Jump to content

New (or should I say Neo- LOL) Jacksonians Perhaps?


Recommended Posts

Once upon a time, this board was dominated by clowns who loved to throw around, and parrot(of course), the term Neo-Con...but only about 15% of the posters here understood what the word actually meant. Now, it appears we have a new movement on the rise: the Neo-Jacksonian. It suffices to say that Andrew Jackson was not your average Democrat, and perhaps we'll improve on the 15%, and this time maybe 40% will understand what Neo-Jacksonian means.

 

Why bother with this? Because this little gem of an article crossed my path at RCP today: Andrew Jackson, Revenant. Read first, damn you.

 

I think this is absolutely the right metaphor/comparison for what is happening in politics today.

 

In fact, this appears to be a universal theory that explains everything, from Trump's seeming invulnerability, to Hillary's rapid decent, to Cruz's appeal over Rubio, to Kasich's march up the ladder in NH, and even to Bernie's increased support. Ostensibly, different voters are angry about different things. In many cases these things overlap, in some they do not. But in all cases, as the article points out, there is lot more unifying Jacksonian anger than there is unifying the Obama legacy and/or agenda.

 

Americans are angry :o. Yes, far left clowns, we are "angry" :rolleyes:. The country is losing at home and on the road, and NONE of your policies have made things better for the MAJORITY of Americans. You wreck most of the country in one way or another(Obamacare! There it is again :lol: You will never live it down), and then feign surprise when you anger most people? Worse, you try to equate that anger with being backward or unstable?

 

F you...

 

...is clearly, and exactly what these New Jacksonian values have to say about Obama's legacy and now Hillary's agenda.

 

And notice: I didn't say white people. I said Americans are angry. There's plenty of agnst to go around for every demographic. This heterogenous anger most likely means that the micromessaging that marketed Obama into 2 terms in office(because he surely didn't win them), won't work this time around.

 

Not when going up against a guy like Trump, whose been masterful and harnessing the various forms of anger and reasons for each, all into one giant ball of anger. So, what now Democrats? Going to start calling all of us angry again? Bitter? Clingers? :lol: I dare you to be that stupid.

Edited by OCinBuffalo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once upon a time, this board was dominated by clowns who loved to throw around, and parrot(of course), the term Neo-Con...but only about 15% of the posters here understood what the word actually meant. Now, it appears we have a new movement on the rise: the Neo-Jacksonian. It suffices to say that Andrew Jackson was not your average Democrat, and perhaps we'll improve on the 15%, and this time maybe 40% will understand what Neo-Jacksonian means.

 

 

Sure you don't have your two Jackson mixed up?

 

Plausible theory, especially when one considers that Jackson's administration & policies nearly bankrupted the young nation. Yeay, populism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jackson was elected by a new wave of poor whites angry at the elites in Washington, on Wall Street and the pointy headed liberals that wanted high tariffs, anti-slavery and no wars of expansion. He was also a fierce defender of the sacred rights of whites to take Native Americans land. The treaty of Buffalo Creek was signed when he was President (or right around there)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once upon a time, this board was dominated by clowns who loved to throw around, and parrot(of course), the term Neo-Con...but only about 15% of the posters here understood what the word actually meant. Now, it appears we have a new movement on the rise: the Neo-Jacksonian. It suffices to say that Andrew Jackson was not your average Democrat, and perhaps we'll improve on the 15%, and this time maybe 40% will understand what Neo-Jacksonian means.

 

Why bother with this? Because this little gem of an article crossed my path at RCP today: Andrew Jackson, Revenant. Read first, damn you.

 

I think this is absolutely the right metaphor/comparison for what is happening in politics today.

 

In fact, this appears to be a universal theory that explains everything, from Trump's seeming invulnerability, to Hillary's rapid decent, to Cruz's appeal over Rubio, to Kasich's march up the ladder in NH, and even to Bernie's increased support. Ostensibly, different voters are angry about different things. In many cases these things overlap, in some they do not. But in all cases, as the article points out, there is lot more unifying Jacksonian anger than there is unifying the Obama legacy and/or agenda.

 

Americans are angry :o. Yes, far left clowns, we are "angry" :rolleyes:. The country is losing at home and on the road, and NONE of your policies have made things better for the MAJORITY of Americans. You wreck most of the country in one way or another(Obamacare! There it is again :lol: You will never live it down), and then feign surprise when you anger most people? Worse, you try to equate that anger with being backward or unstable?

 

F you...

 

...is clearly, and exactly what these New Jacksonian values have to say about Obama's legacy and now Hillary's agenda.

 

And notice: I didn't say white people. I said Americans are angry. There's plenty of agnst to go around for every demographic. This heterogenous anger most likely means that the micromessaging that marketed Obama into 2 terms in office(because he surely didn't win them), won't work this time around.

 

Not when going up against a guy like Trump, whose been masterful and harnessing the various forms of anger and reasons for each, all into one giant ball of anger. So, what now Democrats? Going to start calling all of us angry again? Bitter? Clingers? :lol: I dare you to be that stupid.

 

What exactly are you angry about - I just don't get it - please be specific how your life has changed and what policy effected that change?

 

Has your HC changed significantly since the ACA?

Have the gays ruined your marriage?

Someone take your guns?

Isis threatening the stability of the republic?

Immigrants threatening your ability to get off your a$$ and get rich?

Someone say Happy Holidays?

Has the rampant growth of unions threatened your job?

Have the lowest federal tax rates in modern times (save for Bush years) ruined your bank account?

Sick of clean air and water?

Sick of cheap fuel?

Sick of clean food?

Sick of cars that get good gas mileage and performance?

Edited by baskin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What exactly are you angry about - I just don't get it - please be specific how your life has changed and what policy effected that change?

 

Has your HC changed significantly since the ACA?

Have the gays ruined your marriage?

Someone take your guns?

Isis threatening the stability of the republic?

Immigrants threatening your ability to get off your a$$ and get rich?

Someone say Happy Holidays?

Has the rampant growth of unions threatened your job?

Have the lowest federal tax rates in modern times (save for Bush years) ruined your bank account?

Sick of clean air and water?

Sick of cheap fuel?

Sick of clean food?

Sick of cars that get good gas mileage and performance?

Ok let's try this again, I will repost what I've already written and explain it point by point(and for the rest of you...this is exactly how 1 long post turns into 20 small ones :wallbash:):

 

1. In fact, this appears to be a universal theory that explains everything, from Trump's seeming invulnerability, to Hillary's rapid decent, to Cruz's appeal over Rubio, to Kasich's march up the ladder in NH, and even to Bernie's increased support.

More on this later, but keep in mind each of the trends explained by the Neo-Jacksonian theory

2. Ostensibly, different voters are angry about different things.

Where did I say my specific anger matters, or in any way refer to myself? Different voters are angry about different things. This is obvious.

3. In many cases these things overlap, in some they do not.

It's very easy for voters on both sides of the spectrum to be angry and failed government and Wall Street at the same time. It's also easy for some to be reasonaby angry at Obama, while others are reasonably angry at "the system", and some to be angry at both, while others vehemently defend one, and only blame the other.

4. But in all cases, as the article points out, there is lot more unifying Jacksonian anger than there is unifying the Obama legacy and/or agenda.

People are pissed off in general largely due to Obama's lack of RESULTS. He has failed to deliver anything he has promised. Don't confuse effort with results. He delivered Obamacare...but it sucks, and has failed to live up to the standards HE set, never mind the standards the rest of us have, or the minimum standard of "better than what we had".

 

And do you really think that "Obama's Legacy" is reason alone to get lazy ass, low information voters to the polls? (Please say yes, please say yes.....)

 

Americans are angry :o. Yes, far left clowns, we are "angry" :rolleyes:. The country is losing at home and on the road, and NONE of your policies have made things better for the MAJORITY of Americans. You wreck most of the country in one way or another(Obamacare! There it is again :lol: You will never live it down), and then feign surprise when you anger most people? Worse, you try to equate that anger with being backward or unstable?

 

F you...

 

...is clearly, and exactly what these New Jacksonian values have to say about Obama's legacy and now Hillary's agenda.

 

Do I really need to explain the difference between saying "Americans are angry" and "I am angry"?

 

And notice: I didn't say white people. I said Americans are angry. There's plenty of agnst to go around for every demographic.

 

B-man's polls above are exactly what I am referring to, and are the basis for my claim. But again, all of this is obvious. African Americans know they've done worse than ever under Obama. Thus the worst thing the Democrats can do is come out an tell them how well they've done.

 

------

 

You can try to make this about me...and play the "Look at the angry guy :lol: , he's so angry nobody should listen to him, it's far better to listen to the smart people, like Obama!" :rolleyes: game all you want. After all this is the game that the left has been playing since 2007. But, that game is over. You'd be wise to accept that simple truth now, before you get your hopes up that somehow it's going to work this time around.

 

People are pissed, and they are pissed for a myriand of very good reasons. If the Democratic Party's approach is to make light of that, or ridicule people for being pissed, or lecture people...like you just did...on the various non-reasons why they shouldn't be pissed?

 

The Rs will have a 45 state landslide, 60+ vote Senate, but perhaps more importantly Constitutional Amendment Ratifying Capability. That's exactly the fire you're playing with...but don't mind me. By all means keep F'ing with people while they're angry, be extra smug about it, insult people as "bitter clingers" some more, and see what happens.

Edited by OCinBuffalo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...