The Worship of Sports in America

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara -

How The Middle-Class Got Screwed (Video)

A most simplistic explanation of how the economic problems of the middle-class has become an actual threat to their well-being.

Why I'm Not A Democrat...Or A Republican!

There is a whole lot not to like about either of the 2 major political parties.

Whatever Happened To Saturday Morning Cartoons?

Whatever happened to the Saturday morning cartoons we grew up with? A brief look into how they have become a thing of the past.

ADHD, ODD, And Other Assorted Bull****!

A look into the questionable way we as a nation over-diagnose behavioral "afflictions."

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

GOP Fail To Repeal & Replace Obamacare - An Illustration in Why Things Can't Get Done

Whether Democrat, Republican, or whatever, one of the major reasons why corrupt, hyper-partisan, or otherwise stupid politicians get—and stay—in power is with the complicity of equally clueless voters and their selective memories. As I have preaches since starting this blog back in 2008, practicing partisanship and blindly adhering to a particular ideological position or candidate is not how effective policy gets created.
Hopefully, thought realistically doubtful, this week’s failure of the Republican-controlled Congress to pass an alternative to Obamcare should speaks volumes to the knuckleheads who still believe that their side has all of the answers. In regards to this, for years, the Republicans in Congress blamed former president Obama for “creating gridlock” that occurred over during his Administration’s tenure; of course, this was long-proven to have been a politically-contrived narrative to cover their own planned intransigence in opposing legislative agenda “The GOP's No-Compromise Pledge” and “The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama”). To buttress the divisive effect of this narrative, Republicans promoted the supplemental narrative that if they were in charge in Washington, they would be able to “break” the “gridlock,” and “get things done.”

Well, the Election of 2016 gave the GOP their wish. They got more control of the House, the Senate, and now the (questionably) White House. And given their constant platform, seemingly united rhetoric of making the repeal of –should they every take charge—Obamcare their party’s priority, their more than 60 attempts to repeal O-Care when Obama was still in the White House (knowing that President Obama would veto them), and the 2 year’s long campaign promise by Donald Trump to repeal it and “replace it with something great" made it seemed that as if impending demise of the Patient Protection And Affordability Care Act was all but assured.

Fast-forward to July of 2017. To remind everyone, Democrats do not control either chamber of Congress. They do not Control the White House….and Republicans have still not managed to repeal Obamacare. In Congress, they opposed Obama’s signature piece of legislation relentlessly, constantly calling—for more than 7 years—for repeal, with little in the way given to a “market-based replacement” (as a matter of reality, Obamcare did use private insurers to provide services, so it was hardly the “government takeover of insurance” that opponents painted it as). With one or two token gestures at crafting an alternative by one or two Republican Congressmen, there seemed no substantive plan in place to “repeal and replace;” only repeal…which they couldn’t even get don’t with numbers and legislative control.

And of course, Donald Trump is not even considering that the Republicans—or himself—are at fault, despite his own past words in regards to leadership, and the implication that former President Obama’s “lack of leadership” was the reason for Washington gridlock.

It’s one of those sad realities that a politician, or even a political party can be in control of their own decisions and legislative agenda, yet still avoid taking responsibility for their own failings. What’s sadder is that voters, like those who adamantly support Donald Trump (come hell or high water) can take both sides of his contradictory reasoning. This is an example of the selective-thinking that makes a mess of our political system.
How can Trump—or any politician—take the position that leadership means taking blame for what “happens” and what ‘doesn’t happen,” but not want to take responsibility for legislative failings that happen on his watch…with little in the way of opposing party interference? It’s because the voters engage in the same level of dissonance when it comes to politics, and the people (and parties) they support. The “informed” American voter routinely condemns one party or candidate who engages in something they don’t agree with, while supporting another. And instead of confronting their own exercises in hypocrisy and selective memories, they resort to the age-old, “Two-wrongs-make-a-right” defense. This is to say that the they did it, so why can’t we is the go-two line of dissonance. By this logic, if one political party jumps off the Empire State Building, then other should too, simply because they “did it first."  See how weak a deflection that is? Destroyed, just by using the same line our parents used on us whenever we tried to justify allowing them to allow us to get away with something we did.
When it comes to politics and public policy, we all need to grow up; get in touch with the "adult" in us who tells young children that letting one person get away with things is no different than allowing another to do so. If "bad things" happened under Obama's watch--and it was his fault, then bad things happening on Trump's watch are equally his fault...especially since he himself said it.  Own the reality, just as Democrats should have owned creating and voting for Obamacare in the first place.
How "informed" can voters be if the use selective memory to justify their thinking and support for policy?
Bad policy, bad politicians, and bad voting won't stop until all involved act like adults and take responsibility for the good, and the bad.  It's not always "the other guy" who is at fault.

Monday, July 17, 2017

Conservatism In The Age of Trump, Part 2 (...or, "Yes Virginia, There Really Are Deplorables!")

Continued from Part 1

As both the 20th Century and the Clinton Administration ended, and the administration of Bush II began, the vocal aspect of the Deplorables’ influence—at least at the grassroots and societal level—had on the political discourse in America gone into a state of hibernation, if you will. In fact, the events of September 11th helped galvanize the nation as a whole behind the newly-minted President George W. Bush, who only a year earlier spoke of being the herald of “compassionate conservatism.”

As such, it could be argued that this policy, which was predicated on pushing government resources toward the private sector (i.e., charities and nonprofit organizations) to benefit society as a whole, was a return to the traditional conservatism that had been overshadowed by the Deplorables’ brand of ideologically repressive “conservatism” that had run rampant in the 90's. Politicians were at least talking in semi-civil manners. And people were united against the idea of external threats to the nation’s security, rather than the imaginary and internal “threats” of “liberals seeking to destroy the country.”
The country was involved in not one, but two wars; one related the attacks on the country on Sept. 11th, the other—as it turned out later—was not. The country was being too practical to be ideological.

                                                     A post 9/22 candlelight vigil on the Washington Mall

When the gravity of the costs of the Iraq War—over 4,400 American military lives, a trillion dollars, and regional stability—the ideological splits began anew. This time, however, it was the Deplorables themselves who were split into camps. One on side, there were those who were uncharacteristically objective in their assessment that American had blundered in its Bush Administration-led foreign policy in regards to Iraq; on the other were the diehard conservative partisans who supported the military action, despite the lack of its proven purpose of finding Weapons of Mass Destruction. These Deplorables would not question the policies of their ideological fellows—under any circumstance—and agreed with the Iraqi invasion…mistakes and all, while there were still a few moderate conservatives who were at least willing to question some of Bush’s more controversial policy decisions.

                                                                                                     An Iran War protests, circa 2003

However, the split among Deplorables would be brief, as the financial meltdown 2007, and the 2008 Election would unite them as never before. In terms of the economic downtown, many Deplorables were able to momentarily set aside their defense of Big Business, and Washington’s political ties to it to vocally protest the economic bailouts of Wall Street lenders and Detroit’s automobile industry. This was seen as too much government intrusion into the business sector, and President Bush became equally reviled by liberals and Deplorables alike. This was about the time that many Delplorables, as well as some angry traditional grassroots conservatives mobilized into the Republican Party insurgency known as the Tea Party, who felt betrayed at what they felt were Democratic-like policies of the Bush Administrations interference into the marketplace.  It didn't help that by the time of the 2006 mid-term Congressional Elections, Democrats had control of both houses of Congress.
The Election of 2008 solidified the Deplorables as a more vocal force in American politics. Just as they were upset with moderate Republicans who they felt “sold-out American values” (from their perspectives), they were equally upset that their party had elected the relatively moderate John McCain as the party’s presidential nominee for the White House. To throw salt into the wounds of their political sensitivities, the country was on the verge of electing another “liberal” Democrat to the Oval Office…the nation’s first black president to boot. Now, Deplorables were fit to be tied. It didn’t help that most other conservatives, traditionals included, were in no mood to accept losing the White House—despite one of their own being at its helm during an unprecedented economic upheaval.

They're Heeeeere!

When President Obama took office on January 20,,2009, not only were the opposition was already waiting on him, but so were most conservatives, traditionally-moderate and Deplorables alike. With The George W. Bush, there was the saving grace that he was at least a fellow conservative, even if he was one who was to the left of their extreme brand of hyper-partisanship…and questionable grasp of reality. This meant that the Deplorables could overlook the questionable decisions and bad times that occurred under the watch of conservative political leadership—often to the point of dissonance and hypocrisy. They could, and would focus on every perceived wrong that occurred under the “evil” leadership of someone who is nothing like them…the country’s first black president, who happened to have a strange name, from a city with a clear history of political improprieties, and who was [perceivably] liberal. Adding fuel to the fire was the fact that partisanship between the two major ideological blocks, the Left and Right, had become so hyper-distinctive that now many traditionally-moderate conservatives were acting every bit as incalcitrant as Deplorables.
Being out of majority control, Congressional conservatives’ focus disrupting the new president’s agenda began before he even took the Oath of Office (“The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama”). By more than a few accounts, Republican Congressional leaders—Deplorables among them—met in a Washington D.C. hotel the very night of Obama’s first historic presidential win in 2008 to concertedly plot the obstruction of Obama’s policy agenda….whatever it might have been ("Democrats condemn GOP's Plot to Obstruct Obama as 'Appalling And Sad.'"). Predictably, some readers might consider such a calculated political move to be “business as usual” among Washington politicians, but this would be to deny the reality of this meeting’s lack of precedence among both Republicans and Democrats…before a president-elect sets foot in Washington to take office (“The GOP's No-Compromise Pledge”). The overall gall and selfishness of a planned failure of an incoming president’s goal to pull the country out of a crisis—without knowledge of any specifics, and completely without any regard for what Obama’s agenda actually was—speaks to the destructive nature of the Deplorables and their impact on a Democracy where every voice is meant to be represented and heard…not just theirs.

Every legislative proposal by President Obama was predicted to yield the worst consequences for Americans, by both the Deplorables and moderate conservatives alike. His economic stimulus package (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) passed with no conservative House Republican votes (“House Passes Stimulus Plan With No G.O.P. Votes”), despite some of them actually taking credit for the same stimulus package bringing economic projects to their home districts (“Obama Criticizes Republicans Who Opposed Stimulus, Then Claim Credit for Projects It Funded”). Totally ignoring the unprecedented economic crisis the country was in, the Tea Party movement (where many Deplorables had gravitated) considered this imitative as another example of “runaway government spending” on a dubious plan to help stimulate the economy despite positive assessments by a consensus of economic analysts (“Did the stimulus work? A Review of the Nine Best Studies on the Subject”).
But perhaps no single piece of legislation did more to give moderate and Delporable conservatives a unified voice than the Obamacare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). This proposal to grant more Americans access to affordable health insurance by using a combination of government spending and free market resources was slandered by every avenue, every conservative outlet—the internet, conservative media, town-hall meetings, public input gatherings, and public protests (both choreographed and spontaneous). While moderates no doubt were motivated, at least partially, by the prospect of a Democrat winning the hearts and minds of Americans of every stripe, Deplorables were motivated by fears of a “Socialism” Boogeyman. Most felt—or twisted—the prospect of government

involvement expanding healthcare insurance to more people as an “intrusion of government into the lives of Americans” (thereby making it “un-Constitutional”). Deplorables such as Sarah Palin would go on to famously make the accusation that there were provisions in the then-proposed Affordable Care Act for “death panels” what would make “life and death decisions.” Of course, this wasn’t true, but Deplorables took this narrative and ran with it in demonizing the plan (to this day, some Deplorables still believe that these panels exist). Moderates, for their part, predicted that Obamacare would be a “job killer” if enacted, which—outside of a few anecdotal instances—proved patently untrue considering the 70+ months of job growth (sluggish by some standards) under the Obama Administration (“Obama’s Final Jobs Report Marks 75 Consecutive Months of Growth”).
And even without his “Marxist” policy proposals (as promulgated by the Deplorables), Obama was easy enough to hate by Deplorables on his own. Having a background as a community organizer working with various voter and anti-poverty initiatives, many moderate conservatives (as well as Deplorables) often brought this point up as proof of Obama having relevant background for the presidency when Obama looked to be the likely Democratic presidential nominee. Newt Gingrich went to far as to compare Obama’s “radicalism” with that of Saul Alinsky. Allow me to interject that, having an academic background in history myself, I had no idea who Saul Alinsky was before Gingrich repeatedly brought him up as he red-baited the issue….and I’ll wager most Deplorables had never heard of him either. Suffice it to say, after reading up on who Alinsky was, and the work he had done with the poor back in Chicago, suffice it to say that Gingrich—as a mouthpiece for the Deplorable wing of conservatism—was just conjuring up another Boogeyman for the weak-minded to seize upon in order to further caricature Obama (“Who is Saul Alinsky, and why is Newt Gingrich so obsessed with him?” and “Saul Alinsky: who is he and why does Newt Gingrich keep mentioning him?”).
Anti-socialism propaganda by far right-of-center ideologues, implying a "socialist agenda" to "impose" the socio-political and -economic system--by liberals/Democrats--on America.

These same individuals would also conveniently ignore the fact that he was a Harvard-trained lawyer who taught courses in Constitutional Law at the college level (“Obama a Constitutional Law Professor?” When the issue of his legal background was brought up to challenge his lack of knowledge about government, Deplorables promoted a narrative about both Obama and his wife, Michelle having “lost their law licenses.” And despite the persistence of this particular conspiracy theory in the minds of Deplorables, it has been debunked and discredited more times than can be counted (“Taking License,” Snopes. And “The Obamas’ Law Licenses,”
And then, there were the comments and remarks with racial overtones regarding his heritage. At first, many Deplorables and their Tea Party fellows attempted paint these instances as outliers and fringe elements within their respective activities (“Are Tea Partiers Racist?”). But as more and more instances appeared in the news that seemed to indicate that such sentiments among the Deplorables were not as isolated as they would attempt to project, they would often accuse the president himself of harboring “racist attitudes” and “hating white people.” Granted, for a time, Deplorables had something in the way of “proof” that Obama, did in fact, “hated America” and white people in the form of a videotape of his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright inflammatory speech condemning the country’s past (and some would say present) racist policies (see: Video below for the full context of this speech).

Of course, it didn’t matter that then-President Obama would go on to denounce and distance himself from the controversial pastor (“Obama Strongly Denounces Pastor,” and “Obama 'Outraged' by Wright's Remarks.”). Some Deplorables, like Gingrich were clearly upset, and wrongly claimed that there wasn’t saturation media coverage of the controversy to the point where it would impact his image negatively (“Gingrich: Obama Got a 'Pass' on Rev. Wright Controversy.”). Deplorables would then go on to cite the president’s own words regarding the Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida as more “proof” of the president’s alleged propensity to “race-bait” (for the sake of clarity, the president was just trying to illustrate that he could identify with the parents of Martin—as well as other blacks killed under similar circumstances—as it relates to the possibility of losing a child. The ludicrous accusation that this was “race-baiting” is an illustration of white fragility in regards to issue of race by Deplorables). In fact, more than a few acts by the president was seen and ascribed racial motives, from “fanning the flames of violence against police officers,” to “endorsing the Black Lives Matter movement.”
 White fragility, exhibited by Deplorable propaganda that depicts Obama as being "racist" (but is really a reflection of their own racist proclivities). The Obama's attempt to illustrate his ability to identify with the victims of a racially-motivated shooting were deemed "racist" by way of perception of Deplorables, not by way of fact, as most reasonable individuals saw it.

And in the background was the birtherism controversy, most publicly peddled by none other than future Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump. This is a good point to point out a major point as it relates to Deplorables. One of the things that makes Deplorables, in fact, deplorable is their penchant for ignoring the facts in favor of their own beliefs. Rather than admit that their “messiah,” Donald Trump has spent the better part of Obama’s two terms trying to discredit and delegitimize his presidency, his citizenship, and his education credentials, they would rather manufacture the conspiracy theory that Trump’s former campaign rival, Hillary Clinton’s campaign was, in fact the basis for the controversy. Like the case of the Obamas’ law licenses, this has been debunked more times that can be counted (“No, Clinton Didn't Start the Birther Thing. This Guy Did.” “Fact-Checking Donald Trump's Claim Hillary Clinton Started Obama Birther Movement.” “Trump Drops False ‘Birther’ Theory, but Floats a New One: Clinton Started It.” “After Birth.”).

This false narrative that Obama was “born in Kenya,” and “gained” American citizenship by way of a “forged birth certificate,” though discredited rather quietly among moderate conservatives, was ignored rather than denounced. What’s more, calls by moderate and hard-right conservatives for Obama to use the phrase “Islamic terrorism” when discussing terrorist attacks inspired by radical Islam gave a false credence to the Deplorable position that Obama, was in fact, a “closet Muslim” himself. This in turn, gave the birther narrative the ground it needed to take root. Since most of their fellow conservatives could fall back on the premise that such a thing was “too preposterous” to even “dignify” with a response, this stance had the silent benefit of not alienating the Deplorable vote by publicly denouncing birtherism…as some moderate conservatives needed their support in order to remain in office.
Oddly enough, moderate conservatives would publicly demand moderate Muslims denounce the radical Muslims within their midst, while they themselves would not denounce the racists and Deplorables within their ranks. This would come back to bite them in the election of Donald Trump.
I don’t want to beat the issue of race like a dead horse in Benghazi (lest I too, will be accused of the same thing) in regards to Obama and the Deplorables. But suffice it to say that although many Deplorables would like to think that racial animus did not play a part on their hatred of Obama, the evidence suggest that, for a great many of them, issues of race, xenophobia, and a hatred of all things perceptually “socialist” (i.e., any idea to the left of Ted Cruz) was and continues to be a factor. Quite simply, many are only fooling themselves.
And this brings us up to the present.

Conservatism Under Trump

Given their evolution—or devolution—from traditional conservatism, the motivations of conservative Deplorables can be summed up as being motivated by unreasonable fears that border on an almost pathological paranoia. Their characteristic paranoia is often accompanied by a dissonance that allows them to reconcile seemingly contradictory notions of their own beliefs, based on their extreme adherence to conservative beliefs (again, much like religious zealots), to the exclusion of how it might affect those who don’t fit into outmoded, outdated conformed thinking. By this, most Deplorables believe that traditional conventions and institutions, those that they feel made America the preeminent global power, should be shared and practiced by all…and that those who think otherwise are just commie, pinko, anti-American, and unpatriotic fags/socialists/libitards, etc. This

would mean that to be considered real Americans by the most fanatical of Donald-Trump-supporting Deplorables , we would have embrace the following mindsets:

Fanatical believers in—what they see as—“Christian” dogma. And while the freedom of religion is a Constitutionally-protected right enjoyed by all Americans, Deplorables believe that Christian beliefs are the only ones that matter. They believe that any way they want to practice their fundamentalist brand of Christianity is protected by the Constitution, they also believe that the Separation of Church and State as a legal doctrine does not apply to them...and that the doctrine should be interpreted in the most narrowest of sense—one that allows the Christian Church (as well as their followers’ beliefs) to cross into the realm of secular government. We saw an example of this with Alabama state legislators passing a bill that would allow at least one mega-church the right to form its own protective police force, complete with all of the same enforcement and arrest powers—a move that completely blurs the separation of church and state, as well as delegate a government power to a church (see: “Alabama Church May Get its Own Police Force”).
Oddly enough though, they can reconcile the belief that we should all practice being “good Christians,” without practicing Christian principles. As an example, most believe that their taxes should not be used to lower the costs of healthcare for all Americans, or that the government has no responsibility in creating a system of universal affordable and accessible healthcare for those who simply cannot afford it. In their minds, any government role up to and including legislating any system of universal affordability is “bit government,” or “socialism.” Based on their interpretation of Christian beliefs, Jesus surely would have prioritized money and the profit motive over the health and welfare of human beings—especially since He (purportedly) healed the sick and infirmed without asking for their health insurance card first—but then, we are talking about Deplorable beliefs here...

What are their fundamentalist beliefs? Deplorables believe in blind faith in concepts such as 2,000 years ago, an old man built very large boat, and somehow managed to coax two of every animal species on the planet (including the over 300,000 species of beetles) to climb aboard it in order to ride out a global flood caused by an invisible deity…but reject the idea that all of the chemicals and pollutants that man has put into the planet’s atmosphere over the last couple of centuries of technological growth can effect changes in the atmospheric dynamics. To them, faith devoid of evidence to explain the ways of the world should be the basis for perceiving reality, not facts, science, or even reason.

Their paranoia comes into play with their fear of fundamentalist (radical) Islam as a competing religion, and as potential terrorist-inspired ideology. While granted, incidents of radical Islamic-inspired terrorism in both Europe and America over the last several years are reasonable, the notion that fundamentalist Muslims, terrorists and non-terrorists alike would attempt to establish communities in the U.S. based on fundamentalist Sharia Law is not (“Fears of Sharia Law in America Grow Among Conservatives”). With regard to these fears, there have been many instances in recent years where local and state lawmakers—fueled by the need to appeal to Deplorable paranoia—have acted with unfounded unreasonableness to propose legislation banning the use of Islamic Sharia Law in courts and/or in local government ordinances based on either occurrences that have never happened, or have—when believed to have happened—been debunked (“Chain Email: Muslims Tried to Open Nation's First Sharia Court in Irving, Texas,” Politifact). From all indication, Deplorables reject others’ beliefs, but would have seemingly no problem imposing Christian Sharia law on secular America.

Questioning and/or discrediting any news source that doesn’t have a favorably conservative bent. Before the rise of Donald Trump and his most Deplorable supporters, the narrative from the hard right regarding the news media was the perception of a “liberal news media,” and “liberal bias.” This narrative gave the views o the Deplorables an air of (questionable) legitimacy, as they could discredit any agency that was able to weaken their policy positions by simply screaming “bias” (conveniently forgetting that a conservative bias is still a bias). This meant the creation of an ideological bubble that gave Deplorable, rather than moderate conservatives a “safe space” by which to hang their extreme brand of conservatism. This stable foothold in the school of traditional conservatism proved to be fertile ground for the rise of more public voices for the Deplorable wing of conservatism (e.g., Sarah Palin), as well as the growth of the conspiratorial imaginings that has come to be the hallmark of Deplorable thinking; “death panels,” “Deep State,” forged birth certificates (all long-discredited beliefs), and the like. Given this reality, it’s a small wonder that Trump, with his years-long promotion of Obama’s “fake birth certificate,” was able to come along and sweep these gullible individuals off their collective feet. The habit of fact-checking opposing views, while taking views they already support as gospel is a decades-long habit of Deplorables that is not likely to be broken any time soon. And slapping the label of “fake news” on any unfavorable media coverage is a tailor-made tactic for those unwilling to even consider the possibility that their position might be wrong.

Just troll social media, and search for the “fake news” accusation prior to the arrival of Trump; you won’t find it. Trump brought it with him—along with his own spin doctors and public relations people—to the political discourse, so that now, you see this Weapon of Mass Deception used ad naseum. The result is a new political “reality,” on in which Donald Trump’s version of it is the only one that matters. Quite frankly, it’s a sad dynamic in the way Trump supporters take his words as gospel…to the exclusion of any and all other perspectives. But this is not all Trump’s fault. It takes a will level of participation on the part of the believer, who has to suspend his/her judgment in believing that (1) that there is no gold standard of unbiased news anywhere in America, (2) that Donald Trump is always right, regardless of his lack of proof or sources, and (3) that everyone else is always wrong…insomuch as they don’t like what’s being reported in the media. It’s a sad proof how Deplorables grab on to the hem of his garment. He spews a line and/or phrase, and suddenly it becomes part of their [political] lexicon as well…a clear indication of a lack of individual thinking. Anyone who doesn’t see anything wrong is as likely to be persuaded by false and counter-narratives as Deplorables themselves.

When challenged on the veracity of any questionable statement by Donald Trump, the Deplorables’ favorite go-to “proof” of how news is “fake” is their incessant need to point to the polls prior to the election of last year that projected that Hillary Clinton would win. To say that this is a disingenuous spin on reality would be a criminal the very least because it ignores the decades-long accuracy of most polling services that indicate that most projections are almost, always right (Historical polling for United States Presidential Elections). Deplorables would have to engage in selectively ignoring the consistency of all of the polls over the last several decades in order to accept that the outlier is, in fact “representative” of [their] reality. What’s more, Clinton did win the popular vote, so in essence, all of the polls that Deplorables attempt to discredit were actually right.

So it’s easy to see how the arrival of Donald Trump and his “fake news” narrative of any news that doesn’t cater to, or report his oftentimes delusional thinking sticks in the minds of the Deplorables. The very term “fake news” has been weaponized by Trump and his Deplorable supporters to delegitimize every non-Trump-related news agency that challenges their version of reality. When they invoke the F-Bomb as it were, it’s usually an indication that can't really litigate the details of facts. They use the "fake news" narrative in an attempt to deter people from "blindly" following mainstream stories and/or sources that don't promote Trumpism (which includes believing many unsubstantiated claims--without fact-checking--to bolster his agenda and exaggerated perceptions of his own lack of ability). At the same time, invoking the “fake news” narrative is attempts to malign any source that promotes any level of logic or argument that opposes theirs. This overplayed tactic of the Deplorables’ brand of conservatism is Donald Trump’s biggest asset, because it plays to supporters who believe that any negative news is fake news.

As far as the “fake news media” goes, the Cable News Network (CNN) has been a particular target of Trump’s ire. And as you would expect with his Deplorable supporters, they have followed suit by also “hating” CNN as well. Both he and his supporters will point to a recent instance where CNN was forced to retract a story that proved to be inaccurate and untrue about a Donald Trump, whom was supposedly linked to Russian business interests, which we in turn, supposedly linked to Trump (“3 CNN Journalists Resign After Retracted Story on Trump Ally”). Granted, this was a sloppy piece of journalism, if we are to use the instance of retracted news stories as a criteria for what’s consider “fake news,” then pro-Trump outlets Breitbart and Fox News would also have to be considered “fake media” as well (“Fox News Retracts Seth Rich Story That Stirred Controversy.” ““Fox News Retracts Allegations of “No-Go Zones” for Non-Muslims in England and France.” “VIDEO: Fox Issues Startling On-Air Retraction: ‘Nobody Has Been Shot.’” “Breitbart, Sherrod Near Libel Settlement.”  Also, see video below for an on-air repudiation of the "fake news" narrative by CNN anchor, Don Lemon).

Ignoring Trump’s Lies By Deflection, Dissonance, or Denial. This particular attribute of Deplorables defies logic and reason of any kind. In theory, to engage ignore Donald Trump apparently pathological lying, one would have to engage in the most extreme forms of cognitive dissonance and/or false equivalency. Even before his current troubles related to the possible issue of campaign collusion with Russian officials, Trump was and is, by any objective measurement, the most untruthful presidential candidate—or president—in modern times…and that would include Richard Nixon (in Nixon’s defense, he lied as a matter of political necessity; that is, when asked about issues he was involved in). Trump lies unprompted; just watch any of his videotaped campaign rally speeches. It’s one tall tale after the next. Granted integrity isn’t the first word that comes to mind when one speaks of Hillary Clinton as presidential material, it’s a light years far and away when compared to someone with the background of Donald Trump (see: Trump’s Lies vs. Your Brain").
                                             A chart comparing the honesty of statements made by both Clinton and Trump (courtesy of the Washington Post).

Seizing on the last point, if Trump feels that his own ego is threatened — if broadcast footage and photos show a smaller-sized crowd at his inauguration than he wanted — then he targets the news media, falsely charging outlets with disseminating “fake news,” air-brushing photographic evidence, and/or insisting, against all evidence, that he has proved his case. That’s not normal. And as you would expect, his Deplorable followers swallow the narrative, hook, like, and sinker…every time. Even if you took into consideration the possibility of a “fake news media” out to get Trump, it still doesn’t take away from the fact that words, delusions, and outright lies that came out of his own mouth—and documented by footage or some other media—captured time, place, chapter and verse. In searching the internet for a list of lies, as told by Hillary Clinton, the best I could come up with is the following:

The lie is Hillary,” Washington Times 06/19/16
From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer,” The Atlantic 11/06/18
Comparing Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump on the Truth-O-Meter,” Politifact

When doing the same for Donald Trump, I pretty much had to pick and choose which lists to make my point from:

Trump’s Lies:  The Definitive List” New York Times 06/23/17
Canadian Newspaper Compiles List of Almost 500 Trump Lies During Campaign.” Slate 11/05/16 “The Complete List of All 363 False Claims Donald Trump has Made as President.” The 07/11/17

Are we supposed to believe that every site on the internet is “against” Trump, all because he’s some knight in shining armor arriving to save us all from the evils of the world…selflessly? This is one of those instances where deflection—you know, the pointing of fingers in another’s direction, and saying “What-about-him/her…” simply doesn’t wash. We’re not talking about a group of people supporting someone who tells an occasional—and expected—little white lie of political expediency. Trump-era Deplorables are a different breed. They not only bring their own brand of thinking to the political discourse, but, in many cases, bring their own realities with them. So much in fact, that many of them are steeped in the same realities that comprise Trump’s lies and delusions. Besides this, pointing out other liars does not absolve one of the moral crimes of supporting and/or cavorting with one themselves. It would be like a doctor telling you that you have cancer, and you respond by pointing across the room at someone else who was similarly diagnosed; it might help you feel that you're not alone, but doesn’t help you heal by doing so.

What’s really shocking—or maybe not so—is the fact that Trump won many of the (so-called) Evangelical Christian vote, despite his proven penchant for telling untruths. This means that so-called Christians were willing to sell their own Biblical beliefs—not “principles.” One has to have them in order to sell them—for the sake of gaining political influence through Trump. These are the same people who found more liberal candidates “too untrustworthy” to vote for. On the plus side, in voting for Trump, they, and the Deplorables” will be unable to effectively use the narrative of an “untrustworthy” or “lying liberal” candidate ever again…without being called out on the fact they they were willing to ignore the precepts of their own Bibles: “I do not sit with the deceitful, nor do I associate with hypocrites.” (Psalm 26:4).

Liberals Are Always Wrong and Trump Is Always.   Right OK, so let’s start with simple logic; nobody bats 1,000. For those of you who aren’t privy to the language of baseball, that means that no one gets a base hit at every bat. By that logic, not one is always right, and no one is always wrong. With that having be stated and proven by simple math, how is it that Deplorables can assume that every law, idea, or thought formulated by non-conservatives (i.e., liberal Democrats) is inherently wrong? I invite you to troll social media, particularly the news feeds. If you see the need to post a comment that is based on logic, but does not adhere to moderately conservative, or the Deplorables’ brand of conservatism, you will be instantly slandered as being “liberal”—like that’s a bad thing.
 First of all, it takes a very narrow mind to assume that everyone can be pigeon-holed into the paradigm of “liberal” vs. “conservative.” Second, it takes an even narrower mind to assume that “liberals” and “conservatives” are the only life-forms in the known universe. I wrong a piece some time ago in regards to this idea (“Why I'm Not A Democrat...Or Republican! (...Or, "Who Am I?")). But that it yet another hallmark of a Deplorable conservative…the assumption of ideology. Intelligent people don’t form a rubric of ideology in their minds, and measure reality against their beliefs; they do the opposite. They look at reality, and measure or not their beliefs gel with reality. To assume that one side or the other has all the answer is tantamount to an insane level of narcissism and arrogance. Liberals gave us the 6-hour work day, child-labor laws, Civil Rights, expanding voting rights, and a whole host of other socially and economically valuable notions. Conservatism reinforced the notion of the traditional nuclear family, the importance of saving, entrepreneurship, community, and—like liberalism—a whole host of other valuable socially and economically valuable notions (though to be honest, not all of those are exclusively conservative ideas). The point is, Obama was not always wrong, and Trump is not always right. The difference is that most Deplorables are seemingly unable to admit that their chosen one is incapable of making any type of wrong decisions…which is something you see in cults, not in a traditional political supporter.
Deplorables will selectively point to the fact that under Obama, economic growth wasn’t as great as it had been in times past by pointing to certain negative economic indicators. In fact, to hear a Deplorable tell it, Obama was "the worst president in American history."  But are we to believe a group of people whose grasp of American history is so weak that many of them recently attacked National Public Radio in response to their posting segments of the Declaration of Independence on Twitter this past Independence Day, and accused the radio network of "anti-Trump propaganda" ("NPR Tweeted Declaration Of Independence, And Trump Supporters Flipped Out")?

Deplorables tend to (conveniently so) ignore a whole host of other positives that are—in most cases—complete reversals from where they were when he took office (“Did Trump Inherit a Mess? 8 Charts Show Otherwise.”).
However, modern conservatism, under the at times overwhelming influence of the Deplorables within the Republican Party, has become a driving force not so much of conservative ideology policies... but merely anti-liberal ones. Take Donald Trump’s agenda to undo Obama-era environmental regulations. Not all regulations are bad; painting them so with a broad paintbrush, however, is. Trump and some of his Republican allies are seeking to repeal a great many laws and measures, not because they impede economic growth, because they interfere with efforts to help revive dying industries…they are doing so simply because liberals passed them to begin with. That is not traditional conservatism. Traditional conservatism requires actual thought, not reactionary responses. What is happening with Trump and his Deplorables is not true conservative ideology. It's not even close to true conservative ideology anymore. It's strictly reactionary. Its xenophobic. Its paranoia. It’s fear…not at all traditional American values. It’s the worse form of patriotism…the kind that deludes the adherents into thinking its working for the good of everyone, but motivated by a fear of the unknown. And anyone who blindly adheres to this type of faux-conservatism without the benefit of individual analysis or fact-checking is little better than the meekest of sheep.

As I end this return to the blogosphere, let me leave you with a small segment of the observational humor of Chris Rock (see video below), as well as a quote from one of my other blogs:

Here is why I don't like Conservatives & Liberals. 1
- They fantasize about their utopias that are logically impossible to build in a free society. Conservatives want to go back to this golden past that never was, while liberals want to move on to this golden future that never will be.
2- They're filled with hypocrisies that make no sense at all.
3- They twist historical facts and get them completely wrong because it supports their selfish agenda. 4- They both only want what is good for their supporters and not everyone else.
5- If your views or different from theirs, one group will call you a "communist traitor" while the other will call you a "racist, sexist, homophobic bigot."
6- They wish that everyone thought like them.
7- One group is pro-death penalty & anti-abortion while the other is anti-death penalty & pro-abortion. Seriously people is it too much to support or oppose both at the same time?

 Environment- I'm a liberal Gun control- I'm a conservative (to a point).

Conservatism In The Age of Trump, Part 1 (...or, "Yes Virginia, There Really Are Deplorables!")

It’s hard to believe that it’s been a year since my last blog posting here…especially with so much having happened since. For me, observing and writing is a fulltime endeavor—even outside of my books and other blogs (such as my Facebook, Tumblr, and Twitter page)s. However, given how reality has been turned and stood on its every-lovin’ head of late, this piece is long overdue. The reason, at least in part, for our collective trip down the rabbit hole is due to worst of ideologically far-right individuals who fancy themselves as representing “conservatives,” but have no clue, no real idea of what the particular ideological school of thought means in relation to American history, the rise of Donald Trump, and the rejection of pragmatic political policy. To say the least, these are the Deplorables that former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton referred to during her now infamous “Basket of Deplorables” speech during the Election of 2016 (For an in-context transcript of the speech, See: "In Context: Hillary Clinton and the 'Basket of Deplorables'" and the video below).

But to understand what sets Deplorables apart from traditional (i.e., real) conservatives, it’s best to understand what traditional conservatism is all about.

Traditional Conservatism 

Let’s just start by defining just who and what the Deplorables are; they include not just the most devoted of Donald Trump supporters, but those far-right, self-identified conservatives who are rigidly uncompromising, and seemingly incapable of practically legislating with others, who Deplorables support. They include racists, politically-active and fanatical "Christian" fundamentalists, rabid gun-owners (who believe that the 2nd Amendment is the only thing in the Bill of Rights), ardent isolationists, anti-government activists, xenophobes, and politicians who both cater to these constituents as well as share and express their views.  And though some of them may be proud to consider themselves such "real Americans" who "love America," to paraphrase Martha Stewart, this is not a good thing. Sadly, these individuals have made political discourse all but impossible with their brand of black-&-white, only-my-view-is-rightism—in some ways like their counterparts on the far left. What’s more, Deplorables as a group among conservatives have been around since long before Clinton’s speech.

The major reason for this is that among political conservatism in America, there has always been a strain of rigid adherence interpreted by nearly puritanical individuals with an intense sense of nativism. These hardest of right-wingers have always embraced this more potent idea of conservatism in much the same way that fundamentalists within any religious tradition do their more fanatical beliefs. And pretty much like religion, the problems lay not so much in the precepts themselves as much as they do in the hearts and minds of its adherents.
But it should be mentioned that any misunderstanding of conservatism as a political ideology is not entirely due to misinterpretations and/or misapplications by ardent believers. The fact of the matter is that there is a noticeable level of ambiguity in the definition of conservatism among many contemporary conservatives. According to most dictionary definitions, conservatism is defined as a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of a particular culture and/or civilization. But unless one is stepped in political philosophy, one might not know that there are many philosophical schools of conservatism, including liberal conservatism, which combines seemingly oxymoronic principles in the areas of social and economic policies (go ahead…you know you want to confirm this. Google this philosophy right now. I’ll wait…).
The problem then, is that what one considers “traditional” can vary from individual to individual, and place to place…even in America. This means that it is “conservatives” themselves who tend to define what the basis for their beliefs are, rather than rely on a list of universally recognized and accepted traditions. The result is that the definition of what conservatism is will in fact, vary from one point in time to another, and from one individual to the next…whether educated in the philosophically esoteric sense or not. Where one individual might consider, say, a tolerance for immigrants as representing traditional institutions worth maintain, another might see immigrants are being “anti-American.” Even so, trying to come up with a workable definition for American political conservatism is not as easy as one would think. But let’s make the attempt by using the words and thoughts of the late William F. Buckley, the erstwhile go-to idealist of modern American political conservatism.
In his 1959 classic "Up From Liberalism,"Buckley wrote:

"I will not cede more power to the state. I will not willingly cede more power to anyone, not to the state, not to General Motors, not to the CIO. I will hoard my power like a miser, resisting every effort to drain it away from me. I will then use my power, as I see fit. I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth. That is a program of sorts, is it not? It is certainly program enough to keep conservatives busy, and Liberals at bay. And the nation free” (See: “Conservatism Defined”).

                                                      The late William F. Buckley, founder of the conservative National Review

From this, let’s infer that many of the beliefs and principles of traditional conservatism can be extrapolated…most prominently that of limited government, an idea that hearkens to the notions of Thomas Jefferson's declaration that "government is best that governs the least." back to   Furthermore, by adding the “retaining traditional social institutions” aspect of the dictionary definition of conservatism, one can conclude that many of the same traditional ideals that helped to establish and grow traditional social institutions that—in turn—helped to grow and establish the country are the basis for conservative beliefs.
Indeed, from the duo standpoints of being a solid ethos, as well a proven institution for socioeconomic stability, there is much to be said of traditional conservatism (Buckley's sometimes questionable interpretations of left-of-center thought notwithstanding). The benefits of its emphasis on education, hard work, self-reliance, thrift, old-time religion, and the support of a traditional nuclear family have been principles by which the United States was built upon. What’s more, there was a time when these principles were universally promoted and practiced—to some degree—in America, until sometime around the arrival of the activist-driven counter-culture of the mid 20th-century.
Beginning in the late 1950's and into the decade of the 1960's, it was non-conservatives who noticed that the level of social stability and conformity that widespread conservatism demanded would reveal to have a major false bottom… that other groups, whether they practiced conservative beliefs, were being marginalized based on how other individuals and groups sought to preserve traditional institutions. We saw this most prominently in the equally traditional institution of stratified racial hierarchy among social groups in America—in other words, racism.
Widespread institutional and ‘Ole Boy Network biases (prior to the various social movements in the 60s) notwithstanding, those us who didn’t fit the socioeconomic model of Protestant white males soldiered on through life in America, adhering to conservative principles…some prospering economically. This reality was most prominently demonstrated in the African-American community, where—despite the oppressive reality of Jim Crow laws and (often violent) racially-based social subjugation—blacks had higher levels of family cohesion. This was evidenced by the fact that marriage rates between black and white women of child-bearing age up to the 1950's were nearly equal, despite their different social standings (see: “African American Marriage Patterns”). Additionally during these earlier times, the rate of black children being born to single mothers was equally as much as white children…upwards of 80% or better. In similar fashion, in the racially-regressive period between 1900 and the 1930s—when blacks were politically impotent and socially-marginalized as a demographic—black entrepreneurship was at its highest. From figures gather from the time period, that translates to between 40,000-50,000 black-owned businesses in a nation where blacks comprised just under 11-million of the total population of the U.S. in a climate where open hostility toward blacks was the norm. Finally, truancy rates, rates of major crime, and teenage pregnancy, and most of all of the other socioeconomic pathologies that are antithetical to traditionally conservative principles were far lower in earlier times than they are in contemporary times.
An example of African-Americans pooling their resources to form black businesses--despite the blatant and often oppressive racism of the time period (the 1920s)--utilizing the same moderately conservative principles that their white counterparts were utilizing.

Yes, I know…it all sounds idyllic. But this is by no means meant to imply that America was ever a Shangri-La, devoid of issues. The point is that when basic conservative principles were—relatively speaking—widely practiced by most seeking their particular piece of the American Dream, there was more social order, and less breakdown; statistics and anecdotal history from the recollections of those living in earlier times bears this out.

But to some, these earlier times of widespread conformity, conservative principles, and social order were, in fact a romanticized period of nostalgia. Of course, it didn’t matter that blacks and others were oppressed—both legally and illegally—and made to feel like Second Class citizens by law and often, by force, just so long as order was maintained. Then, as now, the most ardent of conservatives--the Deplorables--have always been able to reconcile maintaining America’s traditional institutions, while ignoring—or even justifying—any negative aspects or impacts on others.

The Deplorables Cometh 

One thing many ideological conservatives have always denied is that one major aspect of conservatism—the notion of limited government, at least at the federal level—worked against maligned groups like blacks, Hispanics, women, and other politically- and historically-disenfranchised groups. In the case of blacks, for more than a century local governments were allowed the freedom to institute discriminatory laws that affected every aspect of life...including life itself.  This was because any notion of the federal government intervening on behalf of the daily oppression of blacks at the hands of state and local governments was maligned as “federal government overreach,” and justified under the aegis of “states rights.” This reality included allowing laws to remain in effect that, among other things, restricted voting restriction and participation in the electoral process, enforced legal segregation, and even restricted marriage (in the form of anti-miscegenation laws). And for the record, most of those writing and enforcing laws that sought to preserve traditional Southern institutions were politically Democrat, and ideologically the most conservative (as most pro-segregation and/or racists white Southerners were).  This can be proven in the formation of the so-called "Dixiecrats" of the late 1940's, who were extremely-conservative white southern Democrats committed to states' rights and the maintenance of segregation (and like otgr early Deplorables, opposed to federal intervention into race, and to a lesser degree, labor relations). These enforcers of the racial social order in the South prior to—and during—the Civil Rights Movement of the 50s and 60s could be considered the first Deplorables.
In the infancy of the changing times and social upheavals that would mark the mid-20th Century, this earliest incarnation of today’s Deplorables in the form of The Klan, Old-Time Religioneers, Southern White Citizens Councils, John Birchers, and others who were to the right of traditional conservatism, saw themselves as defenders of the old ways. Many saw their collective cause as being righteous, Godly, and a preservation of the various social conventions that helped to make America the preeminent force on the globe.
What’s more, many of them believed that they were defending traditionally “wholesome” American institutions—discrimination, unfair advantages, and sexism all included—from those who worked to dismantle the old order (i.e., liberals). We see this in the way the Deplorable wing of conservatism described civil rights proponents and counter-culture types working for social change as being “Communists” and dupes of “outside agitators.” And to a country that already felt threatened by the competing ideology of Communism from its Cold War adversary, Russia, implying that any new ideas antithetical to the predictability and social order of traditional conservative idea would go on to help paint anyone harboring any idea to the right of rigid Deplorable thinking as—at the very least—as being a “socialist.”  However, then, as now, when Deplorables call those who harbor unpleasant ideas, they are not so much talking about the "anti-American" issue of wealth redistribution those seeing a redistribution of privilege.  As an example, early Deplorables often called Dr. Martin Luther King (as well as those associated with his progressive ideas) a communist because he wanted blacks to have the same rights as whites, and to them that was a redistribution of the privilege that whites had 'earned."  In other words, an attack on a value they saw as "traditional."

Early Deplorables, as shown during the push to integrate public schools in the South, as per the Supreme Court Brown vs. The Board of Education (1954).  Such obstinacy from extreme adherents to conservatism illustrates how any progressive, left of reactionary idea was considered "Communism," and by implication, "anti-American" (Source: "Race Mixing Is Communism").

So it could be argued that the various social protest movements of 50's and 60's was not so much a push back against conservatism, as much as a push against Deplorables’ defense of their being oblivious to how others were marginalized in their attempts to preserve the old social order. So as social activists and their liberal ideas began to chip away at these worst aspects of conservatism, the weaknesses of the Deplorables’ position began to become clearer. Their interpretation of conservatism failed to keep up with changing ideas and changing perceptions of others who did not benefit fully from the old ways. This is to say that, while conservatism produced a certain level of social order and stability, it demanded rigid conformity of thought that ignored the suffering of others.
For blacks and other maligned groups, social order took a back seat to the desire for equal rights under the laws…including oppressive state laws that sought to preserve the traditional social order of de jure racism. It didn’t help that at times, those who loudly proclaimed to represent a defense of “conservative values” seemed to be on the wrong side of history. Former arch-conservative and 1964 Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater’s opposition to the then-recently passed 1964 Civil Rights Act is the best example of this. For blacks and others seeking federal government protection of their civil rights from the oppressive state government laws that worked against them, this represented a repudiation of the aspect of conservatism that emphasized smaller (federal) government. And as much as they did not—and still, do not—want to believe, the obstinacy of Deplorables was partially the blame for this.
On one side, there were ideologically-rigid conservative Southern Democrat (Deplorables) representing a defense of the old order (i.e., Jim Crow/segregation). On the other, you had equally hard-right of mainstream conservatism Republicans supporting a Republican presidential candidate taking a stance that equated to also opposing changing the old order (in the name of rejecting “federal government overreach” and supporting “states’ rights,” for who it was almost assured that Deplorables were also among their number). As it stood, moderate Northern Republicans would join with more liberal Northern Democrats—with very few Southern Democrats no Southern Republicans voting in favor—to pass the Civil Rights Act (“Were Republicans Really the Party of Civil Rights in the 1960s?”). Throw in social liberals’ activism and political liberals’ creation of social government
programs, and under such a reality, it was for hard blacks and other previously disenfranchised groups to continue to embrace conservatism as a social and political ideology...which, as time would go on to prove by widespread socioeconomic pathologies in the communities among these groups, abandoning basic conservative principles was not entirely a good thing.
With the old social order changing, Deplorables, instead of moving left to the more moderate, more mainstream mode of traditional conservatism that would fit with changing attitudes (while still keeping intact the more practical and proven aspects of conservatism), they would double-down on trying to preserve what was left of the notion that the country could return to a time where “things made sense”—at least to those who were in favorable socioeconomic positions in the traditional sense.  But many Deplorables would find champion in their beliefs in the form of a old Confederacy Southerner.
In 1968, former Alabama Governor George Wallace, who was a die hard segregationist, would make a run for the presidency under the third party American Independent Party. His campaign platform represented issues that appealed to right-of-moderate conservatives who—much like Donald Trump today—felt that moderate conservatism and every aspect of liberalism were dragging the country kicking and screaming into uncharted, and unappealing waters in both domestic and foreign policy. Among Wallace’ stances was his vehement anti-federal government position that was part and parcel of his anti-desegregation, anti-integration beliefs and platform...a questionable, if not politically-imaginative application of “limited government” to be sure. And like Trump today, he was dead-set against foreign-aid and getting the U.S. involved in foreign entanglements like Vietnam.
                                                          Former Alabama Governor, George Wallace

His campaign represented hard departure from changing social and economic realities that many saw as going upending traditional social and economic conventions at the time. And finally—also like Trump—Wallace’ campaign sought to siphon off more conservative votes from both established Democratic and Republican candidates…who had no problems distancing and distinguishing themselves from Wallace and his merry band of supporters (Deplorables among them). But what made put Wallace and many of his supporters in the right-of-traditional conservatism Deplorables camp was his stance against changing racial attitudes of the time. His appeal to his most ardently anti-federal-government, anti-racial integration fellow Southerners was enough to win him states of the former old Confederacy in the 1968 general election, placing him as a major figurehead among early Deplorables.
After Wallace’ 1968 presidential run, Deplorables as a group seemingly went underground, out of the limelight of mainstream politics. This, of course is not to say that they wouldn’t rear their heads from time to time to make national headlines (such as in the mid-1980's in Forsyth County, Georgia, when racist residents of the then-all-white country pushed back against efforts to integrate the county).  But from Richard Nixon’s administration through to the Bush I Administration, Deplorables would cease to be a significant political voice in American politics…overshadowed by the rise of a more and relatively moderate form of conservatism. This was symbolized by larger than life political figures who were ideological polar opposites, but willing to work together through political compromise...without the reoccurring gridlock we see in current politics.  Deplorables were relegated to the Lunatic Fringe, where they seemed to seethe politically--remaining stubbornly resistant mainstream attitudes.
In fact, the age of politically-active Deplorable conservatism wouldn’t be seen again until after late Reagan-era changes in broadcasting rules allowed for the rise and proliferation of right-wing radio—that in turn, both fed and fueled a paranoia-driven brand of far-right conservatism of the 1990's ("A Brief History of The Fairness Doctrine").
Driven by a combination of a new generation of self-styled conservative ideologues (and their talk radio programs) and the start of the Clinton Administration, the Deplorable wing of conservatism got an infusion of new life in the early 1990's. Gone from the public eye were the faces of Deplorables of days past. The blatantly intolerant coveralls-wearing hillbilly rubes, posturing governors facing down federal troops, and political outliers who provided occasional theater for the press. These Deplorables of old were replaced by gun-toting, Constitution-quoting militiamen, disenchanted and politically-astute blue- and black-collar working rural Americans, and articulate, expensive suit-wearing talking heads--along with traditional Deplorables—speaking to traditional conservatives as well as those with far-right beliefs—many who believed that the America they once knew was going the way of the dinosaur. These new Deplorables were not afraid to vote for those they considered representative of their own ideas and beliefs. What's more, they were also not afraid to take political office themselves. And in turn, when they were holding public office, they were not afraid to pander to just their own constituents (as opposed to the general voting electorate)--just like their fore bearers among the old Dixiecrats in Congress.  They would no longer compromise and work with those with opposing views as they had done throughout the 1970's and 80's.  These new Deplorables no longer possessed the honor of strength of character to point out the wrong-doing of those who shared their political affiliations...instead opting to deflect and defend their fellows by pointing and asking, "What about them when they...?"
In addition, they were now represented in the media by far-right conservative celebrity commentators—Deplorables in themselves—with surnames like Savage, Limbaugh, Liddy, and Drudge. For an unhealthy amount of hours per day, each week, these talking heads successfully fed throngs of listeners far-right interpretations of reality that was at times, seemed almost comically revisionist. To this point, they were no longer content with just returning to the old ways of Borg-like conformity and social order.  Their rhetoric now also emphasized the issue of government as having too much influence in our daily lives.  What's more, the overall message of the new Deplorable agenda had gone from solely promoting far-right-of-center conservatism and anti-government themes to anti-liberal propaganda.
The new Deplorables had begun to engage in the total demonization of every thought, idea, and belief that remotely smacked of progressivism. “Liberal” was now a bad word, synonymous with being anti-capitalism, government give-aways, and anti-wealth.  It didn’t help that liberals didn’t bother to take ownership and control of the way Deplorables painted them. This is the say that Deplorables were proud to call and proclaim themselves (far-right) “conservatives,” while many liberals would not adopt the same mindset in defense of, and pride in and of their own beliefs.

Deplorable caricature of liberal Democrats

Among traditionally conservatives, belief of smaller government had morphed into a paranoid fear of our own government, seized upon by Deplorables. There was talk about how “evil’ the federal government was, and how it conspired to take away the Second Amendment gun rights of each and every American (which, ironically, was only a “threat” when Democrats ran for the highest offices in the land). And of course, the government conspired—at least to the most deranged among the Deplorables—with (imaginary) Trilateral Commissions, one-world-governments, and even the Illuminati to take away our long-held Constitutional rights. Armed self-styled “patriots” in the form of far-right militias began to show up on radars, coalescing around events like Waco and Ruby Ridge….romanticized “proofs” that the federal government were in fact “suppressing our civil liberties.” Some among the numbers of Deplorables took their animus too far, and we got Oklahoma City in April of 1995. Also peppered throughout the decade, we got abortion clinic attacks, Olympic bombings, and various plots by far-right of center Deplorables that reinforced how far they were willing to go to express their political beliefs.
All of this happened as Republicans had seized control of Congress a year earlier.  And many of these
Republican Congressmen voiced many of the same right-of-center fears—such as a fear of impending "socialized medicine,” and his move to include homosexuals in the military by his "don't-ask/don't-tell"—that those far-right of center had voiced. On the whole, many Republicans had moved to the right of traditional moderate conservatives. Though not as paranoid, conspiratorial, and/or xenophobic as Deplorables, they were every bit as hostile to the notion of compromise or being open to even moderately liberal ideas.
Finally, Deplorables, many of whom were working Middle-Class or rural, working poor, became staunch defenders of trickle-down economics, a dubious form of economic policies that favored supply-side economics...which, ironically worked against the personal economic self-interests of those who were living one paycheck away from poverty. These new Deplorables bought into to questionable notion that "job creators" and rich business people were the driving force of economic growth...and not a thriving Middle-Class.
By the end of the 20th-century, the reality of somewhat more tolerant (compared to days past) general population, shifting ethnic/racial demographics, and the perception--in the minds of Deplorables--that America was paying the price because of these changes, had created prime and fertile political ground for the rise of today's Deplorables...which pretty much has left traditional and moderate (i.e., real) conservatism as the new fringe in politics.

To be concluded