Dixiecrat

Dixiecrat (pronounced dik-see-krat)

(1) In US political history, a member of a faction of southern Democrats stressing states' rights and opposed to the civil rights programs of the Democratic Party, especially a southern Democrat who left the party in 1948 to support candidates of the States' Rights Democratic Party.

(2) In historic US use, a member of the US Democratic Party from the southern states (especially one of the former territories of the Confederacy), holding socially conservative views, supporting racial segregation and the continued entrenchment of a white hegemony.

1948: A portmanteau word of US origin, the construct being Dixie + (Demo)crat.  Wholly unrelated to other meanings, Dixie (also as Dixieland) in this context is a reference to the southern states of the United States, especially those formerly part of the Confederacy.  The origin is contested, the most supported theory being it’s derived from the Mason-Dixon Line, a historic (if not entirely accurate) delineation between the "free" North and "slave-owning" South.  Another idea is it was picked up from any of several songs with this name, especially the minstrel song Dixie (1859) by (northerner) Daniel Decatur Emmett (1815-1904), popular as a Confederate war song although most etymologists hold this confuses cause and effect, the word long pre-dating any of the known compositions.  There’s also a suggested link to the nineteenth-century nickname of New Orleans, from the dixie, a Confederate-era ten-dollar bill on which was printed the French dix (ten) but again, it came later.  The –crat suffix was from the Ancient Greek κράτος (krátos) (power, might), as used in words of Ancient Greek origin such as democrat and aristocrat; the ultimate root was the primitive Indo-European kret (hard).  Dixiecrat is a noun and Dixiecratic is an adjective; the noun plural is Dixiecrats.  The noun Dixiecratocracy (also as dixieocracy) was a humorous coining speculating about the nature of a Dixiecrat-run government; it was built on the model of kleptocracy, plutocracy, meritocracy, gerontocracy etc.

The night old Dixie died.

Former Dixiecrat, Senator Strom Thurmond (1902-2003; senator (Republican) for South Carolina 1954-2003) lies in state, Columbia, South Carolina, June 2003.

Universally called Dixiecrats, the States' Rights Democratic Party was formed in 1948 as a dissident breakaway from the Democratic Party.  Its core platform was permanently to secure the rights of states to legislate and enforce racial segregation and exclude the federal government from intervening in these matters.  Politically and culturally, it was a continuation of the disputes and compromises which emerged in the aftermath of the US Civil War almost a century earlier.  The Dixiecrats took control of the party machine in several southern states and contested the elections of 1948 with South Carolina governor Strom Thurmond as their presidential nominee but enjoyed little support outside the deep South and by 1952 most had returned to the Democratic Party.  However, in the following decades, they achieved a much greater influence as a southern faction than ever was achieved as a separatist party.  The shift in the south towards support for the Republican Party dates from this time and by the 1980s, the Democratic Party's control of presidential elections in the South had faded and many of the Dixiecrats had joined the Republicans.

US Electoral College map, 1948.

In the 1948 presidential election, the Dixiecrats didn’t enjoy the success polls had predicted (although that was the year of the infamous “Dewey Defeats Truman” headline and the polls got much wrong), carrying only four states, all south of the Mason-Dixon line and not even the antics of one “faithless elector” (one selected as an elector for the Democratic ticket who instead cast his vote for Dixiecrats) was sufficient to add Tennessee to the four (South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana) won.  Nor did they in other states gain sufficient support to act as “spoilers” as Ross Perot (1930–2019) in 1992 & 1996 and Ralph Nadar (b 1934) in 2000 achieved, the “narrowing of margins” in specific instances being of no immediate electoral consequence in the US system.  With that, the Dixiecrats (in the sense of the structure of the States' Rights Democratic Party) in a sense vanished but as an idea they remained for decades a potent force within the Democratic Party and their history is an illustration of why the often-quoted dictum by historian Professor Richard Hofstadter (1916–1970): “The role of third parties is to sting like a bee, then die” needs a little nuance.  What the Dixiecrats did after 1948 was not die but instead undergo a kind of “resurrection without crucifixion”, emerging to “march through the institutions” of the Democratic Party, existing as its southern faction.

That role was for generations politically significant and example of why the “third party” experience in the US historically wasn’t directly comparable with political behaviour elsewhere in the English-speaking world where “party discipline” tended to be “tight” with votes on the floors of parliaments almost always following party lines.  Until recent years (and this is something the “Trump phenomenon” radically has at least temporarily almost institutionalized), there was often only loose party discipline applied within the duopoly, Democrats and Republicans sometimes voting together on certain issues because the politicians were practical people who wished to be re-elected and understood what Tip O'Neill (1912–1994; (Democrat) speaker of the US Representatives 1977-1987) meant when he said “All politics is local”.  Structurally, that meant “third parties” can operate in the US and achieve stuff (for good or evil) as the Dixiecrats and later the Republican’s Tea Party Movement proved; it just that they do it as factions within the duopoly and that’s not unique, the Australian National Party (a re-branding of the old Country Party) really a regional pressure group of political horse traders disguised as a political party.

US Electoral College map, 1924.

The 1924 Electoral College results were a harbinger of the later Dixiecrat movement and a graphical representation of terms such as "solid South" or "south of the Mason-Dixon Line".  At the time of the 1924 election, slavery in the South was still in living memory.  Although there was fracturing at the edges, the "solid south" did remain a Democratic Party stronghold until the civil rights legislation of the 1960s and it was was the well-tuned political antennae of Texan Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; US president 1963-1969) which picked up the implications and consequences of the reforms his skills had ushered through the Congress:  "I think I've just lost us the South" he was heard to remark when the Senate passed a landmark voting rights bill into law.

In recent years, what has changed in the US is the Republicans and Democrats have become the captive organizations of a tiny number of dedicated political operatives pursuing either their own ideological agendas or (more typically), those providing the funding.  The practical implication of that is the elections which now most matter are the primaries (where candidates for the election proper are selected) and because primary contests are voted on by a relative handful, outcomes are easier to influence and control that in general elections where there are millions to nudge.  Party discipline has thus become tighter than can often be seen on the floor of the House of Commons in the UK, not because the ideological commitments of politicians within parties have coalesced but because they’re now terrified of being “primaried” if they vote against the party line.  Re-election is a powerful inducement because the money politicians make during their careers is many, many times what might be expected given their notional earnings from their salary and entitlements.  There are few easier ways to get rich, thus the incentive to “toe the party line”.  This behavioural change, mapped onto something which structurally remains unchanged, is one of the many factors which have produced a country now apparently as polarized as ever it has been.  The nature of that polarization is sometimes misunderstood because of the proliferation of “red state, blue state” maps of the US which make the contrast between the “corrupting coastlines” and “flyover states” seem so stark but each state is of course a shade of purple (some darker, some lighter) but because of the way the two parties now operate, politics as it is practiced tends to represent the extreme, radical elements which now control the machines.  So while in the last twenty-odd years there’s been much spoken about “the 1%” in the sense of the tiny number of people who own or control so much, it’s political scientists and historians who much fret over the less conspicuous “1%” able to maintain effective control of the two parties, something of even greater significance because the state has put in place some structural impediments to challenging the two-party political duopoly.

In the US, the state does not (in a strict legal or constitutional sense of the word) “own” the Republican or Democratic Parties because they are “private” organizations protected by the constitution’s First Amendment (freedom of association).  However, over the years, something biologists would recognize as “symbiosis” has evolved as the state and the parties (willingly and sometimes enthusiastically) have become entangled to the extent a structural analysis would recognize the parties as quasi-public although not quite at the status familiar elsewhere as quangos (quasi autonomous non-government organizations).  Despite being “private concerns”, the parties routinely conduct state-regulated primaries to select candidates and in many cases these are funded by tax revenue and administered by state electoral instrumentalities.  Beyond that, it needs to be remembered that to speak of a “US national election” (as one might of a “UK general election”) is misleading because as a legal construct such events are really 50 elections run by each state with electoral laws not wholly aligned (thus the famous (or dreaded, depending on one’s position) Iowa caucuses) and in many states, it’s state law which regulates who can voted in party primaries, some permitting “open” primaries in which any lawfully enrolled voter is allowed to cast a ballot while others run “closed” events, restricting participation to registered members of the relevant party.  What that means is in some places a citizen can vote in each party’s primary.  That done, those who prevail in a primary further are advantaged because many states have laws setting parameters governing who may appear on a ballot paper and most of them provide an easier path for the Republican and Democratic Party candidates by virtue of having granted both “major party” status.  As objects, the two parties, uniquely, are embedded in the electoral apparatus and the interaction of ballot access laws, debate rules and campaign finance rules mean the two function as state-sponsored actors; while not quite structurally duopolistic, they operate in a protected environment with the electoral equivalent of “high tariff barriers”.

Elon Musk (left) and Donald Trump (right), with Tesla Cybertruck (AWD Foundation Series), the White House, March, 2025.  It seemed like a good idea at the time.

Given all that, Elon Musk’s (b 1971) recent announcement he was planning to launch a “third party” (actually the US has many political parties, the “third party” tag used as a synecdoche for “not one of the majors”) might seem “courageous” and surprised many who thought the experience of his recent foray into political life might have persuaded him pursuits like EVs (electric vehicles), digging tunnels (he deserves praise for naming that SpaceX spin-off: “The Boring Company”) and travelling to Mars were more fulfilling.  However, Mr Musk believes the core of the country’s problems lie in the way its public finances are now run on the basis of the “Dick Cheney (born 1941; US vice president 2001-2009) doctrine: “Deficits don’t matter” and having concluded neither of the major parties are prepared to change the paradigm which he believes is leading the US to a fiscal implosion, a third party is the only obvious vehicle.  In Western politics, ever since shades of “socialism” and “capitalism” defined the democratic narrative, the idea of a “third way” has been a lure for theorists and practitioners with many interpretations of what is meant but all have in common what Mr Musk seems to be suggesting: finding the middle ground and offering it to those currently voting for one or other of the majors only because “your extremists are worse than our extremists”.  Between extremes there’s much scope for positioning (which will be variable between “social” & “economic” issues) and, given his libertarian instincts, it seems predicable Mr Musk’s economic vision will be “centre-right” rather than “centre-left” but presumably he’ll flesh out the details as his venture evolves.

Mr Musk can’t be accused of creating a “third party” because he wants to become POTUS (president of the US).  As a naturalized US citizen, Mr Musk is ineligible because Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the constitution restricts the office to those who are a “natural born Citizen” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 5).  Because the US Supreme Court (USSC) has never handed down a definitive ruling on the matter it’s not absolutely certain what that phrase means but the consensus among legal scholars is it refers to someone who was at birth a US citizen.  That need not necessitate being born on the soil of the US or its territories because US citizens often are born in other countries (especially to those on military or diplomatic duty) and even in international waters; indeed, there would appear no constitutional impediment to someone born in outer space (or, under current constitutional interpretation, on Mars) becoming POTUS provided they were at the time of birth a US citizen.  Nor does it seem an interpretation of the word “natural” could be used to exclude a US citizen conceived through the use of some sort of “technology” such as IVF (In Vitro Fertilization).

Lindsay Lohan, potential third party POTUS.

As a naturalized US citizen, Elon Musk can’t become POTUS so his new party (tentatively called the “America” Party) will have to nominate someone else and the constitution stipulates (Article II, Section 1, Clause 5): “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States”.  The age requirement is unambiguous and in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833), Justice Joseph Story (1779–1845; associate justice of the Supreme Court of the USSC 1812-1845) explained the residence requirement was “…not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy as includes a permanent domicil in the United States.”  That means Mr Musk can consider nominating Lindsay Lohan for president.  She’d apparently flirted with the idea of running in 2020 but at that point would have been a few months too young; on all grounds she’ll be eligible for selection in 2028 and many would be attracted to the idea of Lindsay Lohan having her own nuclear weapons.

Whether or not it’s “courageous” (or even “heroic”), to build a new third party in the US time will tell but certainly it’s ambitious but Mr Musk is also a realist and may not be planning to have a presidential candidate on the ballot in all 50 states or even contest every seat both houses of Congress.  As he’ll have observed in a number of countries, “third parties” need neither parliamentary majorities nor executive office to achieve decisive influence over policy, some with comparatively little electoral support able to achieve “balance of power” status in legislatures provided those votes are clustered in the right places.  Additionally, because the polarized electorate has delivered such close results in the House & Senate, the math suggests a balance of power may be attainable with fewer seats than historically would have been demanded and under the US system of fixed terms, an administration cannot simply declare such a congress “unworkable” and all another election (a common tactic in the Westminster system); it must, for at least two years, work with what the people have elected, even if that includes an obstreperous third party. Still, the challenges will be onerous, even before the “dirty tricks” departments of the major parties start searching for skeletons in the closets of third party candidates (in a rare example of bipartisanship the Republicans and Democrats will probably do a bit of intelligence-sharing on that project) and the history is not encouraging.

It was the Republican party which in the 1850s was the last “third party” to make the transition to become a “major” and not since 1996 has such a candidate in a presidential contest secured more than 5% of the national vote.  In the Electoral College, not since 1968 has a third-party candidate carried any states and 1912 was the last time a third-party nominee finished second (and 1912 was a bit of a “special case” in which the circumstances were unusually propitious for challenges to the majors).  Still, with (1) the polls recording a general disillusionment with the major parties and institutions of state and (2) Mr Musk’s wealth able to buy much advertising and “other forms” of influence, prospects for a third party may be untypically bright in 2028 elections and 2030 mid-terms.  There are no more elections for Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025) and it seems underestimated even now just what an aberration he is in the political cycle.  While his use of techniques and tactics from other fields truly has since 2016 been disruptive, what he has done is unlikely to be revolutionary because it is all so dependent on his presence and hands on the levers of power.  When he leaves office, without the “dread and awe” the implied threat of his displeasure evokes, business may return to something closer what we still imagine “normal” to be.

Vagina & Vulva

Vagina (pronounced vuh-jahy-nuh)

(1) In anatomy & zoology, in many female mammals, the moist, tube-shaped canal part of the reproductive tract which runs from the cervix of the uterus through the vulva (technically between the labia minora) to the outside of the body.

(2) In botany, the sheath formed by the basal part of certain leaves where they embrace the stem.

(3) A sheath-like part or organ (now rare even in technical literature).

(4) In colloquial (and now general) use, the vulva, or the vulva and vaginal passage collectively.

(5) In derogatory colloquial use, an un-masculine man; a weakling (now rare, “pussy” the preferred modern term).

1675-1685: A creation of Medical Latin, a learned borrowing of the Latin vāgīna.  As used in anatomy, the seventeenth century coining was a specialized application of the Latin vāgīna (a sheath, scabbard; a covering, holder; sheath of an ear of grain, hull, husk) of uncertain origin, the suggestion by some etymologists it may have been cognate with the Lithuanian vožiu & vožti (to cover with a hollow thing) dismissed by others as “speculative” or even “gratuitous proposal”.  The use in medicine is exclusive to modern science, the Latin word not used thus during Antiquity.  Vagina is a noun, vaginal & vaginalike are adjectives, vaginally is an adverb; the noun plural is vaginas or vaginae (the old spelling vaginæ is effectively extinct); the part of the anatomy used for copulation & childbirth in female mammals and a similar organ exists in some invertebrates.

A damp Lindsay Lohan demonstrates the “cameltoe” look, Los Angeles, 2009 (left) and NoToe's “Cameltoe Proof Thong” solution (right).

Borrowed from zoology, “cameltoe” is popular modern slang which specifically references the vulva's labia majora, comparing the bifurcated (at certain angles) appearance with the even-toed hoof of a camel, the hooves of the ungulate mammals (known as Artiodactyls) an adaptation to the typically loose, sandy environment in which they evolved.  The slang form (also as camel toe & camel-toe) was re-purposed as “Cameltoe Harris”, a derogatory reference to Kamala Harris (b 1964; VPOTUS (US vice president) 2021-2025), use seemingly dating from 2015 while she was serving in California as attorney-general.  Just as in many fields where “there’s an app for that”, for those wishing to avoid the look, “there are knickers for that”.  Brisbane-based Australian operation NoToe's Cameltoe Proof Thong is made with “a Nylon/Spandex blend”, the design said to be “…breathable, seamless, tagless and roll-free thanks to its silicone grip.  And of course, it's cameltoe proof!”  In addition to removing the cameltoe, the thong also eliminates the dreaded VPL (visible panty line) and the product is “Designed Down Under for Down Under.”  One more gap in the market has been filled so that's good.

The vluva and vagina have for centuries attracted the coining of slang terms, not all of them derogatory.  In idiomatic use “vaginamoney” is (often embittered) slang for alimony, child support etc, money paid by men to ex-partners after the sundering of a relationship.  One slang form which may not survive is "hairy check book" (cheque book outside the US) because (1) checks are declining in use and (2) body-hair fashions have changed.  In psychiatry, the condition vaginaphobic describes “a fear of or morbid aversion to vaginas) and vaginaphile (an admiration for vaginas) is listed by only some dictionaries which is surprising given authors are so often given to write about them and painters are drawn to painting them (in the sense of oil on canvas etc although there’s doubtless a niche for applying paint directly).  Dating from 1908, the term “vagina dentata” entered psychiatry and its popularization is usually attributed Austrian psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) although this perception may be attributable to Freud’s works being better known and more widely read, the term used by many in the profession.  The Latin vagina dentata (toothed vagina) referenced the folk mythology in which a woman's vagina contained teeth, the implication being a consequence of sex might be emasculation or at least severe injury.  The tale was also used as a warning about having sex with unknown women and as a way of discouraging rape.  The vivid imagery of a vagina dentata (in somewhat abstract form) was used by the US military as a warning about the dangers of STIs (sexually transmitted infection (once known as sexually transmitted diseases (STD) & VD (venereal disease).  Some writers have speculated on what this revealed about Freud and his much discussed understanding of women.

Vulva (pronounced vuhl-vuh)

(1) The external female genitalia of female mammals (including the labia, mons veneris, clitoris and vaginal orifice.

(2) In helminthology, a protrusion on the side of a nematode (multivulva used to describe a phenotype of nematode characterized by multiple vulvas).

(3) In arachnology, the spermatheca and associated ducts of the female reproductive system (also known as internal epigyne or internal genitalia).

(4) An internal genital structure in female millipedes (known also as the cyphopod).

Late 1300s: A learned borrowing from the Latin vulva, from the earlier volva (womb, female sexual organ) (perhaps in the literal sense of a “wrapper”), from volvere (to turn, twist, roll, revolve (also “turn over in the mind”)), probably from volvō (to turn, to roll, to wrap around), from the primitive Indo-European root wel- (to turn, revolve), the derivatives referring to curved, enclosing objects.  In the 1970s, when Volvo automobiles weren’t noted for their precise handling, journalists enjoyed noted the translation of the Latin volvō as: “I roll”.   It was akin to the Sanskrit उल्ब (úlba) (womb).  The adjectives vulvalike (also vulva-like) & vulviform both describe objects or designs having the shape of a vulva.  Vulva is a noun, vulval, vulvaless, vulviform, vulvar, vulvate & vulvic are adjectives; the noun plural is vulvas, vulvae or vulvæ.

Ms Gillian Anderson’s “vagina dress”

Gillian Anderson, Golden Globes award ceremony 2024.

So much interest was generated by the dress (which the designer dubbed “vulvalicious”) that the handbag (there are those who would insist it’s a “purse”) escaped much attention which was a shame because it was a clever design.  Aquazzura’s Mini Purist Metallic Pouch blends the utilitarian function of the classic night-time mini bag with the swinging style of a shoulder bag, imagined as a semi-circle.  What the adjustable silver shoulder strap afforded was the choice of it being carried off the shoulder or, if removed, used as a conventional handbag, the hard golden top handle folding from the base.  The semi-circle is of course a less than efficient shape for a handbag (or purse) in the sense of a "storage device" but it gives the stylists a nice curve with which to work.  

There’s nothing novel in the critical deconstruction of what appears on red carpets but the dress worn by actor Gillian Anderson (b 1968) at the 2024 Golden Globe ceremony also attracted the attention of word nerds.  Designed by Gabriela Hearst (b 1976), the strapless, ivory corset gown was embroidered with individually stitched embellishments in the shape of vulvas, each of which absorbed some 3½ hours of the embroider’s time.  In an allusion to her sexual wellness brand (G spot), when interviewed, Ms Anderson said she wore the piece: “…for so many reasons. It’s brand appropriate.”  The response in the press and on-line appeared to be (mostly) positive but what did attract criticism was the widespread use of “vagina” to describe the designs, a descriptor used even by Ms Anderson herself.  The more strident of the critics seemed to detect sexual politics in what they claimed was anatomical imprecision, the implication being this lack of respect for gynaecological terminology was casual misogyny: Doubts were cast anyone would dare confuse a scrotum with the testicles.

Annotated anatomical sketch (left) Edsel Citation convertible (centre) and the detail on Gabriela Hearst's gown (right).  Although Ms Anderson probably didn't give the 1958 Edsel a thought, it does illustrate why her use of "vagina" to describe the embroidered motifs is defensible.

The pedants are correct in that technically the “vulva” describes on the external portion of the genitalia that leads to the vagina; the vulva including the labia majora, labia minora, and clitoris.  The labia is also a complex structure which includes the labia majora (the thick, outer folds of skin protecting the vulva’s internal structure) and the labia minora (the thin, inner folds of skin directly above the vagina).  However, for almost a hundred years, the term “vagina” has widely been used to refer to the vulva and has come to function as a synecdoche for the entire female genitalia and so prevalent has the use become that even medical professionals use “vagina” thus unless great precision is required.  Still, given Ms Anderson’s brand is concerned with such matters, perhaps the historically correct use might have been better but the actor herself noted “…it has vaginas on it” so linguistically, her proprietorial rights should be acknowledged.

The Edsel, the grill and the myths

1958 Edsel Citation convertible.

Although it went down in industrial history as one of capitalism’s most expensive failures, objectively, Ford Motor Corporation’s Edsel really wasn’t a dramatically worse car than the company’s companion brands Ford & Mercury.  Indeed that was one of the reasons for the failure in the market; sharing platforms, engines, transmissions, suspension and some body parts with Fords & Mercurys, the thing simply lacked sufficient product differentiation.  That sharing of components (and assembly plants; Ford sending the Edsels down the existing production lines in the same factories) also makes it hard to believe the often quoted US$300 million (between US$2.5-3 billion expressed in 2025 values) Ford booked as a loss against the abortive venture as anything but an opportunity taken by the accountants to dump all the bad news in one go, certain taxation advantages also able to be gained with this approach. 

1959 Edsel Corsair two-door hardtop.

The very existence of Edsel was owed to a system devised by Alfred P Sloan (1875–1966) while president of General Motors (GM).  Sloan is now mostly forgotten by all but students of industrial & economic history but he was instrumental in the development some of the concepts which underpinned the modern economy including frequent product changes (for no functional purpose), planned obsolescence and consumer credit.  What the "Sloan ladder" did was provide GM’s customers with a structured incremental status indicator, defined by a range of products (with substantial cross-amortization) at price points which encouraged them to “step up” to the next level as disposable income increased.  At one point, GM’s brand-range had nine rungs but the Great Depression of the 1930s necessitated some pruning and, after a cull in 1931 cut the brands to six, what eventually emerged after 1940 was a five rung system which would be sustained until the twenty-first century: Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick & Cadillac.  In the 1950s, when the US economy enjoyed the unusual conjunction of rising incomes, stable prices and a remarkably (by both historic and contemporary standards) small disparity between the wealth of rich and poor, this produced the swelling middle class which was the target market for most consumer products and certainly those on the Sloan ladder.  Ford had in 1938 added a rung when the Mercury brand was spliced between Ford and Lincoln but in the mid 1950s, the MBAs convinced the company the Sloan system was the key to GM’s lead in the market and they too re-structured the company’s products into five rungs: Ford, Mercury, Edsel, Lincoln & Continental.  Actually, in a harbinger, the loss-making Continental Division lasted barely two seasons, folded into Lincoln before the Edsel debuted for the 1958 model year but the MBAs kept the faith.

1958 Edsel (left) and 1958 Oldsmobile (right).  One can see why someone at Time magazine thought of "an Oldsmobile sucking a lemon".

That faith turned out to be misplaced although in fairness to them, the circumstances in 1958 were unfortunate, a short but sharp recession shocking consumers who had become accustomed to growth and stability, believing that such unpleasantness belonged to the pre-war past.  The Edsel never recovered.  Although sales in 1958 were disappointing, given the state of the economy, it could have been worse but Ford’s market research (focus groups a thing even then) had identified problems and in response toned down the styling and moved the brand down-market, notionally to sit between Ford & Mercury, a gap which in retrospect didn’t exist.  Sales dropped that year by about a third and the writing was on the wall although, surprising many, a pared-down Edsel range was released for 1960 using Ford’s re-styled bodies but not many were fooled and fewer than 3000 left the factory before late in 1959 the end of the brand quietly was announced.

Bavarian takes on the cameltoe: 1938 Frazer-Nash BMW 328 Roadster with the grill's centre bars in non-standard red (top left), 1959 BMW 507 (top right), 1971 BMW 3.0 CSL (E9), one of the 169 first series leichtbau (light construction) CSLs with twin downdraft Zenith carburetors, (bottom left) and 2022 BMW M4-Competition-xDrive Convertible (G82, bottom right).

Ford might have felt the Edsel was criticized unfairly (at least on a anatomical basis) because, since the 303 in 1933, BMW had been fitting grills which blatantly were “cameltoesque” in appearance although perhaps they escaped opprobrium because it wasn’t until 1962 with the release of 1500 (the so-called Neue Klasse (New Class, 1962-1972)) the design assumed aspect ratios close to that of the typical human female, exemplified by the elegant E9 coupés (1968-1975).  BMW also came to use physiology as a descriptor for the style but delved deeper, preferring the gender-neutral “twin kidney”.  Interestingly, for the lovely 507 roadsters (1956-1959) the twin apertures were stretched wide and the look was greeted with acclaim (Pontiac, with aplomb, taking up the “twin-grill” concept) and it wasn’t until BMW's huge, gaping apparatuses appeared in the twenty-first century that the style Nazis condemned the look as “absurd”.  The deep and wide-set grills of the BMWs of the 2020s are the cameltoe at scale and for those who question the anatomical reference because they doubt “wide set vaginas” are a thing, their existence was confirmed in Mean Girls (2004).

1969 BMW 2000 C (left) as the factory did it and as re-imagined with the "twin kidney" grill in the twenty-first century style (right).

Architecturally, a half-century before the G82, BMW had the space to anticipate the M4’s “wide-set” look.  The E9’s predecessor was a coupé based on the Neue Klasse platform with the four-cylinder engine enlarged to 2.0 litres (121 cubic inch) and offered as the 2000 C (single carburetor) and 2000 CS (twin carburetor) between 1965-1969.  The new coupé replaced the low-volume and expensive 3200 CS (1962-1965) which had been powered by a 3.2 litre (193 cubic inch) V8 and the most commented upon aspect of the design was the frontal styling, the word upon which most critics settled being “polarizing”.  It was the then unusual headlight treatment which induced the “love it or hate it” feelings, the chrome-framed asymmetric glass fairings something which later would become familiar but in 1965 it was “the shock of the new”.  Between the fairings there was a lot of space but BMW didn’t then take the opportunity to tempt buyers with the “wide-set vagina” look which would have to wait for the next century, instead maintaining a familial link with the grill on the Neue Klasse sedans.  The styling of the 2000 C/CS is regarded now as an interesting period piece and an example of something which might have been a trend-setter but the industry went in other directions, one of which was the E9 which remains BMW’s finest achievement, something unlikely ever to be said of anything in the company's 2025 range.

The wide-set and the Brazilian.

Recently, it emerged there can be financial implications for the wide-set (ie those who anatomically identify more with the BMW G82 than the E9).  The details were revealed in a text message between a beauty salon operative (the waxer) and her client (the waxee) who had just enjoyed (the verb used in the sense of "to have had the use or benefit of something") the application of a Brazilian (an ellipsis of “Brazilian wax”, a specific style of pubic hair removal in which only a narrow strip or triangle of growth is retained on the mons pubis, known irreverently als as the "landing strip").  What the waxer advised was: “Just in future I’ll have to charge you a little more for the size of the area.  I hope that makes sense, nothing crazy, like $5 or $10 extra.”  The waxer’s rationale for that was based on the waxee having a FUPA (fatty upper pubic area, a normal variation in human anatomy rather than a condition) which means a greater surface area.  That, in the context of performing a Brazilian, demands (1) a higher consumption of consumable product (wax), (2) more time required to apply wax and (3) more time required to remove wax.  Reaction on social media was mixed, a few arguing the economics justified the surcharge although most condemned the waxer and thought pricing should be universal with, over time, the relative few needing more wax being balanced out by the relative few needing less.  That's standard economic theory but it's doubtful pubic hair removal has ever appeared in the textbooks as a case study.  For those who find it tiresome to try to remember acronyms, a probably more mnemonic alternative to FUPA comes from the ever productive world of Australian vulgar slang: gunt, the construct being g(ut) + (c)unt. 

1960 Edsel Ranger Sedan.  By 1960, the Edsel really was a "gorped-up" (a certain type of bling before that term came into vogue) Ford and the 34 days it was in production happened only to fulfil contractual obligations and avoid tiresome legal proceedings.  In little more than two years, Edsel went from "too much, too soon", to "too little, too late".

Although it began as something more than a gorped-up Ford, the Edsel wasn't that much more and it failed because for such a hyped product it was a disappointment and in that it can be compared to something like the administration of Barack Obama (b 1961; POTUS (US president) 2009-2017).  Barack Obama was not a bad president and he didn’t lead a bad government, indeed most objective analysts rate his term as “above average” (the perhaps biased Donald Trump (b 1946; POTUS 2017-2021 and since 2025) dissenting from this view) but he disappointed because he promised so much, the soaring rhetoric (“highfalutin nonsense” as the press baron Lord Beaverbrook (1879-1964) would have put it) offering hope and change never realized.  Still, President Obama did receive the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize "for not being George W Bush" (George XLIII, b 1946; US president 2001-2009) so there was that.  There was also the Edsel’s styling.  There was much clumsiness in the detailing (although almost the whole US industry was similarly afflicted in 1958) but the single most polarizing aspect was the vertical grill assembly, controversial not because it was a regression to something which had become unfashionable in the “longer, lower, wider” era but because of the shape which to some suggested a woman’s vulva.  Some used the words “vagina” or “genitalia” but in those more polite times some publications were reluctant to use such words in print and preferred to suggest the grill resembled a “horse collar” or “toilet seat” although the latter was (literally) a bit of a stretch and anyway already used of some of the trunk (boot) lids on Chryslers styled to excess by Virgil Exner (1909–1973); more memorable was Time magazine’s “an Oldsmobile sucking a lemon”.

Quirkiness coming & going: 1958 Edsel Bermuda “Woody” station wagon.

The “woody” nickname was applied to the station wagons from all manufacturers although after the early 1950s the “wood” was a combination of fibreglass and the DI-NOC plastic appliqué, the look intended to evoke that of the partially timber-bodied station wagons in production until the early 1950s.  Strangely, Chrysler and Mercury in the 1960s even did a few convertibles with the stuff glued on (recalling some earlier such things from the 1940s which used real wood), the former later unable to resist the temptation for the vaguely cartoonesque LeBaron Town & Country convertible (1983-1984).  Ford’s attempt in the 1960s to persuade British & Australian buyers of station wagons DI-NOC was charming proved brief and unsuccessful but in the domestic market the popularity lasted until 1990s.  As much as the sedans and convertibles, Edsel station wagons were just as unwanted.  The Bermuda was offered only for the 1958 model year and it sold a dismal 2,235, 779 being the nine-seater version with an additional row of seating in the rear section, a configuration always popular with US buyers in the era of larger families and before the age of mini-vans and SUVs (sports utility vehicles).  The three-row Bermuda was the rarest of the 1958 Edsels but collectors still price them below the convertibles, reflecting the usual practice in which (with the odd exceptions such as Mercedes-Benz Gullwings, 1963 Chevrolet Corvettes and certain rear-engined Porsches), convertible coach-work trumps all other styles.  If the vulva-themed front end was confronting, there was a strangeness too at the rear, the turn-indicator lights in the shape of an arrow, a traditional symbol to indicate one's intended direction of travel but bizarrely, the Edsel’s arrows pointed the opposite way, something necessitated by the need to blend the shape with that of the body’s side moldings.

1959 Edsel Villager 6 passenger Station Wagon.

Like the grill, for 1959 the tail of the station wagon was toned-down from bizarre to baroque.  It didn’t much stimulate demand and only 5,687 were sold while in the same season, Ford shifted 147,748 station wagons (123,412 Country Sedans & 24,336 Country Squires).  In 1958 the relationship between the Villager & Bermuda had reflected that of Ford’s Country Sedan to the more expensive (and DI-NOCed) Country Squire and while Ford would for decades top the station wagon sales charts, after 1960 the only more expensive versions offered by the corporation would be Mercurys.  As a footnote, along with the Ranger, the Villager did survive as part of the quixotic 1960 range when a mere 275 left the line, lending it the dubious distinction of being the rarest Edsel station wagon.  Despite that usually compelling statistic, collectors still prefer the 1958 & 1959 wagons, probably because the 1960 models lack the distinctive grill which is the most identifiable part of an Edsel's once dubious "brand recognition".

Heading in the right direction, the CCP's sports car: 2025 MG Cyberster.

The Shanghai-based SAIC Motor Corporation picked up the idea of arrows for turn-signals and a pair appeared on the MG Cyberster but unlike Edsel, the Chinese engineers had them pointing in the correct direction.  The MG Cyberster is a battery electric roadster and a modern take on the traditional MG sports car though stylistically not an obvious homage in the way the 1989 Mazda Mitia (MX-5) paid homage to the original Lotus Elan (1962-1975).  While some critics have complained the platform is not sufficiently focused to be a “sports car”, the Cyberster really is in the tradition of what most of the classic MGBs were: a roadster which does what most people want to do most of the time.  SAIC is state-owned and acquired the MG marque in 2007 and thus far the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) has been more adept at building reliable roadsters than was the nationalized British Leyland when MG was part of that doomed conglomerate in the 1970s.  Having concluded it’s faster and easier to buy "brand-recognition" than to create it, the Chinese are proving successful in making products which are coming to define the modern electric car, the consequence of the country controlling most aspects of the essential elements of such things and in a nice touch, although the Cyberster is built in China, MG’s past in acknowledged by the taillights directional turn-signals including in the design a part the UK’s Union Flag (Union Jack).  Economists are watching the modern Chinese economy with interest because its particular blend of central planning and crony capitalism is a hybrid never before attempted at scale.  On paper, central planning should ensure the most efficient allocation of resources and thus produce the best aggregate outcomes but previous ventures such as the Soviet Union or the British in their (1960s-1970s) nationalization phase both failed (though for different reasons).  Drawing from the long tradition of Chinese commerce, the CCP may yet prove to be the best at capitalism and the country's truly "communist" phase (1949-1989) is already being seen as an aberration.

A J.D. Vance meme with sofa (in US memes referred to usually as a "couch").

The Edsel ran its historic race more than a decade before the Watergate scandal so there was never a "grillgate" or "Edselgate" but the vulva did in 2024 return to the news with couchgate-themed memes.  In July that year, a post appeared on X (formerly known as Twitter) claiming there was a passage in J.D. Vance’s (b 1984; VPOTUS since 2025) book Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis (2016) in which the then US senator (Republican-Ohio) boasted of having enjoyed a sexual act with a latex glove, strategically placed between a sofa’s cushions.

It was fake news and nothing in the book even hinted at such an experience but quickly the post went viral; it once could take years for urban myths to spread between localities but in the social media age such things whiz around the planet in minutes.  Quickly the tale was debunked but couchgate was a popular choice among the meme-makers and it says something about US politics that so many really wanted to believe "couchgate" was true.  Whether latex glove sales spiked because suddenly there were those wishing to try the hopefully novel technique isn't known but there will be places on the internet where those tempted will document their experience(s).

Heavy duty (HD), neoprene-coated latex gloves (medium/large) from Walmart.

After Pope Francis (1936-2025; pope 2013-2025) died, posts began to circulate noting that hours before he dropped dead he'd had an audience with recent Catholic-convert J.D. Vance and comparisons were made with the death of Elizabeth II (1926-2022; Queen of the UK 1952-2022) coming barely two days after meeting Liz Truss (b 1975; UK prime-minister Sep-Oct 2022).  The pope of course was head of the Roman Catholic Church and the queen was Supreme Governor of the Church of England and it seemed striking both should succumb so soon after the pleasure of a conversation with a right-wing fanatic.  It must be assumed both events were just bad luck but Mr Vance is a serious convert to the faith and better-acquainted than most with Roman Catholic theology and he'll be familiar with the "visitation of the angel of death", a figure sent by God to tap on the shoulder one for whom the time has come to quit the world.

For most of the republic's existence, holders of the office of vice-president tended to be obscure figures noted only if they turned out to be crooks like Spiro Agnew (1918–1996; VPOTUS 1969-1973) or assumed the presidency in one circumstance or another and during the nineteenth century there was a joke about two brothers: “One ran off to sea and the other became vice-president; neither were ever heard from again.”  That was an exaggeration but it reflected the general view of the office which has few formal duties and can only ever be as powerful or influential as a president allows although the incumbent is “a heartbeat from the presidency”.  John Nance Garner III (1868–1967, VPOTUS 1933-1941), a reasonable judge of these things, once told Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; VPOTUS 1961-1963 & POTUS 1963-1969) being VPOTUS was “not worth a bucket of warm piss” (which in polite company usually is sanitized as “...bucket of warm spit”).  In the US, a number of VPOTUSs have become POTUS  and some have worked out well although of late the record has not been encouraging, the presidencies of Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon (1913-1994; VPOTUS 1953-1961, POTUS 1969-1974), George H.W. Bush (George XLI, 1924-2018; US president 1989-1993) and Joe Biden (b 1942; VPOTUS 2008-2017, POTUS 2021-2025) all ending badly, respectively in despair, disgrace, defeat and decrepitude.

Still, in the post-war years, the VPOTUS has often assumed a higher profile or been judged to be more influential, the latter certainly true of Dick Cheney (b 1941; VPOTUS 2001-2009) and some have even been given specific responsibilities such as LBJ’s role as titular head of the space program (which worked out well) or Kamala Harris co-ordinating the response to difficulties on the southern border (a role in which either she failed or never attempted depending on the source).  So wonderfully unpredictable is Donald Trump that quite what form the Vance VPOTUSship will assume is guesswork but conspiracy theorists already are speculating part of MAGA forward-planning is to have Mr Vance elected POTUS in 2028, simply as part of a work-around in a constitutional jigsaw puzzle.

The conspiracy revolves around the words in Section 1 of the Twenty-second Amendment (ratified in 1951): “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice” and even the most optimistic MAGA lawyers concede not even Brett Kavanaugh (b 1965; SCOTUS associate justice since 2018) or Clarence Thomas (b 1948; SCOTUS associate justice since 1991) could construct an interpretation which would allow Mr Trump to be elected for a third term (although Justice Thomas might make a heroic attempt).  The constitution is however silent on whether any person may serve a third (or fourth, or fifth!) term so that makes possible the following sequence:

(1) In the 2028 election J.D.Vance is elected POTUS and somebody else (matters not who) is elected VPOTUS.

(2) In 2029, J.D. Vance and somebody else (matters not who) are sworn into office as POTUS-48 & VPOTUS respectively.

(3) Somebody else (matters not who) resigns as VPOTUS.

(4) J.D. Vance appoints Donald Trump as VPOTUS who is duly sworn-in.

(5) J.D. Vance resigns as POTUS-48 and, as the constitution dictates, Donald Trump becomes POTUS-49 and is duly sworn-in.

(6) Donald Trump appoints J.D.Vance as VPOTUS.

Although in those maneuvers there are hints of how Mr Putin (Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin; b 1952; president or prime minister of Russia since 1999) and Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev (b 1965; president of Russia 2008-2012 & prime minister of Russia 2012-2020) once "worked their way" around a tiresome clause in the Russian constitution, whatever the politics, constitutionally, there is nothing controversial about those six steps because there’s a precedent, the sequence picking-up some of what happened between 1968 when Nixon & Agnew were elected POTUS and VPOTUS and 1974 when the offices were held respectively by Gerald Ford (1913–2006; VPOTUS 1973-1974 & POTUS 1974-1977) and Nelson Rockefeller (1908–1979; VPOTUS 1974-1977), neither of the latter pair having been elected.  Of course, in January 2029 somebody else (matters not who) would be a “leftover” but he (it seems a reasonable assumption somebody else (matters not who) will be male but for such an obviously expendable role for MAGA to use a "suitable" female is not impossible) can, depending on this and that, be appointed something worthy like secretary of agriculture or to a sinecure such as an ambassadorship in a nice (non-shithole) country with a pleasant climate and a majority white population.