruin the lives of the working class! Let's ruin the jobs of people who've worked in their trade/occupation for years on! L YAY for Globalisation, YAY for the Globalisation monopoly! BUT IF THE MIDDLE CLASS HAVE A DOLLAR OFF THEIR PRODUCTS, IT'S ALL ING GOOD.

[White Trash]

Massive FF.

You are someone I would  consider one of the most impressive defenders of *conservatism* intellectually, so I would just LOVE to hear why you are a fan of this racist, imperialist, power hungry monster who masked all of that by presenting himself as the father of the progressive fight for the common man.

Well, personally, I just like the guy - I mean, he raised himself up from essentially nothing to become the President of the United States, along the way becoming a bit of a jack of all trades (I mean, he more than dabbled in the practice of law, planting, soldiering and politics), fighting for his country and not putting on a load of airs and graces like John Quincy Adams (such behaviour might have been alright in a European country, but certainly not in the 'land of the free'). As for the charges you laid against him, well, I don't consider the racism to be a particularly solid criticism of him, given that the vast majority of early 19th century Americans held racist views in one form or another. He certainly wasn't egregiously racist by the standards of the time. I don't consider the imperialism to be a blot on his record at all - he helped to expand the United States and open up more of its interior for settlement and development, which I consider to be a very good thing. A belief in 'manifest destiny' was hardly untypical for the time, indeed I believe John Quincy Adams himself defended Jackson's actions in Florida, whilst Jackson's other great rival Henry Clay started off his career as a 'war hawk' favouring the rather more difficult route of expansion into Canada.

As for power-hungry, well, yes, that's probably a correct interpretation of the man, but then he was hardly alone in that regard (his aforementioned great rivals Adams and Clay were hardly unambitious men). More to the point, it seems to have been a power hungriness born out of the fact he'd had to raise himself up by his bootstraps throughout his life, often in the face of undeserved (for Jackson was neither stupid nor incompetent) scorn from political opponents. His desire to direct national policy himself didn't always work (refusing to recharter the Second Bank of the United States was his biggest blunder in my opinion) of course, but on the other hand he presided over some notable successes, including the ratification of numerous foreign treaties, the quashing the nullifiers in South Carolina and the Indian Removal. The latter is, of course, a particularly murky issue; however, at least Jackson found a solution to the problem, as opposed to fudging the issue as previous Presidents had done and allowing for tensions to continue to escalate between the settlers and the Indian Tribes. I have no doubt, personally, that the Indians would have been removed at some point; indeed, it's quite possible that there would have been an actual genocide carried out by the settlers had not the Indian population been removed to the then safety of the west.

As for calling him a monster, well, I don't believe there are any monsters in history, or in our society today (with the exception of those so mentally imbalanced that all they can think about is short term mindless violence). Jackson had a lot of very admirable traits; he was a good leader, he was brave and very capable as a lawyer, soldier and politician. He also had some more negative traits, like his stubbornness and proneness to anger, which at times clouded his judgement. He also wasn't particularly knowledgeable about high finance (but then what do you expect from a frontier planter). Nonetheless I don't think this mix of traits adds up to anything like his being a monster. Moreover I don't think he did present himself as fighting for some 'progressive' cause - that kind of rhetorical framing didn't exist in his time period, but I do think, to some extent, he did fight for the common man, at least, the common man of the American west and south where he was particularly popular. He certainly seems to have reflected their opinions and aspirations better than Henry Clay did, let alone John Quincy Adams.

To sum up, I kind of like the cut of his jib, and think that he did a lot of good for the United States (which doesn't wash out his major blunder regarding the Second Bank of the United States), which should be applauded from a conservative, nationalistic perspective. Also, I'm touched that you have such a high opinion of my ability to defend conservatism as an ideology, but I'm more a pragmatic conservative of the 'gut', so to speak, and there are posters far better able to defend it as an ideological position than my good self.

It is quite understandable and rational to dislike Andrew Jackson based on both his policy and personality, but I think Cassius does an excellent job of defending him and highlighting some of his positive attributes.

[White Trash]

"Anti-PC?" Don't you idiots realize that what you call "political correctness" is what actual decent people call "being considerate?" You're going to go shout "Merry Christmas" in the faces of a bunch of Sikhs just to be sh-t-stains? That's "standing up for your rights?"

I can only imagine how insecure you must be if you actually find "political correctness" threatening. My goodness.

I usually don't agree with Hagrid on much, but I think he makes a good point with this. Political correctness is just common decency.

[White Trash]

Was just about to post that here. Nathan is becoming one of my favorite posters.

[White Trash]

We have an innate culture.

I remember Germans and Austrians sarcastically saying things like "what do you have for cuisine in America?  Burgers?"

You know what we have?  Choices.  So very many more than you will ever have.  You are so eager to show me your fancy powdered sugar pancakes or your schnitzels or your potato salad... we've all had that already... we've had 10 million different kinds of potato salad... eggy/mayo slop, bacon oil vinegar, spicy chipotle, vegan friendly, vegan hostile, skin on, skin off, warm, cold, .. potato salad in the pot nine days old.  

Our culture is the Friday night fish fry, the Wisconsin boo-yah, the Texas BBQ, the state fair, the open road, super awful train service, football, the school band, the kids playing percussion in the atrium at a sh**tty mall with an audience of confused passersby slurping their giant smoothies...

This country is packed to the brim with culture.  And our identity is this:  We're Americans.  Subject to change.

Good bless that post.