In an embarrassing faux pas, it was recently discovered that Mississippi hadn’t officially ratified the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. The focus in many articles was of the nature of a silly clerical error, as the ratification had passed both the House and the Senate unanimously. Others pointed to the fact that it took until 1995 for this to even pass. The 130 year tardiness, while absurd, is not even what concerns me.

I am just finishing up rereading Never Call Retreat, The third volume in Bruce Catton’s Centennial History of the Civil War. Each time I delve into a professional history of this war, I am reminded of just how much of today’s right-wing politics is rooted in Confederate philosophy. To what extent? For this answer, one need look no further than the founding document of the Confederate States of America.

Injecting religion into politics and overt white supremacist passions are found right at the very beginning of said document: (via Wikipedia):

The Preambles of both Constitutions do have some similarities, though it seems that the Confederate Constitution authors set out to give a different feel to the new preamble. Both preambles are provided here. The bold text shows the differences in the two.

• The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
• The Preamble to the Confederate Constitution: “We, the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.”

The major issue leading to factional unrest and, ultimately, rebellion was that of slavery in the territories. To ensure that the “peculiar institution” was unmolested in all current and future lands of the CSA, the Constitution included the following:

The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.

Since Nixon’s Southern Strategy, an appeal to Confederate values has vaulted more and more political extremists into prominence. Still consumed with romantic ideas of “The Lost Cause,” a just war over “States’ rights,” and 19th Century human bondage apologetics, Southerners are manipulated into voting against their own interests. We see the ratification of a Constitutional Amendment as a silly oversight in the same month that will see the arguments to strike down the Voting Rights Act of 1965 presented to the Supreme Court.

It doesn’t occur to some people (specifically, those who routinely issue demands to outlaw the enforcement of Sharia law in their districts) that the first amendment lends itself rather well to preventing the imposition of Sharia law. The irony of their support of Sharia-like moral policing in favor of crackpot Christian nuttery is obviously lost on them.

One thing that occurs to me is that we humans have pretty homogeneous ideas on most things. That is to say, we mostly agree about basic governance. I am always a little bit surprised (I have an IQ of slightly above room temperature, so I’m easily impressed) when I have conversations with people I know as Right Wing Loons (RWLs). When I think of RWLs, I think of comically absurd conspiracy theories and wild-eyed claims about the apocalyptic consequences of minor proposed legislation. But, then, that is the real difference, isn’t it. In order to get rational people to vote against their own interests, an effective strategy is to use coincidences (real, or ridiculously contrived ala Glenn Beck’s) as evidence of conspiracies. Certainly, the left has had its share of kooks. Strangely, one of the rantingest of RWLs is also the purveyor of a crackpot theory in favor among the dirty hippies (DFHs): 9/11 was an inside job.

Alex Jones has convinced the dirtiest of DFHs that the same Republicans who put buffoonish incompetents like “Brownie” in charge of important government agencies like FEMA were able to efficiently and effectively pull off a Bond-villain-scale crime against humanity in utter secrecy, despite the thousands of people who must have been involved.

Alex Jones has convinced the looniest of RWLs that the same Democrats who failed to oust the laziest oaf ever to embarrass the position of the American Presidency, despite disastrous handling of two wars (one of which was based on the most obvious bovine fecal matter since the Maine incident) were able to install a foreign-born secret Muslim Manchurian candidate. And they made him a noticeably flawed administrator and a perfectly typical pandering politician to hide his secret Marxist Muslim agenda.

Yes, the biggest difference between the two sides is a collection of politically appropriate conspiracy theories easily dismissed by reasonable middle school children.

I have no idea what is in Agenda 21, and I’m not sure I care. It probably consists of a lot of guidelines that could generally be considered either common sense or good-neighbor rules of thumb. So why bring it up? The right wing loons (RWLs) of several states have opted to propose legislation banning any adherence to Agenda 21.

David Frum in GOP: Ditch the Agenda 21 Tinfoil Hat Brigade quotes a conservative friend, Rob Sisson:

In 1992, President George H. W. Bush signed the U.S. onto a non-binding United Nations agreement called Agenda 21. The agreement is hardly more than a list of ways that local communities can better conserve natural resources. The general header for such practices is “sustainability.”

During my tenure as mayor of Sturgis (MI), a city of about 12,000 people, we implemented several sustainable practices that resulted in substantial savings to taxpayers. A green roof on a new public works building minimized heating and cooling costs in the building, reduced storm water runoff, and lowered long term maintenance expenses. When a neighborhood was annexed, we utilized rain gardens in lieu of costly curb and gutter to manage storm water, saving taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Hardly controversial, you’d think.

Yet Glenn Beck, the John Birch Society, and various tea party groups have condemned “Agenda 21” as a globalist conspiracy to destroy America. And state legislators are listening.

By the sort of logic employed by the Beck Rubes, since Mao espoused (at least, publically) female equality, the concept of female equality is forever tainted. Taking this reasoning to its logical conclusion, we could claim that, Since Pol Pot attempted to feed the population of his country, we should starve ours. Of course, this is difficult. In Jim Jong Il’s North Korea, foodstuffs were traded to foreign countries in exchange for hard currency with which to buy weapons. This was done in time of famine. Thus, if two despots have different priorities such that one cannot hope to “do the opposite” of both, this brand of logic becomes untenable.

Way to go Arkansas.

The Arkansas House of Representatives passes Republican 20 Week Abortion Ban. There are not even any exceptions for rape and incest. The current non-Huckabee governor, Mike Beebe, is a Democrat. In this part of the country, however, that is no guarantee of rationality. Fortunately, his office has issued a statement that he is unlikely to sign the bill. According to RH Reality Check,

[February 5th] he announced that his office’s preliminary research into the bill says it would be unlikely to survive a court challenge.

I wish that, for once, these clowns would lose the Orwellian names and just call a bill the “Filthy Slut Had It Coming, Now Get in the Kitchen and Make Me Some Pie Act.”

h/t Little Green Footballs