The mainstream GOP, and to some extent Ted Cruz, are living in the past.  They want the second coming of Reagan, but the world Reagan lived in–one with communism as the chief foreign policy threat, one where our demographics were more stable, one where higher education and the media had not become toxically anti-white and anti-male, and one where America dominated the world economy–is long gone.  It’s not 1985 any more. Indeed, it’s not 2005 anymore either. Our people are different.  Our threats are different.  Our culture is different.  And we’ve learned from the recent past.  We don’t want W and his Invade-the-World-Invite-the-World approach to foreign policy, immigration, and trade.  Those of us who remember Reagan long for him, but we also long for the world in which he could get elected.  It’s gone.

Ace has a great article on why something must be done for the working class, whose taxes are cut to the bone, but who are having trouble making it in a world of mass immigration and global competition.  This must be done, if for nothing else, to win elections.

An excerpt is below:

With the working class, and in fact the middle class, taking a world-class beating for this decade, and frankly for several decades, what actual tangible, gee-that-might-actually-work proposals is the GOP offering people?

As Frum says, Trump’s answer might not be a very good answer, but it is in fact an answer. What it shows, and I think this is very, very important, is that Trump, in his ill-considered way, “understands your pain.”

Cruz made this same point, cleverly, in his famous lawyers-and-journalists crossing the Rio Grande ad.

And that’s a big thing. When people express bafflement at how these dullards could possibly support Trump or Cruz, all I can say is: “Hey, he’s the guy who’s saying ‘I’ll do something to help you.'” Even if that something is, arguably, counterproductive or simply stupid, he seems to be the one talking about the problem.

Ted Cruz talked about that. So he won Iowa, and he’s in second place nationally.

And people continue expressing bafflement that some might favor a candidate who is urging policies that might materially help them.

Who knows? Maybe middle class voters would be more willing to vote GOP if the GOP wasn’t promising the business community that they’d bring more foreign replacements in on H1-B visas every five minutes.

Maybe working people would start to think the GOP “cares about people like me” if the GOPactually did care about them.

Now, Rubio has embraced parts of the Reformicon agenda. How much, I don’t know. I didn’t look into it all that much. But he’s not talking about it much — that much, I know. And he probably can’t talk about it much, because many people would cry “heresy” if he were to talk about subsidizing worker’s paychecks with government tax revenues.

Heck, I might be one of those crying heresy myself.

But I do think this is a critical part of Trump’s apparently unfathomable-to-many appeal, and I think it’s a do-or-die part of any conservative (or otherwise) challenge to liberalism: You have to give people some reason to vote for you.

I thought Romney and Ryan were good candidates — I don’t think I’ve liked a ticket as much as I liked those two, at the end — but I did notice, when critics pointed out, after the loss, that Romney and Ryan seemed to be promising voters a very good deal indeed if they were entrepreneurs and business owners.

If they were not, they were offering relatively little, except a sort of vague rising-tide-lifts-all-boats thing.

Which has worked — Reagan made that work, and when Reagan said it, it turned out to be true — but it hasn’t been working for a while.

Most people are not entrepreneurs and business owners. Most people work for wages.

Incidentally, the GOP is out of touch in other important ways.  Their talk of starting businesses and being entrepreneurial, while perfectly ok, is really falling on deaf ears among the young.  Granted, that group prefers the Democrats, but they’re also facing an uphill economic battle due to debt, robots, and massive Third World immigration.  What better way to get them on board with the GOP than to have a candidate who is transgressive and hated by all the schoolmarm snitches in academia, the media, and on social media and who is offering some concrete ideas–more restrictive trade and immigration restriction–to shore up their economic lot.  Opposition to political correctness is, if not an expression of the silent majority, then at least now the counter-culture era of our time, where the old vanguard hippies of the 1960s are old and decrepid and annoying such as Hillary and Bernie Sanders.

We might very well lose with Trump as nominee, and he may very well not get the nomination.  But the stale alternative is no real alternative, and it’s soon to be completely overwhelmed by the demographic deluge the short-sighted GOP elites have allowed to occur.  Like I said, it ain’t 1985 anymore, the world is different, and the GOP needs to offer something to voters to address this.  I’ve written about this before here and here, where I concluded (and sorta predicted Trump’s approach as a viable alternative):

[A] revamped Republican party should trend nationalistic, abandoning its ideology of free trade, militarism, and uncritical support of big business, in favor of a genuine concern for the working, productive classes who face predations from a motley crew of the super poor, the super rich, idiotic campaigns of nation building abroad, and hostile newcomers at home. If not the GOP, then a new party might fill this space. The GOP appears finished if it follows the idiotic counsel coming from the RNC’s pathologists.

That said, I’m pretty pessimistic on the whole.  Conservatism is mostly dead, and the GOP may be accelerating this trend, but it is also a reflection of it.  Maybe 30-40% of the country is genuinely conservative, and the media and schools and social pressures are doing much to turn this rump group into a pariah class. And, even if that is not successful, their immigration and welfare policies are doing everything possible to turn the GOP’s core constituents into a numerical minority, as they already have become in places like California.


Matt Forney really lays it into Jabe in this piece at RoK.  Jeb is truly not the right candidate for this (or any) election cycle:

The Bush clan has always been America’s equivalent of the Hapsburgs, changing ideology, religion and even ethnicity in their quest for power. Prescott Bush, the dynasty’s patriarch, was a liberal senator from Connecticut who aligned himself with Nelson Rockefeller; George H.W. attached himself like a remora to Reagan after flaming out in the 1980 presidential primary; Dubya hired a voice coach and bought a ranch so he could pretend to be a Christian hick from Texas.

Unfortunately, Jeb Bush is the worst possible man to carry the Bush family’s torch. Beyond the gargantuan amounts of baggage that the Bush name has accumulated, Jeb is temperamentally better suited to run for the school board then for president. The twin themes of this year’s election are nationalism and economic ruin, which both Donald Trumpand Bernie Sanders have picked up on, explaining their grassroots success. The closest thing Jeb has to run on is a nostalgia for the Dubya years that doesn’t exist.

I would feel bad for the guy if his ideology on globalism wasn’t a threat to the well being of every American citizen, except perhaps the Walton clan.  But he very much has the feel of a guy going through the motions, whose family put him up to it, and who has no real fire to be President.

We’re often told how terrible Putin’s Russia is because of its supposed degradation of free speech and nascent authoritarianism.  It may very well be, but one suspects that the whole thing–as with the brouhaha over gay rights–is simply an attempt to leverage our different way of doing things into a conflict we have no reason to have with a country that is not an inherent threat to our way of life.  If one really cared about free speech, what about the open and flagrant situation in Canada and Europe, where, under the banner of anti-racism, all kind of speech is criminally punished.  It’s a ridiculous situation, the end stage of liberal political correctness, and very much what the campus radicals here at home would impose nationwide if they had the power.

Look at this headline:

Danish high court upholds ex-MP’s racism conviction

Published: 01 Feb 2016 13:55 GMT+01:00

I’ve written about this before, namely, how the false freedom of open borders crowds out and destroys the real freedoms we once enjoyed.  That is, the freedom to live among our people, with a common set of rules and expectations, the freedom to fly on planes without being nearly strip searched on every occasion, the freedom to walk our parks and national monuments without traversing bomb barriers and other inconveniences, the freedom to be safe in our own homes and public spaces, the freedom to be able to communicate with people we must do business with, and all the other little things that make up being a citizen in a country with a common life, the freedom to communicate without having the NSA and other parts of the federal security apparatus watch our every move, the freedom to worship or not without having to worry about the prickly feelings of thin-skinned Muslim supremacists, and the freedom to go to an office Christmas party without one’s coworkers blowing us to pieces.  This is what we’re losing for the “freedom” of open borders, which does us all so little good.

Germany is learning this lesson in spades, and the video below gives me some hope that there’s still signs of life among that once-great European people.

Ace is a typical conservative blog, more mainstream and establishment oriented (and popular) than my own historically, but generally solid and useful.  The frustration among the rank and file with the party establishment’s willingness to go along with these high deficit budgets, amnesty, Obama’s activist judges, and much else has reached a fever pitch.  Ace has a great summary of the basic situation and how conservative Republican voters feel.:

[T]he establishment/elite has been selling lies to everyone outside the donor class for years. They use their power to enact their own priorities into law, while telling the rest of us “it’s too hard” or “it will scare the moderates.”

And for years we went along with this.

Well, as she notes, the issue of immigration has caused this bargain — the elites get their actual agenda, everyone else gets lies and empty promises — to break down, probably forever.

You know, for years, I felt it was my duty to sell these shit sandwiches to readers for the Greater Good of winning elections.

I didn’t like doing it, but I thought that, for example, the War on Terror was too important to risk a rupture on other questions.

Although I’ve come to hate politics and I just despise reading the news now, the one good thing is that I’m liberated from splashing some ketchup on Sandwiches Made of Actual Shit and trying to sell them to people as tasty and healthful.

I feel liberated. I serve no “Greater Good,” as I don’t know that there’s a Greater Good to be served anymore. So I can just say exactly what I think.

And what I think is that the establishment has to be destroyed.

We will not be ignored, we will not be condescended to, we will no longer accept broken promises and lies as our payment for our service to the GOP.

And if it requires destroying the GOP and electing a Democrat to teach the establishment this lesson, to chastise them and to humble them, then we shall do just that, and do so happily.

You will either come to terms, or you will be destroyed.

Ted Cruz, rather than fight the Gang of Eight immigration bill, went on a futile filibuster against Obamacare. And Rubio, who was one of the Gang of Eight, now wants us to think he’s tough on security by going out and buying a gun just in case he might have to fight ISIS.  

There’s a lot of good reasons to buy a gun.  Your home might be broken into.  You might be robbed at the ATM.  You might be in a 7-11 when someone decides to hold up the place.  You may be facing a pissed off stalker ex.  Civil order might break down completely.

But the odds you’ll be in a public place when ISIS shows up are close to zero.

But by engaging in identitarian conservative behavior–buying a gun–and acting like you care about security and are tough on ISIS are distractions from the fact that Rubio has supported amnesty, expanding H1B visas, and won’t embrace Donald Trump’s plan to “stop Muslim immigration until we know what the hell is going on.”  In other words, Rubio doesn’t want you to know that he has fought to prevent the most effective thing we can do to protect the American people from ISIS and al Qaeda:  not let Muslims in through the front door.

These guys are ineffective fakes.  Their conservatism is symbolic.  And their real belief, liberalism, is manifest by their rejection of America as a coherent nation with a right to preserve its basic structure, mores, wealth, and people.

I used to read Chronicles and Sam Francis and was into some “Alt Right” things before it was the least bit fashionable.  I supported Buchanan in 1992 and in 1996 (at least in the primary), and was fed up with the faux conservatism and international adventuring of the GOP, which came into high relief during their support for the immoral war against Serbia on behalf of Muslim Kosovo in 1999.

Michael Brendan Dougherty is a thoughtful, young conservative who reintroduces us to Sam Francis and his belief in the Middle American Revolution.  In him he sees the outlines of what Trump has accomplished.  I confess, I didn’t quite see it at the time, thinking, as I’m wont to do, that conservatism and nationalism and the like were doomed by ennui and demographics.  Plus, I used to believe in free trade back then, and now I’m a proud protectionist.

In any case, maybe there’s a sliver of hope, as represented by the Trump phenomenon.  That is, we have a small window of opportunity until the demographic deluge changes us forever.

Dougherty writes:

But the Trump phenomenon also seems global and inevitable. America’s elite class belongs to a truly global class of elites. And everywhere in Europe that global class is being challenged by anti-immigrant, occasionally-protectionist parties who do not parrot free-market economic policies, but instead promise to use the levers of the state to protect native interests. In Russia, Putin’s populist nationalism has taken over a major state apparatus, precisely to avenge itself on the paladins of the free-market.

What is so crucial to Trump’s success, even within the Republican Party, is his almost total ditching of conservatism as a governing philosophy. He is doing the very thing Pat Buchanan could not, and would not do. And in this, he is following the advice of Sam Francis to a degree almost unthinkable. Here’s the concluding flourish of Francis’ 1996 essay:

I told [Buchanan] privately that he would be better off without all the hangers-on, direct-mail artists, fund-raising whiz kids, marketing and PR czars, and the rest of the crew that today constitutes the backbone of all that remains of the famous “Conservative Movement” and who never fail to show up on the campaign doorstep to guzzle someone else’s liquor and pocket other people’s money. “These people are defunct,” I told him. “You don’t need them, and you’re better off without them. Go to New Hampshire and call yourself a patriot, a nationalist, an America Firster, but don’t even use the word ‘conservative.’ It doesn’t mean anything any more.”


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers