JW

I lived in a very Right-wing town so most of my contacts were Right-wingers and I was politically active. One day, around 1983, I was asked by an associate, how could I possibly be a Liberal. I responded by saying, Republicans want to change what we are, Liberals want to change how we live.

At the time, the national establishment was decidedly pointing Right, but Nixon had left a bad taste and Reagan, (Ronald or Nancy, I was never sure which one was actually the President), were causing a Leftward shift.

It was many years later when I reevaluated my conclusion that there were indelibly drawn boundaries around the aspirations of the Right and the Left.

Today, I can safely say that it is the Right that wants to change how we live and the Left that wants to change what we are. How can that be?

In order to maintain power, the side in power must somehow cause its adherents, to think like they do. In order to gain power, the underdog must convince people that his side is open and accepting of everyone. once the power changes sides, so do the required tactics and the trends reverse. Acceptance and tolerance are affectations of power. They are not basic philosophies.

There are certain unassailable realities in life on this planet. One of them is that there will always be a struggle for power. That struggle follows a clear path; first, a social bond is formed; then, an elite group emerges; and finally, a single dominant figure seizes control.

Because the power to govern the USA is vested in the population by our Constitution, our path to that final step has been a vacillating pendulum with power passing back and forth in ever increasingly powerful cycles.

What I saw as political philosophies back in the 80s were really manifestations of the struggle for control of the country.

There comes a point at which one side or the other, faced with once more losing control of government, believes its advantage is such that it can successfully make its control permanent. We are at the point where the elite group has formed, and they believe that they can make their move to solidify permanent dominance.

Because of our Constitution, we have that intermediate step where power passes from the people to the elites. Without our Constitution, the elites exert control from inception, princes, dukes, etc. We have an alarm bell, so to speak. We can observe the shift to the elites and that gives us the chance to stop the political corrosion and reestablish the power to govern into the hands of the people.

There are only two questions that are germane at this point; are there sufficient numbers of people willing to do what is necessary to dispossess the elites making their power grab and do we have a leader capable of marshalling the forces necessary to accomplish the task?

AmericanMadeMary Loc: Small Town Iowa

The question was also asked by Samuel B Pettengill, former member of Congress and Chairman of the National Committee to Uphold Constitutional Government and author of "Smoke Screen" in 1940. (Interestingly, he also was a former Democrat, until the New Deal).
In that book he asks, "Are we going to wait until not only our economic liberty but our personal, religious and civil liberties as well are destroyed before we take up the gauntlet of the modern Caesars? And then, will it be too late?"
<I believe we waited and are finally there.>
In answer to the question, I'll quote his book again: "I believe that events abroad and at home are causing a worldwide moral revulsion. I believe that a spiritual renaissance is not far off. I believe the day is not yet lost when the American people will rally by the tens of millions around some leader with the unyielding granite of a Grover Cleveland, inflexible in his defense of "this last best hope on earth".
<And who does that describe?>
"Such is my creed. And I am happier fighting for it than I could possibly be in conceiding the field as lost -
"For how can men die better,
Than facing fearful odds
For the ashes of their fathers
And the temples of their gods"?
And you, who read these lines, will it be said of you with deep rebuke, "Hang yourself, brave Crillon, we fought at Arques and you were not there"? I will answer that. I believe you are going to get in the fight."

Again, I do in all my heart believe we are at the point he describes, and I believe that Trump is also who he describes, and DeSantis, Cruz, Rand Paul and a few others that have stood up recently for the Constitution, can put the Republic back together. I also believe that you and millions of American people, and I, are going to get in the fight.

PS I highly recommend this book for everyone - everything that is being attempted by the now 99% socialist "Democratic" party was attempted between 1932-1940. The attempt to get rid of private banking, shutting down the pipelines and controlling the allocation of oil/gas (are we going to wait until Biden tells us that "essential workers" (ie, v******ted) will have first priority to the limited and rationed gas, or other limited resources due to "the supply chain crisis"?) Using a "constant emergency" - then the Depression, now C***d, and the radio then, (social) media now, to scare us into Socialism.
Biden has once again plagiarized; this time someone else's economic disaster - "Build Back Better" is nothing more than "The New Deal" on steroids. But I digress...the facts of our bloating government in 1940 were staggering and nothing is new, just worse.
Get the $7.50 book...it'll be the best money you'll ever spend.

JW

We have to get in the fight, or we lose everything America stands for.

The book is called Smoke Screen?

JR-57 Loc: South Carolina

I’m glad you now have conservative beliefs. I do have one question regarding your post.

You write: “One day, around 1983, I was asked by an associate, how could I possibly be a Liberal. I responded by saying, Republicans want to change what we are, Liberals want to change how we live. At the time, the national establishment was decidedly pointing Right, but Nixon had left a bad taste and Reagan, (Ronald or Nancy, I was never sure which one was actually the President), were causing a Leftward shift.”

It was “around 1983” and you write that Reagan was causing a “leftward shift”.

After serving his first term, Reagan won the 1984 P**********l e******n in a landslide victory winning 49 out of 50 States. Reagan won 525 of the 538 e*******l v**es, the most of any p**********l candidate in U.S. history.

Im confused about why you think Reagan was causing a leftward shift. The 1984 e******n results indicate differently.

bylm1-Bernie

My reaction was similar to yours.

TruePatriot49 Loc: The Democratic People's Republic Rhode Island

JW, the Colonists in the 1700's were slow to anger, just like in our time. They tolerated much abuse from the king, just as we have tolerated much abuse from the l*****t c*******t Democrats in power today. When the King of England decided to disarm the colonists, that started the fire of liberty that brought on the War of Independence also known as the Revolutionary War. When, not if, F. Joe Biden decides to ban and confiscate our weapons, that will restart that fire of Independence. After the Pearl Harbor attack, The Japanese Military realized that they had awakened the sleeping giant and a Japanese Admiral stated that he could not invade the mainland of America because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. The Democrats in power today will discover that as well. Democrat politicians are extremely evil, Democrat v**ers are just plain stupid. This isn't Australia. People will resist gun confiscation and the tyranny that the Democrat party is pushing on us. With the midterm e******ns coming up soon and the Democrats smelling defeat, expect to see their push for power accelerate in 2022. Never try to stop your enemy when he is in the process of making a mistake.

JW

Reagan was not the icon then that he is now. He did and said a lot of questionable things, weapons for hostages, Iran-Contra, spending billions to pull the USS Missouri out of dry dock and refit her when she was nothing more than memorabilia, Star Wars program spending, etc.

Like I said, I was never sure if he or Nancy was the actual President. Reagan's monumental success in the 84 e******n had as much to do with surviving an assassination attempt and who his opponent was as with him. Even Democrats found Mondale unpalatable.

Reagan appeared to be Nixonesque on the one hand and a Jean Dixon acolyte on the other. Neither of those sat well with the country.

JW

I think that Admiral was Yamamoto. He was correct. However, there has been a concerted effort to soften and de-Americanize our people going on for at least three generations and the Dems have done their bst to fill the country with people who have no concept of Americanism. I wonder how many of us still remain.

JR-57 Loc: South Carolina

I disagree completely.

The Democrat’s abysmal policies and failed leadership under Carter led to a conservative movement.

Reagan won the 1980 e******n by a landslide. He received the highest number of e*******l v**es ever won by a non-incumbent p**********l candidate. It was only the second time, and the first in nearly 100 years that a Republican candidate defeated an incumbent Democrat. In addition, Republicans won control of the United States Senate for the first time since 1955.

Reagan’s first term success led to his even bigger landslide re-e******n victory in 1984, carrying 49 of 50 states. Reagan won 525 of the 538 e*******l v**es, the most of any p**********l candidate in U.S. history.

Reagan wasn’t without flaws, but is certainly one of the most successful and popular Presidents in U.S. history, even during his time.

bylm1-Bernie

I have a completely different recollection of President Reagan. I don't recall there ever being any doubt about who was in charge. He was a bit more diplomatic than Trump but a very strong President nevertheless.

JW

I didn't say that he didn't perform well e*******lly, he certainly did. Carter had been a disaster. No one wanted any more of him, no more embassy take-overs or failed rescue attempts. Reagan's soundcheck, 'the bombers are on the way to Russia', was typical of his careless actions and comments.

Reagan was a popular President, (and I think a remarkable one), and an incompetent executive. As a Liberal at the time, my focus was not on lauding him. It was on evaluating him. I could go into a lot of other facets of his actions, like his UN speech. There were serious questions as to his ability to tell reality from his own imaginings. As it turned out his failing mental state was being well hidden by President Nancy and his entourage.

JW

Then you were not paying attention. I agree that he was a great President but a lousy executive.

bylm1-Bernie

Since you were admittedly a liberal during the Reagan years, JW, it sounds to me like you are remembering things because of the way you disliked conservative policies at that time. Maybe you're remembering emotions and not reality. Just a thought.

JW

I'm sure my take is colored by my political leanings at the time as I am certain all are as well. I didn't dislike Conservative policies. I disliked what Reagan was doing. Like I said, as a spokesman for America, he was a phenomenal President. I thought that at the time as well. As a functioning executive, he was terrible. I think he was also very lucky that the USSR collapsed when it did. I credit him with a very small contribution to that outcome.

JR-57 Loc: South Carolina

What specifically was Reagan doing that you disliked?