The 2016 Election is Not Reversible

By | 2017-06-02T18:30:05+00:00 August 31, 2017|
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Today, the bipartisan ruling class, which the electorate was trying to shed by supporting anti-establishment candidates of both parties in 2016, feels as if it has dodged the proverbial bullet. The Trump administration has not managed to staff itself—certainly not with anti-establishment people—and may never do so. Because the prospect of that happening brought the ruling class’s several elements together and energized them as never before, today, prospects of more power with fewer limits than ever eclipse the establishment’s fears of November 2016.

But the Left’s celebrations are premature, at best. As I explained a year ago, by 2016 the ruling class’s dysfunctions and the rest of the country’s resentment had pushed America over the threshold of a revolution; one in which the only certainty is the near impossibility of returning to the republican self-government of the previous two centuries. The 2016 election is not reversible, because it was but the first stage of a process that no one can control and the end of which no one can foresee.

Trump’s troubles

The Left’s optimism is not unfounded. Trump, in his Afghanistan speech, told his voters that he is reversing a campaign promise because he was instructed that his, and their, basic instincts on foreign affairs are wrong. Similarly influenced, he is continuing to use unappropriated funds to subsidize insurance companies that practice Obamacare even though a Federal Court held this to be unconstitutional—far from undoing it as he had promised. Nevertheless he complies with rulings by single judges that overturn major political commitments of his. Unforced errors, all.

Meanwhile, the leaders of the Republican majorities in the Senate and House reject responsibility for failing to repeal Obamacare and even for failing to pass ordinary appropriations bills. They take every occasion to distance themselves from Trump, notably imputing to him insufficient disdain for racism and other political taboos. When Corporate America withdrew from the president’s business council, it premised this officious separation on implicit accusations of the same sort. In short, the Republican establishment now joins Hillary Clinton in leveling “deplorable” allegations against Trump and, above all, of his supporters. Nevertheless, Trump agreed to endorse that establishment’s candidate in the Alabama senatorial primary against one of his own supporters. Counterintuitive.

Not incidentally, he well-nigh cleansed his White House staff of people who had supported his election, and put it in the hands of persons who just as easily could have been in a Clinton White House—people who agree with the press that their job is to control Trump. Secretary of State Tillerson’s remark that the President’s words on America’s values are merely his private opinion epitomizes this transfer of effective power.

With the Left in full cry, the Republican majorities in the House and Senate put no legislative obstacles in the way of the “resistance” to the 2016 election. These Republicans, having now effectively demonstrated that the arguments that won them four consecutive election cycles were insincere, can no longer reprise them. Believing that the 2016 elections were an anomaly the effects of which they are containing, that Trump will pass and the “resistance” with him, they move from putting distance between themselves and Trump to defining themselves against him and with “moderate Democrats”  in concert with whom they hope to enjoy their powers.

Trump himself, far from leading public opinion from the bulliest of pulpits, limits himself to “tweets” of 140 characters, which observers from all sides characterize as “plaintive.” In short, the ruling class’s “resistance” met feeble resistance—that is, insofar as it concerns Donald Trump.

Donald Trump is not and never has been the issue. With or without Trump, the nightmare of those who resist the 2016 election was, is, and will remain the voters who have chosen and will continue to choose candidates who they believe are committed to reducing the ruling class’s privileges and pretensions.  

It’s the contempt, stupid!

That is why the “resistance” has increased rather than diminished the 2016 election’s import as a revolutionary event. To ordinary Americans, the winds that now blow downwind from society’s commanding heights make the country seem more alien than ever before. More than ever, academics, judges, the media, corporate executives, and politicians of all kinds, having arrogated moral legitimacy to their own socio-political identities, pour contempt upon the rest of America. Private as well as public life in our time is subject to their escalating insults, their unending new conditions on what one may or may not say, even on what one must say, to hold a job or otherwise to participate in society.

As I  have argued at length elsewhere, the cultural division between privileged, government-connected elites and the rest of the country has turned twenty-first century politics in America into a cold civil war between hostile socio-political identities.

During the 2016 primaries the U.S electorate’s obvious, consistent, attempt to affirm its identity in contrast with those of the ruling class set aside concerns about particular policies. It produced Donald Trump as the Republican candidate because his campaign was all about identifying himself with those Americans who had felt most keenly the abuse coming from above. Socialist Bernie Sanders almost became the Democratic candidate (but for his party machinery’s interference) by showing that he was even more in tune than Clinton with his constituency’s arrogation of moral supremacy over the rest of the country. In sum, the 2016 elections were won and lost on the ground of this new kind of identity politics.

The ruling class and its Democratic Party had been practicing identity politics with increasing intensity for more than a generation. The elections’ outcome convinced them that they needed to engage in it just about exclusively, and in a warlike manner. Possessed of the modern administrative state’s manifold levers of power, they expect to win that war. That is unlikely, if only because its components’ notions of their respective identities’ demands are ever expanding. Hence they preclude imposing any extended peace among themselves, never mind with the rest of America. This impossibility of socio-political peace is the reason why the revolution in which we are living is just getting started.

By contrast, however, the post 2016 Republican Party is perhaps even more wary than ever of embodying the socio-political identities of the people who have been voting Republican. Hence, with the Republican Party disqualifying itself from the battle that is actually taking place, there is no political vehicle that exists by which Americans may challenge the ruling class.

There is much demand for such a vehicle. How may the political marketplace supply it?

What now?

President Donald Trump is the obvious, first-order answer. Anyone possessed of the enormous institutional and political powers of the modern U.S. presidency is better placed to make victims than to be one. Most recently, Barack Obama showed that the practical limit of a “stop me if you can” presidency is the one-third of the Senate needed to block impeachment. Obama decided not to enforce laws on the books and to create new ones by executive order. When courts intervened, he ignored them. Always, he accompanied his “pen and phone” actions with explanations that excited his supporters’ support while casting aspersions on the people they love to hate. For better or worse, Americans who wanted to reverse what Obama had done rejected outright candidates who they felt would be hampered by the Republican Party. And they were less moved by Constitutional scholar Ted Cruz than by Donald Trump, whose demeanor promised that he would do for them what Obama had done to them.

Let us be clear: the 2016 electorate chose Trump and they saw Trump as the vehicle by which to challenge the ruling class. During the first half of 2017, the Republican Party finished discrediting itself as a possible vehicle for that job. Since this is so, were Donald Trump seriously to bid for the presidency in 2020, it would have to be by leading a new party focused on the identities of anti-ruling class Americans. Carrying the Republican label would be an impossible burden.

Were an energetic, unambiguous, unapologetic Trump to affirm the majority of Americans’ political identity, not all Republicans would follow. Nor does he need them all. By bringing new elements into his following and, yes, by dropping some Republicans from it, Trump would effectively build a new party, with intact credibility. The departure of major corporations from his business council—big business is deeply unpopular on Main Street America—is an example of  how to gain by shedding baggage. At any rate, it was never possible that the entire Republican Party would represent America against the ruling class.

Let us be clear: the 2016 electorate chose Trump and they saw Trump as the vehicle by which to challenge the ruling class. During the first half of 2017, the Republican Party finished discrediting itself as a possible vehicle for that job. Since this is so, were Donald Trump seriously to bid for the presidency in 2020, it would have to be by leading a new party focused on the identities of anti-ruling class Americans. Carrying the Republican label would be an impossible burden.

But by the same token, each action taken by anyone who is creating a new movement must speak for itself more loudly and clearly than the words used to explain that action. Democracy does not tolerate pairing big words with small accomplishments. Today, Trump’s role in fulfilling the political marketplace’s demand is up to him even more than it was in 2016. But now as then, America’s open political marketplace invites all. The anti ruling class constituency is bigger than ever. If Trump does not lead it, someone else will.

2020 politics

Regardless of what Trump does or does not do, America’s cold civil war is likely to be waged between three or four sets of constituencies, each with its own identity. Herewith one estimate of how and why each may fare in the elections of 2020.

The ruling class’s set—educators, blacks, never-married women, government employees, corporate executives, etc. will enter the contest with enormous advantages in organization, and with a near monopoly of favorable media attention. But its constituencies seem to be contracting a bit rather than expanding. Disillusionment of some blacks with the rewards received for faithfulness, and of young people with the Democratic Party’s bureaucratization, demonstrate key weaknesses in this coalition, as does its substitution of insult and penalty for attempts to convince those outside of it. Nevertheless, almost surely, the Democratic Party will be the #1 or #2 recipient of popular and electoral votes.

It is impossible to tell at this point to what extent the Democratic party may lose the farthest Left  parts of its left wing. That is because the Party’s extreme Left—violent in word and deed—has been its only area of growth and enthusiasm. But while the Left’s defection would surely push the Party leftward and could harm its prospects, it is difficult to imagine it putting a dent in the party’s rock-solid organization, never mind contending for electoral votes.

The ruling class’s violent “resistance” to the 2016 results has whipped together the coalition that elected Trump in 2016. That coalition, consists of that three-fourths of Republican voters  dissatisfied with the Party’s leadership and who now hate it, anti-establishment independents, and even Democrats turned off by their Party’s anti-nationalism as well as its embrace of abortion and homosexuality. Its growth has been independent of Trump’s political fortunes. Regardless of the name that it may adopt, given competent leadership, it can be forged into the anti-establishment vehicle for which the political marketplace has been clamoring. It has a solid shot at overtaking the Democratic party in popular and electoral votes.

In 2020, the Republican presidential nomination will not be worth having. It is by no means clear why anyone looking for relief and protection from ruling class rule would vote Republican. Judging from Republican leaders in Congress and from The Wall Street Journal, the GOP has only to present itself as the alternative to rule by Democrats and cite some well crafted, subtle differences in policy to reap the bountiful harvests of votes it has received in recent cycles. Besides, the Party is awash in money. In 2016, this line of thought produced $150 million to promote Jeb Bush’s primary presidential candidacy, which yielded a total of three delegates out of almost 2500. In 2020, the Party having proved that life under Republican majorities in both Houses and a Republican president is no less subject to ruling class outrages than it was under Democrats, this line of thinking is likely to yield even less. Hence, the only near-certainty about politics in 2020 is that the Republican Party’s presidential candidate will come in a distant third.

In 2020, the Republican presidential nomination will not be worth having. It is by no means clear why anyone looking for relief and protection from ruling class rule would vote Republican.

If then—a not so big if—the Democratic party failed to secure a majority of electoral votes, the Constitution would turn the election over to the House of Representatives, each state having one vote. Given America’s demographics, the majority of states has a majority of conservative Republican congressmen. Unless these Congressmen were to commit political suicide by associating themselves with the candidate who got the least votes just because of the label Republican, they would identify with the coalition that Trump started in 2016. Their votes would be signatures on the new party’s birth certificate.

For the revolution’s next stage, the number of contenders would be down to two again.

About the Author:

Angelo Codevilla
Angelo M. Codevilla is a senior fellow of the Claremont Institute, professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University and the author of To Make And Keep Peace, Hoover Institution Press, 2014
  • Brilliant and fascinating. What a fine piece!

    It’s hard to think through the prospect of a third party birthed in the 2020 presidential election, but the logic seems inescapable.

    However I think Codevilla’s point that Trump is coming unmoored from the views that won him the election may be even more important than he indicates. If the Republicans found a popular challenger who — being a smoother politician — was able to position himself to the right of Trump on key ‘deplorable’ issues and Trump has continued his casual drift to the left and tolerance for the enemy actually RUNNING the government then it’s possible to see that candidate winning the nomination — Trump will be sandbagged by the Party at every turn — and going on to win the election.

    Trump promised to drain the swamp but it doesn’t seem that he’s even found the chain on the plug yet. He’s making the country greater no doubt, but purging our unelected elite rulers hasn’t really begun.

    Most Republicans in Congress owe their tenure to their ability to speak and gesture in the direction needed to win the next election but vote as their donors direct. The Party could well nominate someone who will run the same play against Trump in 2020 — unless he goes beyond the oh-so-careful steps he has taken so far.

    Probably that would have to be a fresh face — a conservative governor or perhaps mayor.

    Fortunately, this is early days. Among other things President Trump may well have a much more cooperative Congress after next year’s election.

    • Malatrope

      Not a third party, a second party. The Democrats and the Republicans are the Punch & Judy public faces of one single, powerful political entity that most are calling the “Uniparty” now. Trump is forcing the Republicans to drop their party masks to the floor and reveal exactly who they are.

  • Peter63

    A very sound look at the big picture. Thank you, Professor Codevilla.

    Is there a chance of a lot of Republican members of the Congress being primaried out of it before 2020? That would be a significant ingredient in the fortunes of the cold civil war.

  • hamburgertoday2017

    There is no reason why Trump could not take his votes to a ‘Deplorables’ Party. The real issue is how much of the Party nfrastructure would go with him. The weakness in the ‘Deplorable’ position is infrastructure, both at the electoral as well as the post-electoral (governance) talent pool. We needed a DeplorablePAC yesterday. The RNC is soaking up Deplorable bucks with little chance of that public ‘investment’ ever coming back as anything other than ‘sorry Charley’. We need Deplorable candidates to primary both Democratic and Republican incumbents.

    • Peter63

      SPOT ON!

    • E. +Goldstein

      Ryan, with his announcement that Republicans will be passing a bill to keep the invading “Obama Dreamers” Trump is trying to deport, says it all. Anyone who gives money to Republicans is supporting an opponent of MAGA. We must have the party of the deplorable as Codevilla proposes.

      • Carrington Spensor

        Thanks, didn’t know that.

        See how the Republican’s can suddenly come together to pass a bill that their constituents don’t want them to pass. But even though they ran in repeal and replace of Obamacare, and their constituents overwhelmingly want that…..

    • ChewbaccaLives

      While your point is true, I believe social media has more power than party infrastructure. TV ads are dying in effectiveness as trump proved. These trends should continue through 2020 at which point parties may have more use as a brand than as infrastructure.

    • Malatrope
      • I agree. Though ‘prediction’ in politics is a tricky enterprise. My view is that a Deplorable Party is at least a viable possibility. We live in interesting times.

    • Deplorablegunowner

      I was a significant contributor to Trumps campaign. Significant in a small business deplorable way. I never donted more than $500 bucks to anyone prior to DJT.
      Im not a wealthy person but I did meet VP Pence at a private function attended by about 50 wealthy and some local political types. It was the day after the grab them by the pussy tape surfaced.The event was like a wake. Defeat was in the air. Pence impressed me to no end with a convincing loyalty to DJT and the inside scoop that it would get worse in the coming weeks. It was a little like he knew DJT was a bombastic novice but he was also the will of the people and Pence would serve him. I am now on the list for fundraisers. The RNC sends me requests all the time. Sometimes with a message from DJT. Nothing personal just typical fundraising. Everytime I think to myself “F” them. I wouldnt give them a dollar they have betrayed us so much. Ill always have Trumps back and will support Pence but not the Republicans.
      They are the worst. I feel like a dope that I had a McCain sign in my yard followed by a Romney sign. I live in a Democrat paradise. I thought if we just had the Presidency things would straighten out. Jokes on me huh? Im a little suprised Trump isnt mining money for an organization that he controls. Why he lends his support to The RNC is beyond me.
      To your soaking up ” Deplorable bucks”I cant help him in that.

      • As I suggested in my remarks, I think the RNC is aware that there were sizable contributions made to the RNC on behalf of Trump. Also, Trump’s own fundraising was fairly substantial and mostly from ‘small’ donations. I think the RNC knows that these ‘small’ donors are loyal to Trump and not the Party. The ‘small’ donors represent both votes and money. This is a troubling combination for the Party.

  • Professor Codevilla’s discussion actually relates to the impossibility of reversing the forces and movement that produced the election of 2016. It’s perfectly conceivable that the election itself COULD be undone, most likely via impeachment.

    Trump doesn’t have a firm hold on Congress. His personality wins him no friends among the other big egos there — and how many Congressmen can be called modest and mature? Just about all that’s needed is one or two big causes — defying a couple of judges, maybe, or stopping the Mueller investigation. I’m not so sure that ‘unforced error’ is a fair description of his too cautious tactics: His flanks and rear are anything but secure.

    Should he be impeached the impossibility of reversing the underlying forces takes on critical importance. There would then be truly “no political vehicle that exists by which Americans may challenge the ruling class.” There seem only two pathways at that point:

    1. Outright submission by ‘deplorables.’ Lots of grumbling no doubt, probably scattered upset and violence which likely fades to sullenness over the next decade. Something like modern Russia (and with comparable standards of living) could be the end result. Or,

    2. The cold civil war goes hot. Instead of declining violence and sullen acceptance the outrage grows, fueled by government repression which is seen as deeply unfair given today’s routine ‘stand down’ orders to police when violence is coming from the left. Would a new leftist government be restrained in its use of force as the protest actions and other violence grew, or would it be trapped in a cycle of escalation and increasing grievance?

    ‘Fraught’ doesn’t begin to cover the prospects for a hot civil war in these times. As the left is fragmented by the conflicting desires of its constituent groups so would be the deplorable forces. Such wars can smolder and reflash periodically for decades even after both sides want to quit simply because no one peace is acceptable to all sides.

    Meanwhile we would have a ‘kick me’ sign on our national behind for every dictator and anti-American in the world. The odds that none of them would seize opportunities presented by a decade or more of American prostration on the world stage are just about zero.

    The Democratic Party and lickspittle Republicans really may be insane. They are playing not just with fire but with something like the end of the civilized world.

    • werewife

      May the Holy One grant that you are wrong, Guy, but I fear that you aren’t. In that case, may He help us all….

    • Carrington Spensor

      Professor Codevilla is as extremist in his thinking as are those that determine what is taught in California public schools. This article is the quintessential evidence of what happens when a person is over-educated in theory, and under-experienced in life.

      Currently President Trump is stymied in his agenda….

      1. Congress will not repeal Obamacare because they have no idea what to replace it with. In plain English – if the middle class no longer pays the outrageous premiums while accepting the equally outrageous deductibles, then there wouldn’t be money available to subsidize the poor people and ruling class (government bureaucrats) who get higher quality health care at an affordable price (including in retirement).

      2. The tax restructuring is about to be killed. Bureaucrats, lobbyists, politicians and big business make great money due to the complicated tax code. The percentage of tax big business owes is irrelevant – those people get write-offs all over the place as they bribe the politicians and reward them with things that are not printable in a family blog such as this one (notice how the more pub/power Marco Rubio gets, the fatter he becomes). All these people want at least a form of open borders, illegal immigrants, H1-B and H2-B visaholders and anyone else they can get that will work cheap (stick their health care and living expenses on American taxpayers). Obama may have asked how much money can a person make – but he never asked Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerburg, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc. all. They don’t want their companies employing Americans at the going rate…..it’s too expensive……and they want to continue to have offices in other countries where they can pay less taxes and ship their product int America for sale. Like private citizen Obama – they need ever more money….and more power.

      3. The border wall has to be stopped. If built, it will still be standing when Trump leaves office. Then it will be too easy to enforce immigration laws. Just stall it until another President can take office and write some new Executive Orders.

      4. And finally – Infrastructure! The mother of all pork!! Where totally unqualified family, relatives, friends, and those connected with lobbyists can get overpayed high 6, 7 and even 8 figure jobs which they know nothing about doing, and they can hire even more like themselves (including buying 3rd party substandard products from friends and relatives that opened up supply companies when the government money started to flow) …..leaving some in lower management to blame for the cost overruns, while having the work done by illegals and anyone else that will work cheap and keep their mouths shut.

      No, there will be no 3rd party President. President Trump will run as a Republican again in 2020, and win in a walk.

      The 4 items above are now taking a backseat to ‘Draining The Swamp’. This is what has to be done, and is in the process of being done. Getting in an additional 8-10 senators that support President Trump’s agenda along with an additional 15-18 Congresspeople that do as well, will allow Congress to get the agenda through. So ‘Draining The Swamp’ is now priority #1. Some Republican’s will be primaried in 2018, more in 2020. Groups have already formed to work with candidates (start with the ‘MEGA Coalition’).

      I look for President Trump to get one of the 4 action items above done by the 2018 election. The other 3 will start to be implemented by mid-2021 at the latest.

      • “… there will be no 3rd party President. President Trump will run as a Republican again in 2020, and win in a walk.”

        I don’t see that happening.

        1. The Republican establishment will make an all-out effort to keep him from being their candidate. Never mind that if he were their candidate he would seem likely to “win in a walk,” the establishment would far rather lose to the Democrats than win with Trump. The reason? Though the R. Party would have less power under a Democratic President than under a Republican, the establishment would then control 100% of the power accessible to its sponsors — the Chamber of Commerce, major defense contractors, etc. Sure those sponsors would GET less than under a Republican but the John McCain-type Republicans would control everything there was. Control = Donations.

        2. If Trump did win the Republican nomination then for the reasons outlined in #1 the Party would work to undermine him. The result could be that the Democrat wins the election.

        3. If Trump is impeached — even if claimed dirt is found by the Mueller inquisition or another such in the future — Republicans will join Democrats in using it against Trump at every step of the process.

        4. The Internet may be closing to conservative viewpoints as Google and others work to eliminate ‘hate speech’ and ‘fake news.’ Trump’s social media Hail Mary play in 2016 may not be a repeatable. Next time he may need to use more conventional channels — but note that some outlets refused to carry his ads last time.

        For all of these reasons it’s likely that Trump will need a fully supporting party in 2020. As a practical matter that means a ‘country,’ ‘conservative’ or ‘American’ party — one for which he is the preferred candidate.

        There is, of course, the possibility that we elect enough genuine conservatives to Congress in 2018 that the Republican Party reads the handwriting on the wall but since it’s apparent none of them are reading Angelo Codevilla that seems very unlikely. They see their money in the Washington game as its played today very few will be willing to play a more honest and pro-American game.

      • Anne Miller

        Your first sentence is you hanging an I AM STUPID sign on yourself. It fits. It is you.

    • Fester N Boyle

      Sadly my $’s are on your #1. So long as there is enough food and the TV is good the people will submit to whatever.

      An individual like Loughner or Hodgkinson may act out impotently but any concerted effort at resistance would be quickly discovered and neutralized via the communication patterns.

      Perhaps a large enough group could simply say “I won’t” and gum up the works economically, leading to some dissolution ala the Soviet Union. But “united we stand” was tossed aside long ago so I don’t believe it will take too much of a shock anymore.

      • Only about 3% of the U.S. population actually participated in the Revolutionary war. It doesn’t take everyone or even most to change a government if that’s what it comes to.

        As to Loughner or Hodgkinson, neither is of the class of people who will do the gruntwork of civil war II if that’s where we go. Both were basically nutcases. There are always a few such but they produce only the nastiness — not the chance of a constructive result.

        There are literally millions of Americans who have serious training and combat experience. They’re doing exactly what we are right now — nothing outside the law — because they know what war’s like and they don’t want to go there. Their absence in the occasional violence now is restraint — not lack of caring or cowardice.

        Those guys in the TV pictures of rescue work down in Texas? Half of them are the people who’ll do whatever is ultimately necessary.

        “United we stand” is as strong a belief as it ever was, but right now we’re united in keeping this thing within the lines of our Constitution and our law. Only if we lose those lines — impeachment of Trump over a nothingburger might be all it takes — is that view likely to change but if it does it’ll change for a whole bunch of very capable people almost overnight.

        Elsewhere on this thread I’ve written the reasons a civil war is a really bad idea while we have any other route to Constitutional government. People vary in their appreciation of the issues but for me the bloodshed and enduring hatred is only the first level. Civil wars usually don’t work, almost never work the first time, and can take you to an even worse place than where you start.

        At this point it appears that leadership of both parties and those who provide most of their money assume they won’t be bothered by what happens and are pressing ahead. Those who know they’re wrong are waiting, voting and praying.

        • Ward Dorrity

          Their absence in the occasional violence now is restraint — not lack of caring or cowardice.

          You have the right of it, sir. These SJWs and AntiFaGs have no idea…

        • Borchardt

          What if there were a tax strike?

          • Most of the income tax is collected by withholding by employers. Only those employers could stop the collection and of course they have assets that could be seized.

            A tax strike is not a practical approach.

          • Borchardt

            Suppose a million taxpayers went to their employers and declared 12 dependents, then on the following April 15, did not file.

          • Fester N Boyle

            The govt. will print anything they want, a million tax scoffs will be dealt with by simple seizures. But you are on a good track.

            The IRS could be brought to a halt if that same million would only submit (poorly) handwritten returns. Make the IRS revert to manually processing them, monkey wrench the document scanners with badly formed numbers, stray marks, odd ink, etc. And for a bonus, amend the return later, omit a deduction and claim it later. File quarterlies. Learn the forms and use their own system against them.

        • Fester N Boyle

          I agree with that assessment overall but do not share your optimism. The US is pretty well fubared from my view, we are well along our descent into tribalism. It’s more like one should hope for the least worst outcome.

          The populace seems pretty effectively divided into 50/50 politics. The only thing holding it all together is the affluence, people can still buy electronic distractions and hunger is an explicit choice few know. If that stops the undercurrent of anger will ramp up. An economic shock might very well result in the breakup of the US as much as bring about any unity.

          • Let’s guess some percentages:

            10% Like the status quo and trends enough to act to actively support them. Congress, mediapersons, media people, union leadership and some members, staff at all kinds of lefty orgs, Antifa …

            40% Prefer the status quo and are clueless about the trends; few would act in any determined manner though many would support actors. Most union members, teachers & school administrators, celebs, “our family always votes Democratic.”

            30% Dislike the status quo but would take little or no action beyond going to rallies and voting. Some would support actors.

            10% Dislike the status quo, would take action as followers and provide solid support for actors.

            10% Dislike the status quo and are ready to act and lead: Right now they’re restrained by the hope that the situation can be resolved within legal and constitutional lines.

            Data point: Probably 50%+ of lawful American voters voted for Donald Trump. That’s ~20% of the population.

            The American Revolution was won by 3% actors and around 30% supporters.

            Furthermore it is EXCEEDINGLY difficult for an established government to act in such manner that it both suppresses the dissent and avoids creating more supporters for that dissent. Much depends on (a) the virtue of the government’s cause, and (b) the ability of that government to both communicate virtue and restrain those of its supporters who act outside its official policy.

            Is Antifa truly helping the leftist cause?

            Much of what’s going on is paid for by George Soros who is probably agnostic about who wins: He is short the U.S. stock market and plans to make many billions by crashing it. That’s not the kind of support I’d want if I were a Democratic leader.

            I don’t think we’re going to win this easily and it’s quite likely the path loops outside the legal/Constitutional lines at some point in the future. But I’ve got a lot of confidence in the American people.

          • Covadonga

            Soros is evil, and a blight on society as charged. Where I break ranks with most of his critics is in their regarding of him as the Big Bad.

            Though I lack smoking-gun evidence, the lessons of history* applied to a general description of our society’s current crisis, and to the Soros phenomenon within it, make me virtually certain that he is merely the face man and, if necessary, the designated fall guy, of an organized group, whose other members remain far more discreet about the true nature of their involvement with it.

            *cf. the establishment of the Federal Reserve system,
            the original funding of the Bolsheviks,
            the original funding of Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers’ Party,
            Communist infiltration into our government, a la Diana West’s description in her book American Betrayal,
            Islamic infiltration into our government,
            Islamic conquest of previous nations in history,
            etc.

      • Kenny A

        I agree – the MAGA crowd like bonfires, but for the most part they are motivated by resentment, not burning revolutionary fervour.

    • SFTOBEY

      They are not “insane”. What the globalist, oligarch “New World Ordure” cabal WANTS is a United States divided by factions, ungovernable — and no longer sovereign. It is THEN that they will try to impose their One World Government upon us all. And if Americans (and other lovers of freedom) think that the communist nations are bad, if these globalist scum get their way, their will be no place left on Earth to run. Don’t believe me? Then read what they themselves have had to say about what they wish to be our future:

      “We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
      — David Rockefeller, Bilderberger Conference, Baden-Baden, Germany 1991

      “Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
      — David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405

      “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
      — David Rockefeller

      “But this present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for long. Already there are powerful forces at work that threaten to destroy all of our hopes and efforts to erect an enduring structure of global interdependence.”
      —David Rockefeller, at the Business Council for the United Nations, September 14, 1994

      These are just from one super-wealthy, megalomaniac. There are more. Here are a few others:

      “Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government.”
      — Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1992

      “US must not stop Syrian resettlement. It would be a threat to ‘global governance’”.
      — David Miliband, former British Foreign Secretary who came to New York in 2013 to take the reins of the International Rescue Committee

      “The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities…”
      — Zbigniew Brzezinski from his book “Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technotronic Era”

      “This regionalization is in keeping with the Tri-Lateral Plan, which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of one world government. National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept.”
      — Zbignew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter

      “Every child in America entering school at the age of five is insane because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well – by creating the international child of the future”
      — Dr. Chester M. Pierce, Psychiatrist, address to the Childhood International Education Seminar, 1973

      “To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas…”
      — G. Brock Chisholm, psychiatrist and co-founder of the World Federation of Mental Health

      “We … ourselves, who still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others … And that’s precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine… States have to become more open states, in terms of the people who inhabit them; sovereignty is an illusion … sovereignty is an absolute illusion that has to be put behind us.”
      —Peter Sutherland, UN migration chief & chairman at Goldman Sachs bank, who wants to use (Muslim) immigration to destroy European countries’ culture

      “His [Orban’s] plan treats the protection of national borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle,” Mr. Soros added. “Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.”
      — George Soros on Victor Orban’s criticism (And anyone who believes that George Soros gives a flying fig for “refugees”… well, I’ve a bridge I’d love to sell you.)

      “If we are frank with ourselves, we shall admit that we are engaged on a deliberate and sustained and concentrated effort to impose limitations upon the sovereignty and independence of the fifty or sixty local sovereign independent States which at present partition the habitable surface of the earth and divide the political allegiance of mankind. It is just because we are really attacking the principle of local sovereignty that we keep on protesting our loyalty to it so loudly.
      … I will merely repeat that we are at present working, discreetly but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands…”
      —Arnold Toynbee, Address to the 1931 Copenhagen conference as published in International Affairs: Journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (November 1931)

      • ReckonSo

        Well the punchbowl the NWO crowd plans on drinking from will have a massive turd floating in it called the 2nd Amendment. We’re not a bunch of unarmed peasants. They have absolutely no idea the arsenals that millions of Americans have at the ready.

    • RightWingYahoo

      The left, and their R enablers, are hacking away with axes at the tree of national stability and prosperity, and have been for at least 30 years. How long before the tree falls?

      And yes, a dark age is what awaits, should the US fragment, which on its current course, it must do.

      Trump needs courage, and help, before something much worse than Charlottesville happens.

  • Orson OLSON

    Republican’s Against Trump Traitors!

  • Michael Lang

    Fantastical nonsense.

    • James

      Perhaps, but unless you explain why you think that, you just sound stupid.
      Personally, I think the problems of social division are so severe that a bath of blood is the only thing that can possibly settle the issues. How can there be communion between light and darkness? How can people who believe that male and female are fundamental to mammalian biology co-exist with people who tell us that there are hundreds and maybe thousands of genders, or sexes, or whatever? A great showdown seems inevitable.
      You may think what I just wrote there is nonsense, but you must explain how the divisions are not so severe that they require violence to settle. You should explain to us how it is futile for people who believe in biology to resist those who don’t. You should explain to us why insistence is not futile.

      • I strongly disagree with Michael but there’s a less dramatic explanation for what you observe: 72 (?) genders, an urgent need to tear down hundreds of statues to long dead generals and statesmen (and several military bases), hatred for cops who are claimed (against the facts) to kill uncounted numbers of black Americans annually from racism — and all the rest of that — are believed by essentially nobody.

        There are at least four kinds of people spouting that garbage: At the top — Pantsuit Clinton, Soros (and other money men) Obama, Perez, Pelosi, the SPLC and various other front organizations — it’s purely tactical: They don’t believe any of it. Their goal is keeping America divided by the use of issues created solely by proclamation and endless amplification to stoke intergroup anger. The Democrats then go to each group and announce ‘terrible, terrible trouble right here in River City’ and an urgent need to support the very same Democrats who created the issues.

        Most of the sound and fury comes from The Dribbling Press. They’re owned by men who hate America precisely because she’s so good and they sense that they don’t deserve her.

        ‘Evening News anchor’ is someone’s job — of course she’s going to read those scripts and even believe them. Employment has its own Stockholm Syndrome. Antifa and similar people are likewise paid for their supporting work.

        The university professors and celebs who spout that stuff are small people, desperate to signal their virtue to others with greater power. And students are following the latest path to adolescent rebellion, just as any group of youngsters that need not yet consider Reality because Daddy Pays will do.

        What fraction of this large total number would even risk jobs and general disapproval if the wind suddenly blew in a different direction? 10%? My guess would be closer to 1%.

        Put enough heat and enough moisture in the atmosphere and you get a hurricane. Money is the heat and moisture of social hurricanes but how many of the drops of rain that fell on Houston really cared?

        As long as the Soros, Bezos, and Slims (etc.) of the world pour billions annually into this stuff, it’ll happen. It can do vast damage as it does so. But that doesn’t mean that a significant fraction of those involved actually believe the garbage enough to act on it when presented with a costly real choice.

        It’s even possible to think of what we’re seeing now as an ‘extinction burst’ — a term for the seeming paradox of a formerly rewarded behavior increasing dramatically when the reward is no longer given (“this ought to bring the reward, maybe if I do it again, twice as often …”) before stopping. “Does Donald Trump signal the end of my rewards? Like, OMG!”

        Unfortunately, Reality is non-linear and utter garbage that’s deeply believed by almost nobody can break things that cannot be put back together. Our goal now must be to hold things within the bounds of our Constitution and laws as our country’s policies swing back toward sanity. That’s a strait gate indeed, and hot civil war lies on both sides.

        • James

          What makes you think your explanation is less dramatic than mine? Your explanation would be even better if it were more dramatic. What is good about drama is it helps people overcome their apathy and complacency. And that’s our real problem isn’t it? When I complain to people about all the ignorance and apathy, they tell me they don’t know and they don’t care, which I’m sure is your experience, too.

  • Peter63

    Here is another strategy for helping to wrest the United States and the western democracies from the gripe of the Big Money/Political Left alliance.-
    Let all genuinely conservative media outlets point out to them the suicidal nature of their game-plan: suicidal for THEM, I mean to say.
    I make this case in a separate post, just above this.

  • Peter63

    Big Money in unholy alliance with the political Left nowadays marches the western world into the condition of Brazil. It desires (not entirely consciously) a social order in which the ultra-rich, dwelling in staggering affluence and gated security, and enabled by a bought-and-paid-for political class and mainstream media, float on top of dirt-poor countries. Below that, as in London’s foreign underworld today, there is to be an ocean of serfs on tiny pittances (all races, all colours) who, non-unionised and very deferential, make up the workforces of giant companies and provide maids, nannies, cooks, gardeners and tradesmen for the well-to-do domestically. These moiling destitutes are to dwell in barrios regulated by crime-lords; as in Latin America today.

    This vile goal is being achieved via mass immigration ‘justified’ by the lunatic doctrine of Multiculturalism (“all cultures are equally valid and all are benign” [Oh yes: just look at ISIS] and enforced by political correctness; via crony corporatism; via special interests making all major government decisions; via absolute disregard for democratic protest (I do mean protest in the ballot box and not ravings and violence on streets). Genuine Brexit and Campaign Trump’s agenda are to be as ruthlessly nullified as possible.

    The Left desires the same Brazilian reality as a staging post on its way to a ‘socialist’ revolution which will once again offer them a totalitarian world in which (as they think) they will be the privileged commissars fiercely bullying everyone else.

    This monopolists’ campaign may be temporarily derailed by the probable forthcoming collapse of the world economy due to its gigantic debt-overhang. Yet whether or not that be so, it behoves these echelons of ruling dimwits, blinded by their frantic lust for wealth and power, to consider what their own fates will actually be in such a Dispensation as they are contriving.

    The radical transmogrification of a country for the triumph of new privileged groups never, in the modern world, means victory to relatively sane forces. It is the most ruthless members of society, backed by fanatical suicidally self-sacrificing supporters, who win.

    The transmogrification of Russia in the nineteen-teens and twenties did not put that country in the lap of the Liberals or the Mensheviks. It handed it to the Bolsheviks. The transmogrification of Germany in the nineteen-twenties and thirties did not turn that land over to the German version of Communism (whose adherents clung to the laws they supposed would protect them) nor to the Social Democrats. It went to the Nazis.

    Today the most ruthless members of world society – the people who will stop at absolutely nothing and who are backed by plenty of self-sacrificing individuals willing to murder and die ad lib – are the jihadists.

    THEIR movers and shakers, when they have come out on top of the mess Silicon Valley billionaires, Wall St, the City of London, the Chamber of Commerce and the Political Left have made of the democracies, will turn on their benefactors. They will expropriate their wealth and possessions and in most cases will murder them. They will reason, cogently enough, that Big Money and the loud violent Left were able to turn whole societies upside down and inside out; and they won’t want any reverse-engineering performed by the same proven forces. So “off with THEIR heads!” will be one of the first principles of the New Caliphate.

    If you be one of the Big Money people, a member of nearly any political party in the western world, or other enabler of this Rule by Terror and Murder that you are moving mankind towards, will you not – as Charon ferries your decapitated body across the Styx – feel rather like Shakespeare’s King Lear? – ‘Woe that too late repents!’

  • Peter63

    Here is another strategy for helping to wrest the United States and the western democracies from the gripe of the Big Money/Political Left alliance.-

    Let all genuinely conservative media outlets point out to them the suicidal nature of their game-plan: suicidal for THEM, I mean to say.

    I make this case in a separate post, just below this.

  • ricocat1

    This lifelong Republican activist who passed out Dewey literature in 1948 as a kid is ready for a Donald Trump-led “Party of Deplorables” which puts America First. Time for someone to replace the Demlican Uniparty with a true party of the American people.

    • Carrington Spensor

      Let me summarize my long post below…..

      If President Trump cannot get the 51 votes necessary from the Senate to get Obamacare repealed as all Democrats and a handful of GOPe opposed it (and everything else he wants done), how in the world is a new party going to come in and elect 51 Senators?

      • George B

        The real question is why can’t Congress work 40 or more hour weeks like their constituents to move forward a series of small bills to chip away at the government annoyances their constituents face in their daily lives? Take a piece of Obamacare and find a way to get 218 Representatives and 50 Senators plus Pence to vote to repeal or weaken it. Take another piece and work on it. Nuke the filibuster and worthless grandstanding, work extra hours, and show some progress at undoing 100 years of Progressive laws. Get into pushing and shoving fights like the Taiwan legislature if necessary, but get something done. Why does Congress waste time failing to pass huge bills instead of pushing through reforms in bite size pieces?

        • Why do race car drivers all circle the track in the same direction? Why don’t some go the other way and others zip back and forth across the infield.?

          Because their sponsors pay them to go in the direction they do. Go the wrong way and you lose your sponsors overnight. It is the same for Congress.

          Pay of a Congressman from citizens: < $600/day
          Pay ('campaign donations') from others: ~$19,000/day

          So … who do you imagine they work for? We're outbid, that’s all. Repeal doesn’t happen because Congress does not want it to happen.

          It has been suggested that Congressmen wear coveralls emblazoned with the names of their sponsors — Boeing, American Medical Association, Service Employees International Union — just as race drivers do. Sounds right to me, and think of the money they’d save when outfitted by Carhartt or Dickies rather than fancy tailors.

          I’d certainly go for that — and not 1% of Congressmen would resign if told that wearing their coveralls to work was now a requirement of their job.

        • Carrington Spensor

          George;

          I’m retired. For years young people I worked with asked me why the companies we worked for did things the screwed up way they did things. So I had to tell them the obvious – things work the way they work because it’s the way the people in power want them to work.

          When candidate Trump was running for President, he talked about how people kept voting for things, but they never came to pass. Look at what happened with Obamacare – most all elected Republican Congresspeople ran on repealing and replacing it. John McCain’s 2016 campaign centered on repealing and replacing it – something he’s mouthed off about for 7-8 years now. Yet when the rubber hit the road, ole’ “Maverick” was only too happy to be the deciding vote against. And make no mistake, there were at least a half-dozen Republican Senators that would have voted against the “skinny” repeal, but word had gotten out that McCain had joined the 2 female Senators to shelter them, so they could vote against it and deceive their voters.

          The US Federal government will change when the power structure changes. Americans can do that by voting in enough Congresspeople in both the House and Senate that will support the Presidents agenda. Period. That’s the way it works.

          • RegT

            McCain’s would include North Vietnam, China, and Saudi Arabia.

      • ChewbaccaLives

        I think we were three votes short in the senate. So the answer to your question is to replace three RINOs or dems. That’s a possibility for 2018.

  • mlmontagne

    The people on the White House staff think it is their job to control Trump. Well, given that Trump, left to his own devices, consistently acts like an idiot, that is probably a good thing.
    Obamacare is not being repealed. Congress bears responsibility for that, but Trump himself has done absolutely nothing to advance that part of his agenda, indeed, he had hampered it at every turn. Did the congressional Republicans not mean it when they campaigned on repeal? Maybe, but Trump has betrayed that promise just as decisively as they have. He said during the campaign he favored single payer. He probably meant it.

    • The flaw in your thinking about the failure to undo Obamacare is that Republicans PASSED repeal bills half a dozen or more times during Obama’s reign when they knew they had no chance of becoming law. If one of those bills were introduced now and passed (as it did then) TRUMP WOULD SIGN IT. He talked of plain repeal for a couple of weeks recently …

      They don’t pass a repeal because their corporate sponsors and other holders of their puppet strings DON’T WANT repeal. As terrible as Obamacare is for the country and for health care, it pays off well for many players in the health industries and by giving ultimate control over people’s lives to the government, it’s of great value to the Democrats.

      • mlmontagne

        Very true. Trump has still been an impediment to passing it again, now.

  • Frank Byrne

    The timing could be ripe, now if only the large L libertarians could organize their way out of a paper bag….

    • E. +Goldstein

      Libertarians do not believe in MAGA. The motto “All for one, me!” does not work.

  • dilsin

    The GOP is going to get creamed in the midterms, and they deserve it. They have shown themselves incapable of governing, and the deception and dishonesty used to gain power has been laid bare for all to see. I hate to think of a Democrat majority back in the House, but that’s not out of the realm of the possible now. The GOP has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

    • Fester N Boyle

      Ignore purported party affiliations, blindly vote out incumbents across the board where ever and when ever possible. You know the uniparty will draw on either side to defeat a deplorable such as when they used Dem voters to keep the GOP’s geriatric Cochran in place. Register for whatever party dominates in your area (the US populace as a whole is gerrymandered) and support the strongest primary candidate challenger to the existing incumbent. Re-elect nobody, repeal and replace all Congress.

      • Kenny A

        Great advice, for a unicameral legislature. Two chambers, and the upper house elected to staggered terms? Sure, you’ll replace all Congress – maybe sometime in the 2040s?

  • Cybergeezer

    It won’t make any difference what Party is concocted, and how much it is “liked”.
    Money is what now runs American politics.
    Congress doesn’t even write their own Bills any more. They are drafted by the actual donors.
    PRESIDENT TRUMP was able to engage the other opulent contestants on a level playing field, and that is what garnered him the most support.
    He was also a known quantity which was enough to separate him from the other confirmed reprobates who were drunk on their power and opulent resources.
    The Washington Monument is a giant phallic symbol which represents the D.C. cabal giving the finger to the entire country.

  • crushlimbraw

    Another insightful article by AC – the first to raise the political awareness of the nation to our Ruling Class and our Country Class.
    I have speculated on the political outcome of the Trump wave myself – clearly stating that Trump did NOT start it – he became the messenger. I further state that if DaSwamp succeeds in removing or neutering him – the next ‘Trump’ will be one who will not take any prisoners.
    That is inevitable! As AC states – this baby is just getting started.
    My only difference in outcome is the possibility that DaGOP will simply becomes the ‘American’ party – not by name, but in fact – just as the Dems are now the Left and anti-American. Jeff Flake in AZ will most likely be the first of many ex-GOP senators and congressmen.
    The question is – where will the substance for this transformation come from? It will not be GOPe or even Conservatives – they are a proven failure – http://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/search?q=conservative+failure – it’s an ugly history.
    My guess is that the Alternative Right – no, not the fake Right as portrayed by DaFakeStreammedia – has a fairly well-defined outline of beliefs as spelled out by Vox Day – http://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/search?q=alt+right – read all 16 points – and see if that does not describe Trump’s base. They were not a minor factor in the last election.
    Finally – for all you ‘politics only’ junkies just as I was once and which you can read at my website (separate from the blog/archive) – this present uprising is NOT just about politics – it is a loud statement of the soul of the American citizen who is simply saying – ENOUGH of this CRAP!
    If this doesn’t accomplish the objectives politically – the next option none of us want – but don’t preclude it – history is not on our side!

  • Ross Perot would have had similar problems if he had been elected in 1992. I was prepared to vote for him until he had his (real?) psychological meltdown the summer at his daughter’s wedding. It does make one wonder if that was all true. At any rate, the Deep State was less entrenched than it has become under 16 years of Democrats and the weak GW Bush period.

    • Miss Fortune

      I’ve always wondered why he ran and if he was a ringer.

  • Banned_by_KBTX

    It is a good article, but I think it got a few important things wrong:

    1. The author suggests that the ruling class and the Left are mostly seperate factions. On the contrary: the BLM/Antifa terrorists enjoy support and protection from the ruling class since their political views are more alike than different. Right now these brownshirts perform an important function for the ruling class – terrorizing the opposition and undercutting it by getting non-progressives demonized as “racists”.

    2. The author seems to assume that the 2020 election will be more or less on the level. I beg to differ. Aside from the growing problem of voting fraud (2020 will be a banana republic-style election with voter turnout rates of several hundred percent in deep blue big cities and university towns) the BLM/Antifa goons will serve as effective voter suppression agents, beating up and perhaps killing opponents of the ruling class. The Black Panthers have already been intimidating voters in some big cities for years with no interference from the authorities.

    3. I also feel the author underestimates the enormous difficulty a potential third party will face in simply getting on the ballot. For that reason I doubt Trump would form a third party only to watch as the Demopublican and Republicrat Establishments kept him from putting his name before the voters. Suing to get on the ballot would take time and is unlikely to be successful in the face of opposition from both parties.

    • Anne Miller

      Ross Perot got on most state ballots in a short time a long time before the internet. And he was almost insane.

    • crushlimbraw

      DaGOP might be the third party!

  • Kenny A

    “the enormous institutional and political powers of the modern U.S. presidency is better placed to make victims than to be one”

    This column, and the line above in particular, reads as the suicide note of a revolution. The one distinguishing principle of American conservatism is its devotion to the self-correcting mechanisms of the constitution. This on the other hand is simply a naked endorsement of the imperial presidency, as long as the throne is occupied by someone Nationalists find congenial.

  • Reginald Pettifogger

    Love, and respect, everything Prof. Codevella discusses.
    The unfortunate part is that after printing out his article, and having to set it aside for more mundane activities such as actual work, when I picked it back up and read it, I had to do a Goolag search to find out its authorship as the American Great(?)ness programming doesn’t included the author’s information in a “printer friendly” format.
    Someone needs to correct this glaring fault.

  • cw

    Only one Trump to dime a dozen writers. Screw this stupid article

  • Coldsteel1983

    AC has written a pretty good piece here. He’s correct in stating that it’s not about Trump, it’s about the uni-party ruling elite.

    For better or for worse (the latter more likely) they don’t get it. They see Trump as the problem when he’s really a symptom. He’s closer to “them” in views, status, wealth and interests. The problem comes when the unwashed turn to someone that makes Trump look like a Progressive Democrat. Someone that will cast aside (for real) the constraints on Executive power and its use…

  • Ectomy

    Interesting supposition. Things certainly cannot
    continue as the current “powers” wish.

  • Jake Bell

    The GOP is dead, it has shown no willingness to even follow it’s own platform when handed victory. The Whigs refused to take a stand on slavery and preferred the ‘status quo’ to any ‘radical ideas’. What happened, no one remembers the Whigs. In 100 years no one will remember the Republican Party other than historical references to Lincoln. The leadership of the GOP is much more concerned with the ‘donor class’ than the ‘voting class’. The times they are a changing and the ‘Bush’s’ are not the future. Actually, the Dem’s won’t even let them be in their party. They might invite them to speak at a convention to ‘denounce’ someone but the GOP elite is finished, done and is, as of Nov 8, 2016, irrelevant. If the ‘moderate’ forces try to converge, the D’s will dump their side faster then you can say ‘Black Lives Matter’. It’s over, the Uni-Party is done. Comrade Barry, who is and has always been a communist, ended the charade for anyone who can see. When the die-hard conservative press thinks Barry’s pant creases mean he is ok, it’s time to go. Bye Bye, Bye Bye!

  • Brendan Doran

    Incisive essay, but a real 3d party doesn’t yet exist.

  • RightWingYahoo

    Let me say I love this essay and the author’s guiding principles evident in writing it. I agree with its substance completely. Basically, everything in this essay is true, and yes, the GOP should be replaced, as it is no longer merely a useless instrument, but as the active blocking of Ogabe-care repeal shows, and the sure-to-be setting aside of Trump’s agenda in favor of an amnesty for the DREAMERS in quick succession does also, that the R party is an instrument of HARM to the middle class, and no longer the careful caretakers and loyal arms-carriers into the battle on behalf of our ideas, let alone our preservation.

    They have given us the Caesar’s Thumbs’ down, and down we are to go beneath the swords of open borders, TPP, and Ogabe-care.

    I would love nothing more than to see the right throw off the dead weight of the R party and move on for good, leaving the Rs to scramble for crumbs at the Scumocrats’ table. Such would be far more and better than those Judas goats deserve.

    For all the above I still can’t believe the voters will do as they did in 2016 on the congressional ballot when they returned McCain to the Senate.

    We are the ones who must help Trump be rid of the pathetic R congress, but how many times has this been said? And how many times have we watched elections come and go, with nothing but the donor class agenda to show for it?

    When will America truly have had enough of this treason? As long as McCain is in the Senate, I think Americans are content with what they have, and don’t mind being robbed.

    John McCain’s status as a US Senator is a living, breathing insult to everyone who calls themselves a patriot. It’s a sign the virus of corruption and apathy are still in control of the host.

    I would love for everything Angelo predicted here to come true. I would love for the American people to earn their place among the worlds few free back again.

    I just don’t know if they will bother to do it. They seem content with ruin, maybe a good deal more of it will change their minds.

  • ReckonSo

    The real question, in dealing with the elites on both sides of the political spectrum is whether the guillotine in their future will be figurative or literal.