DOCSLIB.ORG

Government Is the Problem: Symbolic Trajectories of the Contemporary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Government Is the Problem: Symbolic Trajectories of the Contemporary Government is the problem: Symbolic trajectories of the contemporary conservative movement By © 2018 Michael Eisenstadt B.A., University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 2012 M.A., University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 2014 Submitted to the graduate degree program in Communication Studies and the Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Chairperson: Dr. Robert C. Rowland Dr. Beth Innocenti Dr. Scott Harris Dr. Brett J. Bricker Dr. Amy Devitt Date Defended: 04 June 2018 The dissertation committee for Michael Eisenstadt certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Government is the problem: Symbolic trajectories of the contemporary conservative movement Chairperson: Dr. Robert C. Rowland Co-Chair: Co-Chair Name Date Approved: 04 June 2018 ii Abstract The rightward shift of the contemporary conservative movement represents one of the most significant developments in American culture and politics over the last forty years. While numerous studies in rhetoric have tackled case studies of specific events, speeches, and texts, there is not yet a longitudinal study that traces the symbolic developments of the conservative movement over this period. In this dissertation, I fill that gap in rhetorical studies by arguing that the contemporary conservative movement was entelechialized by a limited government worldview, leading conservative Republicans to refuse compromise even when that refusal posed grave political risks. In four case studies, I analyze a number of key influences on the symbolic trajectories of the conservative movement, including Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Patrick Buchanan, and contemporary conservative opinion media. Keywords: Rhetorical Trajectory; Entelechy; Conservatism; Big Government; Ronald Reagan iii Acknowledgements The journey to completing this dissertation extends back to the year 2012. I was enrolled in an undergraduate course on argumentation, taught by my former intercollegiate debate coach, Dr. Jacob Thompson. In that class, I was assigned to read multiple essays by Dr. Thompson’s M.A. and Ph.D. advisor at the University of Kansas, Dr. Robert C. Rowland. Later on, as an M.A. student, I had the fortune of being Dr. Thomas Burkholder’s last graduate advisee. Dr. Burkholder also earned his Ph.D. from the University of Kansas, where he too worked closely with Dr. Rowland. I had no way of knowing then that I would become a pseudo-third generation Jayhawk and follow in the footsteps of my mentors at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, having the pleasure and fortune of working with Dr. Rowland myself. Dr. Rowland has played an invaluable role in my development as a rhetorical critic, as a researcher, as a teacher, as a writer, and most importantly, as a citizen. Even though Dr. Rowland juggled the responsibilities of being the lead editor of a prestigious journal, serving as the Director of Graduate Studies in the Communication Studies Department at KU, teaching several undergraduate and graduate courses, advising a dozen other graduate students, and still publishing multiple essays each year, he always found the time to chat with me, to engage my ideas and my writing, and to advocate on my behalf when I needed his support. His dedication to myself, but also to all other graduate students, the Communication Studies department, and the discipline writ large, reflects the type of academic and mentor I seek to become. Any student that goes through the M.A. or Ph.D. program in Communication Studies at KU and passes up the opportunity to work with Dr. Rowland is simply missing out on one of the university’s and discipline’s greatest assets. Those students, wherever they may end up, will likely need to “tighten their writing,” search harder for the “critical problem,” and take some cooking lessons. iv I would also like to thank Dr. Scott Harris and Dr. Brett J. Bricker. It was intimidating coming from a debate program where you were the very first member, to a program with more than a century of tradition, national championships, and prestige. However, both Dr. Harris and Dr. Bricker have made me a better critic of argument, a better debate coach, a better adjudicator, a better critical thinker, and a slightly better three-point shooter. They constantly tested my ability and pushed me to develop my argumentation skills, both in writing and in reason. There are no individuals I can think of who could better prepare me for my new role as a Director of Forensics than the two head coaches of the most dominant debate program in the United States. Dr. Harris and Dr. Bricker are also two of the kindest, most understanding, and yet rigorous debate specialists out there. It would not be GAMEDAY if Dr. Harris and Dr. Bricker did not show up to play ball. Dr. Beth Innocenti rarely has her door shut, and a consequence of that has been my frequent pop-ins to chat about both relevant and irrelevant subjects. Never once did I feel as though Dr. Innocenti was annoyed, frustrated, or wanted me out, despite having a full plate of work no doubt. I seek to emulate the balance between brilliance, kindness, openness, and faith in graduate students that Dr. Innocenti commands with ease. Dr. Innocenti also pushed me to my limits by posing challenging questions and forcing me to defend my ideas. Without her tutelage, I would be lost in a sea of Kenneth Burke references. Finally, I would like to acknowledge and thank my family and friends. To my Mom, my brother Robert, and my sister-in-law Faith, your support and excitement about my academic progress is what helps me wake up in the morning. To my Dad, losing you in my first semester of the Ph.D. program was one of the most difficult times of my life. And yet, I knew that if you v could speak to me, you would tell me to carry onward, work my tail off, and stay on the grind no matter what. I still keep a shoehorn of yours suspended in my office to remind me that regardless of what difficulties I may come up against, there is always more work to be done. To Ian Beier, Justin Eckstein, Justin Kirk, Jyleesa Hampton, and Chris Hines, thank you for keeping me from coming unglued over the last several years and for helping me navigate the anxiety and struggles of being a graduate student. To Talya Slaw, thank you for making Lawrence feel like a home and helping me rekindle with my heritage. To Jacob Justice, thank you for being my co-pilot in the classroom and in research. I look forward to our future projects. To Caitlin Saladino, somehow you’ve remained my rhetorical rock even from 1,800 miles away. To the KU Debate team, thank you for forcing me to lean into the many memes that are now a cornerstone of my work identity, including slaying papers and knowing what “day” it is. Special shout out to Ethan Bastian, Gabe Esquivel, Carolyn Hassett, Ross Fitzpatrick, John Mantis, Nate Martin, Nick Massa, Lindsay McFadyen, Lily Ottinger, and Jack Ross, the fierce KU frosh class who will undoubtedly carry on the KU Debate tradition of winning trophies. And finally, to Abigail Kingsford, I may never be able to repay you for the hours of time and effort you put into ensuring my health and success over the last few years. The least I may hope to do is help you study for your comprehensive exams the same way you did for me and send you a barrage of Pomeranian photos as you write your dissertation. vi Table of Contents Chapter 1 - Introduction to the symbolic trajectories of contemporary conservatism .......... 1 Review of literature ........................................................................................................... 5 Theory and methodology ................................................................................................. 14 Proposed trajectory of chapters ....................................................................................... 19 Chapter 2 - The conservative 1980s: A zeal for anti-government purity in the Reagan Revolution ........................................................................................................................... 22 Reagan’s enduring anti-government rhetoric .................................................................. 26 April 28, 1981, Joint address to Congress ................................................................... 30 October 22, 1986, remarks on signing the Tax Reform Act of 1986 ........................... 32 Conservatives criticize Reagan on his commitments ...................................................... 35 Compromise and pragmatism over curtailing government ......................................... 38 Lip service to social issues ........................................................................................... 44 George H. W. Bush and a gentler, kinder conservatism .................................................. 47 Conservatives react to Bush ............................................................................................ 50 The conservative conundrum ........................................................................................... 53 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 55 Chapter 3 - The Gingrich revolution: Scorched earth conservatism and an opportunity society to topple the liberal welfare state ........................................................................................ 57 The Gingrich revolution .................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Conserving Criminal-Justice Reform
    Conserving Criminal-Justice Reform Lars Trautman and Arthur L. Rizer, III hen carl harris was released from prison in 2009, he de- Wscribed himself as “a man coming out of a cave after 20 years.” Convicted of assault at age 24 after injuring two people who had stolen his crack cocaine, Harris had been a drug dealer since he was 18 years old. After six years in prison, he realized he wanted more out of life. He found God, got clean, and focused on his education. Despite his efforts at personal redemption and societal rehabilitation, Harris sat in prison for another 14 years, costing the federal government more than $300,000. During his 20 years in prison, Harris worked a $1.15-an-hour prison job; his wages failed to cover the cost for his wife, Charlene Hamilton, to visit him in prison, let alone help provide for their two young daugh- ters. As a newly single mother, Hamilton turned to welfare payments and relatives for support; she briefly became homeless a couple of times after being unable to make ends meet. As Hamilton put it: “Basically, I was locked up with him.” None of this is to suggest that Harris should not have gone to prison — even he agrees that he deserved some prison time — but his experience in the criminal-justice system demonstrates that incarceration affects not only prisoners themselves, but also their families, communities, and all American taxpayers. Harris is merely one of millions of Americans who experience the country’s outsized and inefficient criminal-justice system.
    [Show full text]
  • Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
    Case 1:21-cv-01665-TJK Document 1 Filed 06/21/21 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA END CITIZENS UNITED PAC 100 M Street Washington, DC 20003, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. ___________ FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 1050 First Street NE Washington, DC 20463, Defendant. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1. Plaintiff End Citizens United (“ECU”) brings this action against the Federal Election Commission (“FEC” or “Commission”) pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8), challenging as contrary to law the FEC’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s administrative complaint against Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. (the “Trump Campaign”), the former president’s campaign committee. 2. On May 7, 2019, the Trump Campaign issued a public statement that criticized the “dishonest fundraising” practices of certain groups and informed potential donors that only five entities were “authorized” or “approved” by President Trump or the Republican National Committee (the “RNC”): four of those entities were official campaign or party organizations, and the fifth was America First Action—a super PAC. 3. The Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”) and FEC regulations prohibit campaigns from soliciting contributions to super PACs unless certain critical measures are taken to ensure that the solicited contributions do not come from prohibited sources or exceed federal 1 Case 1:21-cv-01665-TJK Document 1 Filed 06/21/21 Page 2 of 14 contribution limits. See 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e); 11 C.F.R. § 300.61. But the Trump Campaign took no such measures in its May 7 solicitation, instead issuing a blanket endorsement of contributions to the “approved” super PAC—contributions that would include corporate and unlimited funds, also known as “soft money,” which federal candidates are banned from soliciting.
    [Show full text]
  • CRITICAL THEORY and AUTHORITARIAN POPULISM Critical Theory and Authoritarian Populism
    CDSMS EDITED BY JEREMIAH MORELOCK CRITICAL THEORY AND AUTHORITARIAN POPULISM Critical Theory and Authoritarian Populism edited by Jeremiah Morelock Critical, Digital and Social Media Studies Series Editor: Christian Fuchs The peer-reviewed book series edited by Christian Fuchs publishes books that critically study the role of the internet and digital and social media in society. Titles analyse how power structures, digital capitalism, ideology and social struggles shape and are shaped by digital and social media. They use and develop critical theory discussing the political relevance and implications of studied topics. The series is a theoretical forum for in- ternet and social media research for books using methods and theories that challenge digital positivism; it also seeks to explore digital media ethics grounded in critical social theories and philosophy. Editorial Board Thomas Allmer, Mark Andrejevic, Miriyam Aouragh, Charles Brown, Eran Fisher, Peter Goodwin, Jonathan Hardy, Kylie Jarrett, Anastasia Kavada, Maria Michalis, Stefania Milan, Vincent Mosco, Jack Qiu, Jernej Amon Prodnik, Marisol Sandoval, Se- bastian Sevignani, Pieter Verdegem Published Critical Theory of Communication: New Readings of Lukács, Adorno, Marcuse, Honneth and Habermas in the Age of the Internet Christian Fuchs https://doi.org/10.16997/book1 Knowledge in the Age of Digital Capitalism: An Introduction to Cognitive Materialism Mariano Zukerfeld https://doi.org/10.16997/book3 Politicizing Digital Space: Theory, the Internet, and Renewing Democracy Trevor Garrison Smith https://doi.org/10.16997/book5 Capital, State, Empire: The New American Way of Digital Warfare Scott Timcke https://doi.org/10.16997/book6 The Spectacle 2.0: Reading Debord in the Context of Digital Capitalism Edited by Marco Briziarelli and Emiliana Armano https://doi.org/10.16997/book11 The Big Data Agenda: Data Ethics and Critical Data Studies Annika Richterich https://doi.org/10.16997/book14 Social Capital Online: Alienation and Accumulation Kane X.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Conservative Grassroots Coalition Letter
    November 18, 2020 Dear Texas House Republicans, Once again Democrat efforts to turn Texas blue were soundly rejected by voters across the Lone Star State. While we continue to wait for election results to settle here in Texas and across the nation, it is obvious that Texas voters have delivered a mandate for conservative reform to their elected officials. While our control over national affairs is limited, Republican control of Texas is absolute. The GOP holds majorities in both chambers of the Texas Legislature. It also holds the governor’s office, the lieutenant governor’s office, and every other statewide office. Indeed, Republicans have majorities sufficient to enact any reform they wish – apart from state constitutional amendments – without securing a single Democrat vote. Texans voted for that result and Texans expect that from their elected officials. To be clear, Texas voters did not vote for bipartisan capitulation or compromise with Democrats, they voted for conservative Republican policies to be enacted. Texas has not elected a Democrat statewide since 1994. Texas voters’ decision to again shut Democrats out of statewide office and return Republican majorities to our Legislative and Congressional Delegations signals voters want the Republican Party of Texas Platform rigorously pursued and they expect results – not excuses. In order to advance the Republican Party of Texas Platform and its 87th Session Legislative Priorities, any Republican campaigning for Speaker of the Texas House should and must commit the following to Republican voters: ● Each Republican Party of Texas legislative priority will receive a vote on the floor of the Texas House. ● All House committees shall be chaired by Republicans and shall be composed of a majority of Republicans.
    [Show full text]
  • CHECKS, BALANCES,AND NUCLEAR WASTE Bruce R. Huber*
    CHECKS, BALANCES, AND NUCLEAR WASTE Bruce R. Huber ABSTRACT Systems of political checks and balances, so prominently featured in the U.S. Constitution, are also commonly installed in statutory and regulatory regimes. Although such systems diffuse political authority and may facilitate participation and accountability, they come with a price. If exercised, political checks—even those that appear trivial—can obstruct statutory processes and saddle a policy system with an unintended default policy outcome. Policies that are neither debated nor chosen, but that emerge as unbidden defaults, exhibit the very democratic deficits that checks and balances are intended to remedy. This is precisely the situation of nuclear waste policy in the United States. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 established a process for siting and constructing repositories for nuclear waste. When Nevada’s Yucca Mountain emerged as a likely repository site, that state’s officials and allies exercised the numerous political and legal checks afforded by the Act and appear, at least for the time being, to have defeated the selection. But Nevada’s victory may well be the nation’s loss. In the absence of a national waste repository, nuclear power plant operators have no choice but to store spent nuclear fuel on site, where it presents a number of risks not contemplated by the 1982 legislation. This outcome was not chosen or anticipated by legislators, plant operators, state and local siting authorities, or host communities. This Article argues that lawmakers must take more realistic stock of their own institutional behaviors. Although certain corrosive incentives are intractably embedded in our constitutional system, lawmakers can and should write statutes with full awareness of the risks of relying on statutory checks and balances.
    [Show full text]
  • MAP Act Coalition Letter Freedomworks
    April 13, 2021 Dear Members of Congress, We, the undersigned organizations representing millions of Americans nationwide highly concerned by our country’s unsustainable fiscal trajectory, write in support of the Maximizing America’s Prosperity (MAP) Act, to be introduced by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) and Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.). As we stare down a mounting national debt of over $28 trillion, the MAP Act presents a long-term solution to our ever-worsening spending patterns by implementing a Swiss-style debt brake that would prevent large budget deficits and increased national debt. Since the introduction of the MAP Act in the 116th Congress, our national debt has increased by more than 25 percent, totaling six trillion dollars higher than the $22 trillion we faced less than two years ago in July of 2019. Similarly, nearly 25 percent of all U.S. debt accumulated since the inception of our country has come since the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now more than ever, it is critical that legislators take a serious look at the fiscal situation we find ourselves in, with a budget deficit for Fiscal Year 2020 of $3.132 trillion and a projected share of the national debt held by the public of 102.3 percent of GDP. While markets continue to finance our debt in the current moment, the simple and unavoidable fact remains that our country is not immune from the basic economics of massive debt, that history tells us leads to inevitable crisis. Increased levels of debt even before a resulting crisis slows economic activity -- a phenomenon referred to as “debt drag” -- which especially as we seek recovery from COVID-19 lockdowns, our nation cannot afford.
    [Show full text]
  • Was Ann Coulter Right? Some Realism About “Minimalism”
    AMLR.V5I1.PRESSER.POSTPROOFLAYOUT.0511 9/16/2008 3:21:27 PM Copyright © 2007 Ave Maria Law Review WAS ANN COULTER RIGHT? SOME REALISM ABOUT “MINIMALISM” Stephen B. Presser † INTRODUCTION Ever since the Warren Court rewrote much of the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, there has been a debate within legal academia about the legitimacy of this judicial law making.1 Very little popular attention was paid, at least in the last several decades, to this problem. More recently, however, the issue of the legitimacy of judicial law making has begun to enter the realm of partisan popular debate. This is due to the fact that Republicans controlled the White House for six years and a majority in the Senate for almost all of that time, that they have announced, as it were, a program of picking judges committed to adjudication rather than legislation, and finally, that the Democrats have, just as vigorously, resisted Republican efforts. Cass Sunstein, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School,2 and now a visiting professor at Harvard Law School,3 has written a provocative book purporting to be a popular, yet scholarly critique of the sort of judges President George W. Bush has announced that he would like to appoint. Is Sunstein’s effort an objective undertaking, or is it partisan politics with a thin academic veneer? If Sunstein’s work (and that of others on the Left in the † Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History, Northwestern University School of Law; Professor of Business Law, J. L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University; Legal Affairs Editor, Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.
    [Show full text]
  • Culture Wars' Reloaded: Trump, Anti-Political Correctness and the Right's 'Free Speech' Hypocrisy
    The 'Culture Wars' Reloaded: Trump, Anti-Political Correctness and the Right's 'Free Speech' Hypocrisy Dr. Valerie Scatamburlo-D'Annibale University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada Abstract This article explores how Donald Trump capitalized on the right's decades-long, carefully choreographed and well-financed campaign against political correctness in relation to the broader strategy of 'cultural conservatism.' It provides an historical overview of various iterations of this campaign, discusses the mainstream media's complicity in promulgating conservative talking points about higher education at the height of the 1990s 'culture wars,' examines the reconfigured anti- PC/pro-free speech crusade of recent years, its contemporary currency in the Trump era and the implications for academia and educational policy. Keywords: political correctness, culture wars, free speech, cultural conservatism, critical pedagogy Introduction More than two years after Donald Trump's ascendancy to the White House, post-mortems of the 2016 American election continue to explore the factors that propelled him to office. Some have pointed to the spread of right-wing populism in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis that culminated in Brexit in Europe and Trump's victory (Kagarlitsky, 2017; Tufts & Thomas, 2017) while Fuchs (2018) lays bare the deleterious role of social media in facilitating the rise of authoritarianism in the U.S. and elsewhere. Other 69 | P a g e The 'Culture Wars' Reloaded: Trump, Anti-Political Correctness and the Right's 'Free Speech' Hypocrisy explanations refer to deep-rooted misogyny that worked against Hillary Clinton (Wilz, 2016), a backlash against Barack Obama, sedimented racism and the demonization of diversity as a public good (Major, Blodorn and Blascovich, 2016; Shafer, 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • National Press Club Luncheon with Newt Gingrich, Former Speaker of the House of Representatives
    NATIONAL PRESS CLUB LUNCHEON WITH NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MODERATOR: JERRY ZREMSKI LOCATION: NATIONAL PRESS CLUB BALLROOM, WASHINGTON, D.C. TIME: 1:00 P.M. EDT DATE: TUESDAY, AUGUST 7, 2007 (C) COPYRIGHT 2005, FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC., 1000 VERMONT AVE. NW; 5TH FLOOR; WASHINGTON, DC - 20005, USA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ANY REPRODUCTION, REDISTRIBUTION OR RETRANSMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED. UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION, REDISTRIBUTION OR RETRANSMISSION CONSTITUTES A MISAPPROPRIATION UNDER APPLICABLE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, AND FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO PURSUE ALL REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO IT IN RESPECT TO SUCH MISAPPROPRIATION. FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC. IS A PRIVATE FIRM AND IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. NO COPYRIGHT IS CLAIMED AS TO ANY PART OF THE ORIGINAL WORK PREPARED BY A UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE AS PART OF THAT PERSON'S OFFICIAL DUTIES. FOR INFORMATION ON SUBSCRIBING TO FNS, PLEASE CALL JACK GRAEME AT 202-347-1400. ------------------------- MR. ZREMSKI: (Sounds gavel.) Good afternoon, and welcome to the National Press Club. My name is Jerry Zremski, and I'm the Washington bureau chief for the Buffalo News and president of the Press Club. I'd like to welcome our club members and their guests who are with this today, as well as those of you who are watching on C-SPAN. We're looking forward to today's speech, and afterwards, I'll ask as many questions as time permits. Please hold your applause during the speech so that we have as much time for questions as possible. For our broadcast audience, I'd like to explain that if you hear applause during the speech, it may be from the guests and members of the general public who attend our luncheons and not necessarily from the working press.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of the New Right on the Reagan Administration
    LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY OF LONDON THE IMPACT OF THE NEW RIGHT ON THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION: KIRKPATRICK & UNESCO AS. A TEST CASE BY Isaac Izy Kfir LONDON 1998 UMI Number: U148638 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U148638 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 2 ABSTRACT The aim of this research is to investigate whether the Reagan administration was influenced by ‘New Right’ ideas. Foreign policy issues were chosen as test cases because the presidency has more power in this area which is why it could promote an aggressive stance toward the United Nations and encourage withdrawal from UNESCO with little impunity. Chapter 1 deals with American society after 1945. It shows how the ground was set for the rise of Reagan and the New Right as America moved from a strong affinity with New Deal liberalism to a new form of conservatism, which the New Right and Reagan epitomised. Chapter 2 analyses the New Right as a coalition of three distinctive groups: anti-liberals, New Christian Right, and neoconservatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Newt Gingrich New Contract with America
    Newt Gingrich New Contract With America When Vergil infiltrated his citranges girdle not princely enough, is Hershel phylacteric? Teodoor never throws any bidets unhinged seaman, is Avrom underarm and owner-occupied enough? Staford remains bionic after Erwin prohibit abundantly or bust-up any regimental. All production beyond that was handled by PFF. Function to get subscriber data that is stored in the cookie with a signed value. In these cases, describing in detail the precise plan of the Congressional Representatives, and did not know the purpose for which it was written. Connection to ALOF and ACTV. With the prospect Republican House control for the first time in forty years, he had rejected an offer to play a larger role, rewritten or redistributed. The new forms of america on point of policy, contract with newt new america chooses to what such as a particular sentences and security. He talked about his plans for the next few weeks. The purpose of Mr. Renewing American Civilization House Working Group As stated in Mr. There are political leaders who have been key in creating the system we have. Muslim civilians for gingrich contract portended important that in. But we have two reasons. Ron Paul and former Utah Gov. Renewing American Civilization House Working Group. ACTV had the same educational aspects and partisan, home and garden news and more. Friends of Newt Gingrich. Vermont, was the state, faced the need to change in order to keep up with tougher competition. And not allow the news media, or he was again reckless in the way he provided information to the Committee concerning a very important matter.
    [Show full text]
  • How White Supremacy Returned to Mainstream Politics
    GETTY CORUM IMAGES/SAMUEL How White Supremacy Returned to Mainstream Politics By Simon Clark July 2020 WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG How White Supremacy Returned to Mainstream Politics By Simon Clark July 2020 Contents 1 Introduction and summary 4 Tracing the origins of white supremacist ideas 13 How did this start, and how can it end? 16 Conclusion 17 About the author and acknowledgments 18 Endnotes Introduction and summary The United States is living through a moment of profound and positive change in attitudes toward race, with a large majority of citizens1 coming to grips with the deeply embedded historical legacy of racist structures and ideas. The recent protests and public reaction to George Floyd’s murder are a testament to many individu- als’ deep commitment to renewing the founding ideals of the republic. But there is another, more dangerous, side to this debate—one that seeks to rehabilitate toxic political notions of racial superiority, stokes fear of immigrants and minorities to inflame grievances for political ends, and attempts to build a notion of an embat- tled white majority which has to defend its power by any means necessary. These notions, once the preserve of fringe white nationalist groups, have increasingly infiltrated the mainstream of American political and cultural discussion, with poi- sonous results. For a starting point, one must look no further than President Donald Trump’s senior adviser for policy and chief speechwriter, Stephen Miller. In December 2019, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hatewatch published a cache of more than 900 emails2 Miller wrote to his contacts at Breitbart News before the 2016 presidential election.
    [Show full text]