In his recent article about Steve Bannon, Does Conservative Populism Exist?, the eminent academic, Paul Gottfried, offers the standard academic misinterpretation of populist philosophy.
Gottfried states, “Populism assumes a high degree of homogeneity, cultural, historic, and ethnic, among the “majority” to whom a populist leader appeals. The white working class base that Bannon and Trump have targeted includes no more than about 35% of the voting population; and at least that number of voters and probably more are allied to the cultural and social Left.”
Gottfried suggests that Bannon’s alleged populism consists of “combining tough trade deals with the Pacific Rim, increased solidarity with the Israeli government, and a general relaxation of relations with Russia.”
His main point is that Bannon’s so-called populism appeals only to 35% of the population, and it can not, therefore, be a “populist” philosophy.
Gottfried’s interpretation of populist principles is woefully inadequate.
Bannon offers no refutation or defense against Gottfried’s misapplication of Bannon’s alleged populism, because Bannon leaves no written trail of breadcrumbs to trace his ideas in any books or articles that explain his principles of government.
The argument I am making today is that it is politically convenient for the left, and for academics like Gottfried, to bastardize the philosophy of populism, for the same reasons the Democrats bastardized the philosophy of populism in the 1880s, and for the same reasons that the Federalists, in 1787, bastardized their natual rights, populist opponents by calling them “anti-federalists.”
In the mid-1880’s, southern black voters were forming a political coalition with white working class natural rights populists, and it was important for the Democrats to drive a wedge between blacks and common whites, to keep blacks voting the straight Democrat ticket.
Speaking to blacks in 1878, the Democratic leaders of Wilmington wrote in the Wilmington Post, “If the colored people will trust us and vote with us, we will act for their interests just as we do for the interests of the women and minors who do not vote at all.”
That velvet glove of the Democrats, in 1878, was replaced with their iron fist in the nation’s first military coup d’etat of a black city council, in 1898, in Wilmington.
In addition to their automatic rifles, the Democrats brought along a howitzer to kill the unarmed Black people.
One account of the violence reported that the Cape Fear River was “swollen with the corpses of blacks” who were killed by the Democrats.
After the Democrats slaughtered the blacks in Wilmington, they celebrated their victory in the state’s newspapers with the headline, “We Have Taken The City.”
From that point in history, blacks in North Carolina have voted the straight Democrat ticket.
The political alliance between white populists and blacks had been destroyed, and it is essential, today, for the Democrats to ratchet up race hatred between common white citizens and common black citizens, in order to keep that political coalition from ever forming again.
As noted by V. O. Key, in Southern Politics In State and Nation, “Philosophers and historians find the origin, if not the explanation, of this spirit of racism in the political struggles at the end of the past century, which propelled the state (of North Carolina) into its modern era of liberalized Democratic government. The struggles centered around Republican and Populist forces which captured control of the state legislature in 1894 and elected a Republican governor in 1896.”
The standard misinterpretation of populism by Gottfried is that populism consists of a “high degree of homogeneity” which is a dog whistle that there s something slightly racist and bigoted about populism.
Democrats falsely label populism as racist in order to keep black people voting the straight Democrat ticket. Anti-Trumpers label populists as racists in order to keep the globalist gravy train on track.
It is the same racist strategy of the academics, and socialist propagandist media, to identify George Wallace as a populist. George Wallace was not a populist. George Wallace was a racist Democrat, just like the Democrats who killed black people in Wilmington.
The socialist Democrats, in 1965, were forced to re-interpret history by incorrectly calling Wallace a populist, in order to promote their socialist agenda.
Bastardizing the term populist was important to the Democrats in order not to call black voter’s attention to all the racists in the Democrat Party.
Which raises a legitimate scholarly question: Is Steve Bannon a populist?
Ergo, is Bannon a populist racist bigot?
Ergo, is Trump a racist bigot?
The twin principles of Bannon’s political principles are neatly summarized by Matt Purple in “Bannonism Will Live On.” The alleged populism of Bannon consists, suggests Purple, in questioning the “liberal international order” in favor of something more nationalist and protectionist.
Economic nationalism is the key term used by most left-wing pundits that conflates the principles of populism with Bannon’s ideas about government. In the socially constructed reality of leftist ideology, American economic nationalism is synonymous with racism.
Bannon adds to the confusion by stating that, “This kind of populist nationalism has been having a fight with the establishment. Trump was a rejection of the entire establishment. The permanent political class has a business model, and they’re not prepared to give up power.”
In other words, Bannon’s advocacy of draining the swamp is related to his animosity to the elite’s advocacy of a global, one-world government. In Bannon’s own interpretation, anti-globalism means “populism.”
Populism is actually something different and more valuable to restoring the rule of law in America than anti-globalism, but both ideas share two common enemies, the Islamic terrorists, and the American globalists.
Historically, the populist philosophy was part of the anti-federalist arguments against Madison’s constitutional flaws.
“Anti-federalism” is also a bastardization of the term that the elites used to describe the natural rights political opposition to Madison’s federalists.
The natural rights patriots, aka anti-federalists, objected to five parts of Madison’s rules of procedure:
• the Necessary and Proper Clause,
• the Interstate Commerce Clause,
• the lack of term limits for Congress,
• the lack of accountability for the Federal judiciary.
• the convoluted rules for amending the constitution
As Merrill Jensen pointed out in, The Making of the American Constitution, George Mason insisted that Madison’s restrictive process of amending the constitution was a danger to individual liberty.
Madison’s rules, said Mason, “gave ultimate control to the central government, and no amendment could ever be obtained by the people, if the government became oppressive, as it would.”
Madison’s opening phrase “in order to form a more perfect union,” was called by the anti-federalists “forming a government of perfect nothingness,” because the constitution failed to mention that the goal of government is to protect the natural rights of citizens.
As George Mason said to the 51 federalist elites in Philadelphia, “Surely, the gentlemen can see the problem of a central government tyranny.”
According to Robert Goldwin, “The Anti-Federalist’s great concern was that the powers of the national government threatened the annihilation of the state governments…What was a danger to all liberty was an all-powerful central government able to tax from a great distance and thus render state and local government relatively powerless.”
The 51 virtuous gentlemen (not one farmer was present in the secret deliberations) refused to see the problem caused by the elimination of state governments, leading to the nation’s first attempt by the Federalist elites to remove from the Office of President, an elected natural rights President, in March of 1801.
Madison’s flawed document is the primary cause of the current unelected power of elites in the swamp.
Madison’s flawed document does not contain a remedy for the citizens to alter or abolish this tyrannical globalist regime.
The superiority of state governments over the Federal government, in the Articles of Confederation would have been a much better path to avoid the tyranny of the swamp, than Madison’s unauthorized, illegitimate, replacement of the Articles with his new constitution.
The populism of state and local authority in the Articles was based upon individualism, which is based upon a theological interpretation of God’s dominion on earth.
As described by Richard Tuck, in Natural Rights Theories, the natural rights patriots of 1776 thought that man’s relationship to each other and to the world was conceptually the same as God’s relationship to humans.
The natural rights patriots of 1776 stated that they believed that individuals, by using all of their intellectual and spiritual resources in the new government, could create God’s Kingdom on earth.
The relationship between God and man, in the natural rights theology, was a reciprocal one between equals, which generated rights and obligations on both sides. The populists thought that this reciprocity and obligation in equal rights extended, naturally, to constitutional and political relationships.
From the time of 1776, the populist version of the priority of local government contained a moral element about the worth and value of the individual. The anti-federalists, aka populists, believed that a person’s worth was derived from a loving God, who loved all individuals equally.
The Populist’s emphasis on individual equality in rule making and political rights came from their theology of commonality and social equality that non-elites felt towards each other, no matter what the social or economic status of the other.
In his book, Common Whites: Class and Culture In Antebellum North Carolina, Bill Cecil-Fronsman quotes an observer traveling through the South in the early 1800’s.
The observer remarked that common whites, in North Carolina, were “…extremely tenacious of the rights and liberties of republicanism. They consider themselves on equal footing with the best people in the country, and upon the principles of equality, they intrude themselves into every company.”
The feelings of social and political equality of common people arose from the priority they attached to attaining self-respect and economic independence.
They believed that their own moral worth as individuals did not derive either from their initial endowment of labor, or from their accumulation of property from market transactions.
Their moral worth was granted to them by a God who loved each individual.
In contrast to Jefferson’s individualism, Madison substituted the British social class value system, which emphasized a person’s moral worth in terms of financial wealth, and this moral worth, following Locke, was translated by Madison into constitutional decision making power.
Madison’s constitution required two political parties, one of which was considered by the elites to be morally superior to the howling masses. This natural aristocracy possessed “virtue,” and should therefore be granted more constitutional political authority than common citizens.
As Bill Cecil-Fronsman pointed out, Madison’s constitution, “…reminded common whites that they were members of a society whose leaders regarded wealth as a legitimate measure of a man’s worth.”
Madison’s two-party rule broke down, in 2008, when Obama converted the Democrat Party into a globalist socialist party that colludes with the Republicans on implementing a one-world government.
Madison’s two-party straight jacket was never a great idea, but it did provide political stability for 240 years.
As Lawrence Goodwyn described, Mason and the early populists of 1776, were followed 100 years later, by the agrarian populists.
The populists of 1885 correctly identified the charade of Madison’s two-party straight-jacket.
Goodwyn, in Democratic Promise, wrote, “Geographic, religious, and racial loyalties and prejudices were used to organize the nation’s two major parties that ignored the economic interests of millions…Thus, the many-faceted Republican coalition that came to power in 1861, became in the postwar years, a much narrower business party, closely tied to the politics of sectional division…the fact was central: geograhical prejudices in the 1880’s and 1890’s persisted as an enormous political barrier to anyone bent on creating a third party of reform.”
Goodwyn continued that by the last of the 1880s, the agrarian populists had seen in both political parties,
“…abundant evidence that great aggregations of capital could cloak self interested policies in high moral purposes, and have such interpretations disseminated widely and persuasively through the nation’s press, convincing the leaders of the need for a new political party free of corporate control.”
One hundred years before the Vichy Republicans sold out America’s economic interests to the Chinese communists, in 1985, the agrarians had learned first hand the intricate relationship between control of banking and money supply system and the legal system.
The agrarian populists understood how credit relationships between lenders and debtors could easily be extended into debt-peonage relationships wherein debtors lost their land and ended up in prison.
In 1885, the farmers lost their lands to the elites, in the debt-lien fraud.
In 1985, the Americans lost their economy to the elites, in the global trade fraud.
The Populist leaders of 1885 understood how the rule of law could be subverted, as eloquently expressed by Leonidas Polk, who said, “To say that the unjust and ruinous exactions of capital and corporate power are made in conformity to law is no answer, for there is no tyranny so degrading as legalized tyranny, there is no injustice so oppressive as that which stands entrenched behind the forms of law.”
Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was a populist.
George Mason, of Virginia, was a populist.
Thomas Paine, of Virginia, was a populist.
Thomas Burke, of Hillsborough, North Carolina, the author of the Articles of Confederation, was a populist.
Andrew Jackson, of Waxhaw, North Carolina, was a populist.
Leonidas Lafayette Polk, of Anson County, North Carolina, the Presidential candidate of the Agrarian Populist Party of 1892, was a populist.
Marion Butler, of Clinton, North Carolina, the leader of the Farmer’s Alliance, was a populist.
George Wallace, of Alabama, was not a populist. George Wallace was a racist Democrat, just like the Democrats who killed black people in Wilmington and just like the racists Democrats today.
Is Steve Bannon a populist?
Does he believe that “that the American experiment of representative democracy was ordained by God to pursue individual human freedoms and liberty from oppression and is an exceptional model in human history to be preserved, protected, and cherished by the citizens and deployed by them and their elected representatives as the guiding principles in America’s relationships with other nations and other people.”
Does Bannon believe that the rule of law is based upon the legal principles expressed in the populist moto, “Equal Rights for All. Special Privileges for None.”
Has Bannon ever been quoted as saying that:
“…that all legitimate authority is derived from the consent of the governed, and that the further removed authority becomes from the consent of the governed the more likely the authority is illegitimate, opressive and corrupt.
“…that those governed by the laws and whose individual freedom is restricted by the laws should have the greatest say and consent in making of the laws.”
“…that those who make the laws and give consent to the laws, acting as representatives of the citizens, bind themselves and their constituents to following the laws.”
“…that which governs the best, governs the least and closest to the people who are subject to the authority of the government.”
I confess that I have never heard Bannon state these populist principles of government.
What I have heard Bannon say is that he despises the tyranny of the swamp, and that he hates the tyranny of the elite globalists.
Bannon is an American patriot.
So am I.
We share a common vision of the future of a sovereign America, and share a common view of our globalist enemies.
Bannon is not a populist, but he is my blood brother in the fight to preserve our American heritage of freedom.
I am Laurie Thomas Vass, the leader of The Citizens Liberty Party, a North Carolina-based, authentic populist, natural rights, conservative American political movement.
I need citizen patriots, like Steve Bannon, to join me in the fight to restore the rule of law and reclaim the principles of natural rights.
Thank you for joining me today for segment 1 of the CLP News Network. Please stay tuned for segment 2, after a brief message from our sponsor.
Segment 2 January 22, 2018
Is Steve Bannon a Populist?
Thank you for joining me for the second segment of our program today.
Our second segment is designed to connect our analysis of what is wrong with the American government with practical solutions that citizens can implement to restore the rule of law and reclaim the spirit of individual liberty.
In Segment 1, I used the example of Steve Bannon’s alleged populism to explain that Bannon describes the dysfunction in government as caused by a centralized tyranny of globalists, who believe that a one-world government would be better than the continued existence of America, as a sovereign nation state.
Bannon’s advocacy of a sovereign nation of America is interpreted by leftists as “populism,” and in the socially constructed reality of socialism, populism is equivalent to racism.
The socialist Democrats and the corporate Republicans both despise Bannon’s nationalist patriotism.
The issue that I raised in my column for the 63 million voters who voted for Trump is how they should respond to the new political reality of the Democrat’s hatred of America.
I explained that the roots of populism are traced to Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, both of whom had a deep faith in the ability of individual citizens to make the best decisions for themselves, and consequently, should have the greatest say in creating laws that the citizens would apply to govern themselves.
Rather than self-government, Madison’s constitution has devolved into a centralized political tyranny, commonly called the swamp.
In my analysis of the problem in the national government is that citizens are in the very early stages of a planned coup d’etat to overthrow the Trump government.
Citizens can clearly see that Mueller is laying the foundation of starting this coup.
The Democrats weaponized the secret police to enforce their authoritarian philsopophy, including the FBI’s routine evasion of the rule of law to serve their left-wing ideology. The news today brings the disclosure that the FBI destroyed five months of legal evidence related to the so-called Russian dossier.
Trump voters do not have a political party to lead a national political movement to reclaim individual liberty and restore the rule of law. Without an organized political opposition party, the 63 million Trump voters do not have a mechanism to extract vengeance against the lawless FBI for their role in destroying civil and natural rights of citizens.
I explained that Steve Bannon is an American patriot, doing the best job he can, without an organized political party, to protect American citizens.
Part of the reason the left describe Bannon as a populist is to slime and bastardize him as a racist.
Bannon has been warning the American public that citizens do not have an organizational framework to defend their natural rights and defeat the socialists, after Mueller launches his coup.
After the coup d’etat is launched by the elites in the swamp, there will likely be a period of chaos and violence in America.
That period of time can end with one of three different scenarios.
First, the socialists may win, and implement their global socialist tyranny.
Second, the natural rights conservatives may defeat the socialists and restore the rule of law.
Or, third, both sides may call a truce and agree to a civil dissolution of the current nation.
The two sides, the socialists and the natural rights conservatives, can not live peacefully together.
A nation divided against itself can not endure.
The intractable problem of centralized tyranny in American government can only be solved by a civil dissolution, where the socialists create their own socialist utopia, and natural rights conservatives start over, by reclaiming the Spirit of citizen liberty, proclaimed by patriots, in 1776.
Natural Rights Conservatives must join a new political party in America, called the Citizens Liberty Party.
The mission of the party is to lead a national political movement that protects natural rights and restores the rule of law, after 8 years of Obama’s lawless regime.
The CLP is founded on the bedrock principle expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration that the purpose of government is to protect the natural rights of citizens and to defend the sovereignty of the nation from external and internal enemies, like the socialists.
The CLP is an authentic populist, natural rights, conservative political party. It is exactly the type of political vehicle a patriot like Bannon needs to perform his mission.
When you join the CLP, you will be asked to volunteer to work on one of the local political committees in you home community.
You will also be asked to form a local citizens committee of correspondence to coordinate the external affairs of the Party with other local chapters in other metro regions.
After you join the CLP, you will be asked to upload news articles about events and issues that you think other members of the party would be interested in hearing.
The organizational website for the CLP is at www.citizenslibertyparty.com.
I am Laurie Thomas Vass, the leader of the Citizens Liberty Party, and I need volunteers to join me in the fight for American freedom.
Thank you for joining me today on the CLP Newws Network. Please like us on FaceBook and follow us on YouTube.