[Guest post] Whiggery

Any conservative worthy of the name resists change. Yet this defining characteristic hurts the conservative cause by making them less agile in criticizing the adaptations of their opponents. For example, right wing dogma paints Obama as a Liberal with a capital "L", but this hackneyed label is badly misplaced. Every time I hear a right-wing pundit blather about how Obama is the most liberal politician ever, I instantly stop listening. The person clearly isn't uttering original thoughts; he's stuck in a 20th century conservative rut. What year does he think this is? 1940? 1965? No, President Obama may be a lot of things, but I don't think he's a liberal.

I see Obama as a Whig.

Yes a Whig. To my way of thinking, Obama resembles Henry Clay more than classic political liberals such as Lyndon Johnson or FDR. Obama is an intellegent man with a complex vision: an American Plan like Henry Clay. There's much Whiggery, not Liberalism, in the Obama presidency.

The more I learn about the Whig Party from the mid 19th century, the more I think this is where the modern Democratic party is moving, toward whiggery. There's actually a Modern Whig party, founded when Obama took office.

Conservatives take note: your opponent has moved to a new idealogical stronghold. If your guns are still aimed at LBJ, I think you'll miss by a large margin where the modern Dems are headed. A symptom of this cockeyed targeting are the accusations of socialism hurled at Obama. They are nowhere close to the mark. Whigs are not socialists. They are planners inclined toward complex solutions, but not socialists. My, my no!

The original Whig party formed in opposition to Andrew Jackson, who was sort-of the Ronald Reagan of his day. A great communicator, with folksy charm, it's said that "Old Hickory" was the first president to really understand the power in popular opinion. His Whig opposition followed the elitist axiom that ordinary citizens would naturally accept their betters in Washington had things well in hand. Does that sound like Obamacare?

Therefore, if the Republicans want to beat Obama in 2012, I think they need a candidate who can run effectively against a Whig. Sara Palin or Mitt Romney are bad choices for this. Get somebody like Andy Jackson, or better yet, Jackson's protégé: James K. Polk. Don't know much about Polk? I think if you read about the man you'll agree with me that he's exactly the sort of man needed to defeat a Whig. Look at Polk's simple campaign platform: secure our borders, stabilize the treasury, cut tarrifs, keep the federal government out of local affairs, and (this is the best one) get it all done in four years and not seek re-election. Polk achieved all of his campaign promises. Polk was, without a doubt, the most effective President we've ever had. In addition, Polk swept away the progressive, elitist American Plan of Henry Clay and the Whigs. Read about his Rivers and Harbors Veto and I think you'll agree that Polk would have been a Tea Party favorite.

Posted at 16:52 by Nadz   [/guest/nadz]   Comments | Perm Link |
Technorati Tags: WyBlog blogging   |   Tweet