We Need a New Elite

By | 2017-06-02T18:30:05+00:00 November 17, 2017|
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

President Trump is taking a sledgehammer to the establishment consensus, and that consensus deserves it. New affronts to the people’s common sense emerge daily to vindicate his project.

Just take the recent example of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). Upon the publication of the Washington Post’s exposé alleging Roy Moore’s sexual impropriety with minors, Graham—without hesitation or further inquiry—said that Moore should “step aside” and that he should “be dealt with very severely.”

But just a few weeks ago, Graham served as a character witness for Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who prior to a judge this week declaring a mistrial, was facing 18 federal counts involving bribery and corruption and is alleged to have had sex with underage prostitutes in the Dominican Republic. In his testimony, Graham called Menendez, the first sitting senator to be on trial in more than a decade,“very honest and trustworthy.”

A Blind, Deaf, and . . . Stupid Establishment
The contrast should be astounding to anyone not captive to
the ruling class mindset. Pardon the skeptical public for their inability to take lectures on morality seriously from the likes of Senator Graham and other members of our ruling class. From skyrocketing divorce rates (especially among our older population) to the explosion of crime in our inner cities, there is overwhelming evidence of the establishment’s failure to take the lead on questions of moral importance.

But try telling that to the members of the establishment. They cannot even see the failures their weakness combined with permissive ideology and policy have produced. In fact, they think that the only prescription needed is more of the same poison that brought us where we are.

To paraphrase the political philosopher Leo Strauss, the members of the establishment know neither that they fiddle nor that Rome is burning.

Consider, for example, a recent speech by George W. Bush. Bush told an audience that what the world needs most right now is a stronger belief in the pieties of universal freedom, globalism, and unlimited immigration.

More “global engagement,” which has resulted in chaos and violence throughout the Middle East. More fake “free trade,” which has helped to hollow out the middle class and has made us increasingly subservient to foreign adversaries such as China.

And more “immigration,” which Bush claims has “always” brought “dynamism” to our nation. So much for questions regarding assimilation, wage stagnation, increased crime in American cities close to the southern border, and concern with questions such as national identity and the meaning of citizenship.

As R.R. Reno has remarked, “When faced with a world of their own making that is careening toward economic, cultural, and political disasters,” Bush and the establishment instead of owning their mistakes “compliment their own leadership.”

New Freedom from Old Bromides
But the establishment’s failures were Trump’s gains. For a man who disdains theory and abstraction, his blasting away at the encrusted barnacles of establishment convention has opened up the possibility of
genuine political thought for the first time in decades.

It has caused a sizable number of Americans to break free from the old bromides and pieties which were really just intellectual enslavement to an ideology they once took as authoritative. And it has given people more confidence to trust that they can see the cracks and make efforts to repair them.

In the latest installment of his monthly email newsletter, “The Masculinist,” cultural commentator Aaron Renn writes there is “no reason to allow” the establishment “to set your agenda, or to crave their approval or legitimation.” For far too long, Republicans have been playing by the Democrat’s rules.

Time and again Republicans cave while Democrats smirk, almost in disbelief, as Republicans once again get suckered by their cynical deployment of “morality.” Ever hopeful that this time the Democrats are really going to uphold virtue as a principle above power, they dutifully and breathlessly report the grunting noises of leftists who seem to indicate some notion of the common cause here and take aim at one of their own. Conveniently, they launch their salvos after the prey has vacated the forest or when it is time to retire him, anyway. Silly rabbits. This trick is for kids, but Republicans fall for it every time. The “principle” of virtue is only ever deployed as a weapon to keep Republicans out of power. Pay attention.

With the hosanna chorus of “that’s not who we are” echoing through the halls of Congress, voters can be excused for wondering whose side these elites are on, anyway. And Republicans setting up their own defenestrations increasingly will be seen as the hapless hucksters that they are, as when Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) stood by silently and watched Senate Democrats attack Charles Murray, a distinguished social scientist whom Lee had invited to speak on a Senate panel on social capital in America.

Well-Rounded, Contrarian Citizens
Upending the establishment consensus can only be successful if Americans are no longer captive to bread and circuses. We must educate ourselves and read widely, even among those with whom we disagree. We must adopt a contrarian mindset and always be ready to question whatever narrative the media and elected officials sell—and this includes even Right-leaning media and political figures such as Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and—most especially—the Republican Congress.

Moreover, we must be well-rounded citizens, so that should our project of busting the establishment monopoly succeed, we have something worthy with which to replace it. Tearing down is not enough. We must know what it takes to build a strong civil society that can last for generations to come. We must stop asking what is good for conservatives (who cares?) and start asking what it means to stand for the common good.

While President Trump is doing his part, it is likely that his role is only going to be smashing through the wall. The people must pour through the hole and take back what is rightfully theirs. And when they get it, they had better show themselves worthy of the effort.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact [email protected].

About the Author:

Mike Sabo

Mike Sabo is a Mt. Vernon Fellow of the Center for American Greatness and a recent graduate of the Van Andel Graduate School of Statesmanship at Hillsdale College. He and his wife live in Alexandria, Virginia.

  • tz1

    We don’t need a new elite. We need one that celebrates the smallness and humbleness, which wouldn’t look like nor identify themselves as elite. Washington and Jefferson would have preferred to tend to their plantations. Yet they recognized if not celebrated all the Yoemen farmers, the craftsmen, and the rest that they only were where they were because of.

    There is the danger of putting prostitutes on the throne as in the French Revolution.

    The key difference is Natural Law. In America, ideals were enthroned, and men were imperfectly trying to live up to them. In France, it was swapping different sets of corrupt men and making them the elite for a time. That’s why you need a nation of laws, not of men. Laws can be refined if not perfected. Men are harder to fix, so they can either implement the good set of laws well or badly.

    • Hominid

      Yet, in today’s America, laws do not rule – corrupt men do.

  • Jo Jo Cintia

    Trump is no God-Emperor. He’s Little Jebbie with a combover. The DACA is already becoming amnesty. The Border Patrol says he betrayed them. This failed state needs no invaders. Their “immigrants” are already worse than the Huns. Trump went on a whirlwind tour of Asia and ended up in Vietnam. After saying America wasn’t a washed up old nobody. This old fool is either drinking heavily or is more senile than Reagan.

    • Panope Vreeland

      Fuck off, Jo Jo. Go back to your transgender studies.

      • Jo Jo Cintia

        Is that an insult? Transgender huh? Your political knowledge seems more appropriate for a Kindergarten Playground.

        • You actually seem like a ShareBlue troll with an assignment to dishearten conservatives by complaining that Trump isn’t conservative enough. Put me in the screenshot you send your supervisor!

          • Jo Jo Cintia

            Oh he’s plenty “conservative”. He ignores his voters and wants to start more wars against tinpot dictators to deflect from massive unemployment and crime. We’ve seen this picture before.

          • Panope Vreeland

            MSNBC much?

          • Jo Jo Cintia

            No but I check Breitbart and Drudge Report and the Border Patrol says that NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

          • Fred Friedman

            Negroes and leftists cause crime.

        • Vinny James

          Aren’t you the monkey on the power puff girls troll? MOOOOOOJOOOOOO JO JO!!!

          • Jo Jo Cintia

            Yeah, sure sport. And I suppose you’re dumb enough to somehow believe that comment makes me look bad huh?

        • vaccinia

          Seemed more of a comment on your intellectual level…..

          • Hominid

            Yet, none of his detractors (perhaps Trumpsuckers?) have countered his points, they just hurl childish insults.

            I see nothing that is overstated or illegitimate in his criticisms of Trump. If you don’t agree with them, offer a counter.

            He may be a kook elsewhere, but I haven’t seen it. His remarks seem reasonable.

          • vaccinia

            True, it’s better to hurl POINTED insults, which is your MO. And mine, when the imbecile I’m replying to is a kook and not worthy of much of my time.

            The DACA is going back to the Congress where it’s debate rightly belongs, out of the hands of the Executive branch. Ala the constitution….

            The border patrol is pissed because the Obama stooges are still in the administration. The Deep state takes a while to eliminate, especially when your priority is trying to rev up a moribund economy. which without fixing will wipe his presidency….

            Only the media thinks that the asia tour was a flop, the accolades from the countries he visited showed respect….

    • Max Flasher

      The problem we have here is that even if it’s true that Trump is a totally worthless person he’s still infinitely better than anything on the hate whitey left. I do not have the slightest particle of trust for the Big Brother, totalitarian left.

      • Hominid

        In many of his positions, Trump is of the Left.

        Smack talking is not policy and policy is not legislation.

  • Panope Vreeland

    My comment is just going to acknowledge the fact that Sabo is articulating rare comm-sense and understanding in a media world that gives us ‘conservative’ commentary such as the “G File”…

    • I used to love the G File! And the Jim Geraghty morning letter. Now the only thing I can read in National Review is Victor Davis Hanson and the legal analysis.

      As Kurt Schlicter says – it’s not even that the supposed conservatives hate Trump so much as they’re embarrassed to be associated with the people that voted for him. They’d rather continue to lose with the traditional Republican, and literally watch the Republic wither and die, than tip over the table and stop the cancer. (Yes, mixed metaphors).

      • Panope Vreeland

        Agree. Conrad Black is usually a good read as well.

      • SmartProf

        See my post detailing how Geraghty et al. have shown themselves to be wrong, wrong, wrong.

    • SmartProf

      The same NRO that gave us the inevitable nomination of Jeb!, that told us Trump would never win the nomination, let alone the presidency, are merely something to be laughed at.

      • TooTall7

        And scorned!

  • Vinny James

    A worthwhile read as always Mr Sabo!

  • Old exJarhead

    Well said!

  • SmartProf

    Historically you had to actually be “elite” (for example, intelligent) to be part of the Elite.
    Nowadays, you only have to be connected to someone powerful in DC or NYC.

    • SmartProf

      Here’s just a sample of how the “conservative elite” have proven themselves to be morons:

      Jonah Goldberg of NR—
      Jonah Goldberg is one of those National Review “election experts” who told us that Trump would never win, and who refused to vote for him. Goldberg and NRO represent what the writer Decius labels “Conservatism, Inc.”–the well-funded Beltway types who proclaim themselves the high priests of “conservatism,” but who in 50 years have failed to conserve anything.
      Goldberg’s own words show he shouldn’t be listened to:
      July 8, 2015: “Donald Trump has no chance of becoming president.”
      July 11, 2015: “He’ll never be president…”
      Ooops!
      Oct. 23, 2015: “Most of the politically savvy people I know are still confident that Donald Trump will not be the Republican nominee.”
      Time to get some new friends, Jonah!
      He wasn’t any better in 2016:
      April 26th: “Trump will go down to a defeat of Biblical proportions in November.”
      May 21 (after going on one of NR’s “cruises” and hobnobbing with the DC elite):
      “I still won’t ever vote for Trump.”
      He didn’t
      Aug. 6th: “I am very skeptical that Trump’s candidacy can be saved…. Trumpism is a radiation leak threatening to destroy the GOP, not just in 2016 but for a generation.”
      If I was that hopelessly wrong, that often, I’d be too embarrassed to ever write about politics again.

      Or take George Will, another bow-tie wearing member of the chess club:
      Dec. 24, 2015 (in the Washington Post!): “Trump nomination would destroy the GOP”
      April 30, 2016: “Donald Trump’s damage to the Republican Party…. has barely begun.” Will warned of “down-ballot carnage” that could end GOP control of the House.

      The GOP is, as we know, at historic high levels of elected officials.
      Sept. 21, 2016: Announced he refuses to vote for Trump or Clinton.
      Nov. 1, 2016: “Republicans are better off losing in a landslide.”

      Frank Luntz
      The day after the first GOP presidential primary debate, Luntz went on CBS and told the nation that Trump’s performance “destroyed his chances” to be the GOP nominee. (8-7-2015)
      November 8, 2016: “Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States.” (on election night (6:43 p.m. to be exact)!)
      In 2012 he predicted a Romney win…..

      Bill Kristol
      “Maybe I’m wrong about this,” Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said on Morning Joe in December 2015, “but I have enough faith in the Republican primary electorate that they will select a talented politician over a talented demagogue.”
      Dec. 26, 2015: “Donald Trump’s mystique would disappear with an Iowa loss… I don’t think he will be the nominee.”
      May 29, 2016: “There will be an independent candidate–an impressive one, with a strong team and a real chance.”
      David French? Evan McMullin?
      May 2, 2016: “I think he’d be a terrible nominee… Trump will lose the election.”
      Trump secured the delegates necessary to clinch the nomination before the end of May, foreclosing the possibility of a last stand against him that summer. But that didn’t stop Bill Kristol from tweeting just weeks before the event, “Prediction: 2016 GOP MVP will be @Reince, who steps up, ensures open convention, saves party from Trump and produces ticket that wins in Nov.”
      Oct. 20, 2016: Trump is “a failed, fluke presidential candidate… who should be ignored on election night.”

      John Fund
      June 17, 2015: “Donald Trump will milk every ounce of publicity he can from his boisterous entry into the 2016 presidential race—then drop out before he had to begin the grind of day-to-day campaigning.”
      Trump isn’t serious about running? Is Fund serious when he writes such twaddle?
      Dec. 13, 2015: “Losing Iowa could be Trump’s kryptonite.”
      Nope
      March 6, 2016: At the current rate, Trump might not get to 1,237 delegates.”
      Ooops again.

      Matthew Dowd, ABC’s in-house “Republican”
      April 3, 2016: Trump “can’t win a general election’
      “It’s time for the media to be honest: Detroit Lions have better chance of winning the super bowl this year than Trump has of being President”
      7:20 AM – Oct 12, 2016
      Nov. 1, 2016: “Any expenditure of time or money by Trump in Pennsylvania … is a total waste. Campaign mismanagement if they keep it up.”
      Nov. 6, 2016: “I think she’s going to have a higher margin that Barack Obama did in 2012” Trump will lose “and lose badly.”
      Nov. 7, 2016: Clinton will get “over 300 electoral votes.”

      Jay Nordlinger of NR

      July 26, 2015: “I don’t’ take Trump seriously as a political figure…. He’ll be gone ere long.”
      Aug. 3, 2015: “I’m a big fan of Jeb Bush, always have been.”
      June 7, 2016: Announces he’s leaving the Republican Party because “Trump is grossly unfit to be president.”
      (who noticed? And he didn’t even bother to change his registration).
      Oct. 8, 2016: “The Trump Right essentially forfeited the election to Hillary.”
      (do these guys ever tire of being proven wrong?)

      Matthew Continetti
      Who is Bill Kristol’s son in law. Editor at the Washington Free Beacon, which paid Fusion GPS for anti-Trump research at the behest of its owner, a Rubio backer
      June 4, 2016: “Republicans should be worried…. The question won’t be whether she’ll win. It will be by how much.”
      June 18, 2016: “The GOP is self-destructing….Every week that Donald Trump remains the Republican nominee, the party comes closer to removing itself from the presidential gene pool.”
      Continetti admitted he thought Romney would win in 2012.

      Mike Murphy, the presiding genius of the Jeb! campaign, hasn’t lost his magic touch:
      ‘My big prediction: I think she’ll win FL quickly; will be clear in early numbers. Then cable news will do a huge 180 on “long night”.’
      MM on Trump, during rhe GOP primaries:
      He’s dead politically, he’ll never be president of the United States, ever.

      Jim Geraghty of NR
      12-22-15 Trump is “shocking”
      8-1-16 Trump will lose
      7-5-16 Trump is losing
      8-17-16 Trump campaign “no longer effective”
      9-3-15 Trump “self-delusional”
      10-24-16 Trump “bad, disliked, dishonest, vindictive”
      5-18-16 Trump’s “made an entire campaign out of lying…”

  • Max Flasher

    David Brooks: Those of us trying to rebut Trump have the disadvantage that “Our Elites Really Do Stink”.
    https://youtu.be/y-nuoXujOBs

    • Hominid

      First sensible observation Brooks has ever made!

  • Joe Foran

    McCain, Graham, et al need to be tarred, feathered and run out of DC on a rail.

  • Max Flasher

    An interesting article called “Mass Stripping” ( 2nd article ) about police work in Chicago from the police blog “Second City Cop” which concludes by saying “You are literally taking your career into your own hands in the current political climate attempting to enforce the law. And even if you stopped being proactive a decade ago, nothing is ever closed. Ever.”

    Are Chicago cops demoralized, alienated and backing off on policing? They sure are. Who will pay the price for this? The city in general and the black community in particular. I see cars in Chicago with bumper stickers which say “Resist Trump!”. If this were a sane society the immense energy devoted to “resisting” would be used to try to save cities like Chicago, Baltimore and many other cities in our rapidly unraveling society.
    http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/

    Last year I read that millionaires are fleeing from Chicago because they fear crime and race riots. If we have race riots in Chicago will these totally alienated cops put their lives on the line to stop them? Would they fight well armed street gangs to save a democratic city where a large part of the population despises them?

    I told a Vietnamese friend at work ( in Chicago ) about this and he said if he was a rich white guy he’d go to Asia to live because white people are respected in Asia and they’re not here. I’m not rich though so I can’t join those fleeing from this sinking ship. I think then that when our wonderfully progressive society finally collapses and sinks beneath the waves of hate me and my poor cats will go down with the ship. I recently read that a feature of living in the modern world is always living with a sense of impending doom. That sure is the truth.

  • NoDependsLoseElection

    And you NeverTrumpinas still can not figure out why we rejected your filthy Bush-Rubio-Romney-McCain retreads and went with the big truck that makes noise and runs over stuff.
    You sip your cocktails, we guzzle our beer.
    We cant watch football any longer cause you toads worked with the LibChicks to allow a bunch of overpaid prancing often unedcuated minstrels to define what we want to see, the people who PAY their bloated salaries…hey Goodell you aint sh it without the hard working people of America so get off your high horse…and so now we have time to think about the emsses you have BOTH made, GOP and DNC together.
    You claim to be intellectual buy 90% of you are morons.
    IIt need not be that people who live in trailer parks run things but after 25 years of Bush-Clinton-Obama, maybe they could.
    Point is…your heads are so far up your arses that you look through your nostrils and think snot is a good thing….
    We dont. never again.
    Conform or whither.

  • Kukkut

    Lazy Analysis

  • Fred Friedman

    We need a new elite to displace the Jews who run Hollywood, the academy and the media, the WASP bankers responsible for the 2008 recession who demanded the government bail them out of their irresponsible behavior that caused suffering for so many people, the Negro leadership that loves to blame white America for the rotten behavior of the Negro underclass and the incompetent parenting of so many Negro parents, the feminists who degrade the nuclear family, the union goons who own the Democratic party and are responsible for the terrible fiscal plight of our large industrial states with their excessive wage and benefit demands and the gay community which has terrorized people who refuse to accept gay marriage and wants to force businesses to cater their weddings and accept their behavior as normal even though many respectfully disagree and mean them no harm. I do not know how long it will take but the left which has done a lot of damage to our culture in so many ways, politically, morally and in terms of economic and religious freedom must be defeated decisively

    • Hominid

      Not gunna happen for the same reasons they have been ascendant in the first place – they are the vast majority.

      Stupid, ignorant, lazy, self-serving, hedonistic people always become the majority in large societies that protect and enable (even encourage) them.

      Americans see permissiveness – what they euphemistically call “tolerance” – as a virtue. It’s not. It’s cowardly, irresponsible, and suicidally stupid.

      • Cyber Space

        Yes tolerating evil is considered a virtue and to say anything against it raises eyebrows. That is exactly how this country got into such a mess in the first place. Christians refer to it as turning the other cheek. We have used that concept as an excuse to be nice and let the left just take over our society and now the left teaches our children that they can change from being a boy into a girl and vice versa and now we are horrified. Well we have made our ‘tolerant’ bed and now we must lie in it.

        • Hominid

          The Jesus character gives voice to humanist mythology. Catholics were the original formal humanists (“we’re all god’s children”); they begat christians (“all men are created equal”); christians begat Liberals (“all men ARE equal”). The long slippery slope to dereliction & decadence.

  • Landslide Hillary

    Great article. We have to do more than run through a hole in a wall.
    The only good sh!tlib is a dead sh!tlib.
    Shoot’em, bomb’em, gas’em … whatever it takes to quickly kill tens of millions of them.

    • mabele

      Got it. I copied your post and saved it to show to other members of the opposed half of the electorate how much “better” the New Elite is compared with the Old.

      • Landslide Hillary

        I copied your IP address so I can show your real address to people who will bomb your house.
        When you’re dead, it really will be that much closer to Utopia.

        • mabele

          Fine by me. I’m surprised the “American Greatness” editorial staff don’t patrol their comment threads a bit better, one has to wonder whether they deem any sort of commentary inappropriate.

          • Landslide Hillary

            “One” has to wonder why they sh!tlibs and cucks run amuck here.
            If you want to restore American Greatness, both have to die by the tens of millions.
            “One” like you will make a great start.

  • Dominic

    This article should be read by millions upon millions of people. Spot on.

  • JoeS54

    I have believed for a very long time now that there is a political agenda that would achieve overwhelming dominance, if either party pursued it. It is the opposite of what we’ve had over the last 50-60 years. During that time, regardless of party, the net result of government policy and culture has been the triumph of what is now called “libertatrianism”, which is also called “classical liberalism”, and the rest of the English speaking world correctly calls, simply, “liberalism”. The result is Laissez-faire economic policy, and cultural libertinism.

    The agenda that would fully contradict it, and which aggregated survey data shows would have wide support, especially among those increasingly unaffiliated with either party, would be socially conservative, and economically moderate (although that term is vague). Republicans should look back to their last period of sustained dominance, between the Civil War and the Great Depression, and recognize that they achieved dramatic success, both politically and for the country, while following policies that were protectionist, trust-busting, and (eventually) tightly controlled immigration. Making sure that the domestic economy maintains stability, by controlling trade and immigration, while encouraging competition, is the recipe for real prosperity.

    Prioritizing the economic well-being of the voter, not the donor, and not being afraid of social conservatism (and especially the promotion and support of Christianity), would also be the path to increasing the Republican share of the black and Hispanic vote.

    Contrary to establishment lies, Republicans have never lost by being too socially conservative. The attack against them that has been fatal is that they are “the party of the rich”. Ask Mitt Romney.

    • Zeeky34

      “Prioritizing the economic well-being of the voter, not the donor, and not being afraid of social conservatism (and especially the promotion and support of Christianity), would also be the path to increasing the Republican share of the black and Hispanic vote.“

      You clearly don’t know any blacks it Hispanics. Social conservatism isn’t, and never has been a positive for ethnic minorities. Blacks and Hispanics aren’t pining for social conservatism. Don’t confuse their religiosity for interest in forcing their religion down the throats of the rest of Americans. They are minorities so by definition, they don’t assume to attempt to legislate their personal religious preferences on others because they’ve never lived in a world where their worldviews have been dominant.

      • JoeS54

        You clearly think what you wish was true, rather than what is. Trust me, the are many more very socially conservative black people than the percentage that votes Republican.

        • Zeeky34

          “Trust me, the are many more very socially conservative black people than the percentage that votes Republican.”

          I’m actually black. I know far more black people than you do. No there aren’t sons of socially conservative blacks who vote that way and there certainly aren’t tons of black republicans. They represent less than 10% of the black population. I’m sure you’re not actually black posting that crap.

          • JoeS54

            I said there are many, but most of them don’t vote Republican. I know who I’m talking about, because I grew up around them and knew them. Very conservative Christians.

          • Zeeky34

            Nope. There’s no cprrelation between religiosity and conservative politics among black. You certainly didn’t grow up around them because you would know this. Blacks don’t vote on religion.

          • JoeS54

            You’re trying to say that all black people think alike. I’m not saying the Republicans will start getting 90% tomorrow. I’m talking about the policy agenda that will appeal to more. It is economic policy where Republicans need to change their thinking. The Democrats’ racial fear mongering is something that also has to be fought, but that’s politics.

          • Zeeky34

            “You’re trying to say that all black people think alike.”

            Hardly. I’m saying that you don’t know many black people and thus have no idea of how to appeal to them. Appealing to white conservative evangelicalism certainly carries zero weight with blacks.

  • BanBait

    We don’t need an elite, period. We need people who are willing to go to Washington for a set period of time, do their jobs and LEAVE.

    • Zeeky34

      That means Washington will be run by lobbyists who will stay for decades and build up the institutional knowledge to get their special interest projects run. There is no simple answer.

      • Cyber Space

        The simple answer is that the bureaucracy must be torn down. That is where the real power lies- the deep state. The buildings must be razed and parks put in their place where nothing can ever be built again. The Congress seems to be powerless against it- in fact they are deathly afraid of it it seems. This huge diversified country is being ruled by bureaucrats who are in DC no matter who controls the three branches of gov’t. They thumb their nose at the three branches. This has to stop. Eventually it will anyway because the money to sustain all this gov’t will eventually not be there. We can only be in trillions of dollars of debt for so long before it blows up. And when it does it won’t be pretty. It would be nice if we could fix the situation before it gets to that point but it doesn’t look like we will. And then sending regular people to be in DC for a fixed period of time but only on a part time basis, while they keep their regular jobs, is what will work. There is no reason for these people to be in DC with all the technology we have. The can easily all meet virtually. Businesses do it all the time now. There is no reason DC can’t keep up with modern times.

        • Zeeky34

          Most people don’t agree with this so it won’t happen. That’s why there is so much pushback. Trump is unpopular and your movement isn’t expanding.

          • Cyber Space

            Eventually it will be a moot point because it will happen anyway. And agreeing with it or not won’t matter a whit. Math is math and one plus one still equals two no matter how much the left likes to deny reality

          • Zeeky34

            You’re right that you can’t deny reality. The reality is that Trump is extremely unpopular and is turning off everyone not already with him. He’s the least popular president in history.

          • Cyber Space

            Nice try at deflecting. I am talking about the fact that we can’t keep going with the explosive debt we have and the programs and the gov’t we have is simply unsustainable. Eventually it will pop as math is math as much as the left likes to deny reality as I said. No matter what you people can’t make 1 plus 2 equal 2

          • Zeeky34

            Lol, is that why republicans are fighting for tax cuts? I’m sure tax cuts that cost 1.5 trillion over 10 years will work wonderfully for that deficit and debt right?

          • Cyber Space

            Newsflash zeeky, we have about 220 TRILLION dollars in unfunded liabilities in this country and even if you took 100% of everyone’s income away from them it still wouldn’t be enough to pay for it. We don’t have a tax problem, we have a spending problem. Our government is way too big and spends way too much money.Meanwhile the amount of money we collect in taxes is at record highs. We pay nearly half of what we make between federal state and local taxes. What is enough? Should we pay 75%? This whole situation is simply not sustainable.

          • Zeeky34

            “Newsflash zeeky, we have about 220 TRILLION dollars in unfunded liabilities in this country and even if you took ” citation?

            Anyways, I don’t know what math you’re working with that says collecting less money equals paying more of the debt. It certainly isn’t arithmetic. Starve the beast has been discredited. Tax cuts don’t lead to spending cuts.

          • Cyber Space

            I am not saying that tax cuts lead to spending cuts. I am saying that we need spending cuts big time. Tax cuts do lead to an improving economy and they end up leading to more tax revenue because they free up economic activity. This happened with Kennedy and Reagan.When you have high taxes it depresses the economy and you get less tax revenue and more suffering. I am saying that we need huge spending cuts no matter what happens to the tax system.The government just keeps getting bigger and bigger. It is simply not sustainable. Eventually it will collapse. You can only tax people so much and besides there isn’t enough tax money even if you take 100% of what people have to feed pay the liabililties. Agan it is simply not sustaiable.

          • Zeeky34

            “ Tax cuts do lead to an improving economy and they end up leading to more tax revenue because they free up economic activity.”

            Source? This certainly didn’t happen with Reagan he raised taxes and no legit economist is peddling this theory.

          • Cyber Space

            It certainly did happen with Reagan and I lived through it so don’t tell me it didn’t happen. look at the graph in the article. It speaks for itself. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/#38098bfc4bf2. The following graph clearly reveals the answer. The red line represents the top marginal tax bracket while the blue line shows the total amount of Federal government revenue each year. There are two salient points here. First, as the graph illustrates, as tax rates declined, government revenue increased. Second, there is a strong negative correlation between the two. To review, correlation measures the relationship between two sets of data. The scale ranges from negative one to positive one. A correlation of positive one indicates that the two data sets move in concert with each other. A correlation of negative one indicates that as one set of data moves up, or down, the other moves in the opposite direction. Using the data from 1913 through the end of 2011, the correlation between the maximum marginal income tax bracket and total Federal receipts is a negative 0.50. In simple terms, when taxes are cut, Federal revenue has a very strong tendency to rise! And when taxes are raised, government revenue has a strong tendency to fall.

          • Zeeky34

            Dude I can read a graph and actually know what happened. I noticed you didn’t post an article that talked about Reagan specifically. Here you go.

            “Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, a 186 percent increase from the $998 billion debt at the end of Carter’s last budget, FY 1981. Reaganomics didn’t work to grow the economy enough to offset tax cuts
            FY 1989 – $255 billion.
            FY 1988 – $252 billion.
            FY 1987 – $225 billion.
            FY 1986 – $297 billion.
            FY 1985 – $256 billion.
            FY 1984 – $195 billion.
            FY 1983 – $235 billion.
            FY 1982 – $144 billion.”

            https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

          • Cyber Space

            Well it just shows again that the government spends too much money. So is that how you manage your own life? Do you spend way more than you take in? Or do you adjust your spending to account for your income? I will state this again – government spending the way it exists right now and the path it is taking is simply unsustainable no matter how many taxes are collected from the American people .There simply is not enough money in the entire country to truly fund all the liabilities which means that the gov’t is unsustainable. And why should the gov’t keep taking money from people to give to foreign governments, to spend on illegal aliens, to study shrimp on treadmills and all the other ridiculous things it spends money on? Why should people be taxed to death to pay for this insanity? I repeat the government needs to be cut WAY WAY down. We are a large diverse country and to be controlled by a a large one sized fits all government in this day and age just doesn’t make any sense. We are not one size fits all. Most issues should be left to the states. And we certainly don’t need to be studying shrimp on treadmills at the state or federal level

          • Zeeky34

            Where is that citation on the 220 trillion number? Your graph shows nothing since it’s not inflation adjusted.

          • Cyber Space
          • Zeeky34

            Those aren’t agreed upon numbers. You do realize that right? I’m at BU 2x a week. I could go find this guy if you want and let you know what he says and provide you with evidence I did it.

          • Cyber Space

            Yes people who don’t want to believe in reality will deny them I am sure. Do you believe in math?

          • Zeeky34

            “And we certainly don’t need to be studying shrimp on treadmills at the state or federal level”

            Ah so you’re clearly not a scientist. I am a scientist though. You can’t pick what to study and what not to study narrowly if you’re hoping to increase economic output. Basic science is one of the main drivers of our GDP growth as its the breakthroughs that come from there that lead to huge windfalls down the road. An example would be something like the study of bacteria that live in hot springs. This sounds like a huge waste of money but those experiments lead to the discovery of a high temperature DNA polymerase enzyme that synthesized nucleotides into DNA at very high temperatures (90 degrees Celsius or 194 degrees F) this was one of the biggest breakthroughs in human history because it allowed for the amplification of DNA to the point where you could sequence it. It have us the understanding we have today of the genetics of cancer, and all other diseases and was an indispensable part of the turn to personalized medicine. You would never have funded this using your criteria because it has no obvious connection at first glance to human well-being. The same goes for the study of bears but bears can eat nothing but fat for a large part of the year and unlike any other animal that did that, they don’t develop plaques in their arteries from it.

          • Cyber Space

            “It have us the understanding we have today of the genetics of cancer, and all other diseases and was an indispensable part of the turn to personalized medicine. You would never have funded this using your criteria because it has no obvious connection at first glance to human well-being.” Yes because today we have a cure for cancer thanks to all the BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars spent trying to find a cure. Not! Sorry if all this scientific study was worth something it can be done by the private sector, the medical industry. And actually a lot of the funding for cancer studies has been through donations. Sorry but there is incredible waste in the government from MANY sources and a bear study doesn’t change that. When a household is spending too much money, normal people sit down and look at their expenses and see what they can cut and they have to cut it because they can’t just go and print money. This is what needs to happen with the federal government. As I stated, eventually this will all be a moot point because even if the gov’t collects 100% of what everyone makes, it will never be enough to feed the feral beast in DC.

          • Zeeky34

            “ And actually a lot of the funding for cancer studies has been through donations and private funding.”
            The vast majority of medical spending comes from NIH. It’s not even close. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • Cyber Space

            And what good has it done? My sister just passed away from cancer. None of your precious studies helped her. It literally at her alive

          • Zeeky34

            You’re clearly ignorant. We have cures for certain cancers already you can live in yournalternate universe though.

          • Cyber Space

            Yes sure we do. Yup when you go to the doctor and he tells you you have cancer you don’t have to worry because you can be ‘cured’. Talk about an alternate universe

          • Zeeky34
          • Cyber Space

            All of those involve catching it early and removing the tumor and/or the body part where the cancer originated from as in the thyroid. That is not curing it. It is removing the cancer from the body but it is not curing the cancer itself. It is simply removing the cancer from the body before it has a chance to spread

          • Zeeky34

            Oh Jesus you’re a tool.

          • Cyber Space

            Well that’s what it said. Radiation and chemotherapy is also destroying the cancer but that doesn’t mean it won’t come back with a vengeance and that is exactly what happened to my sister. She was declared cancer free last March after being treated with chemo etc, and then she went to the doctor for a checkup in September and we just buried her a week ago today. It came back with a vengeance. So how was she cured?

          • Zeeky34
          • Cyber Space

            So what? That means we should keep spending money we don’t have like drunken sailors? So you don’t think that ANY of the research like the shrimp on treadmills or studying the drinking habits of Chinese prostitutes is worth doing away with? You don’t think there is ANY waste? Give me a break and you are a tool yourself

          • Cyber Space

            Here are a few, some are just stupid government projects. Actually the studies would be hilarious if the amount of money the government wastes wasn’t such a serious issue. $171,000 To Study How Monkeys Gamble. $856,000 To Film Mountain Lions Running On Treadmills. Synchronized Swimming For Sea Monkeys. Swedish Massages For Bunnies. Free Luxury Gym Memberships For Federal Bureaucrats. $18 Million To Renovate A Low-Traffic Airport That Serves A High-End Ski Resort. NIH Spent Over $800,000 To Make A Video Game About Food Fights. Yes the NIH definitely has its priorities straight. http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/22/wastebook-2014-eight-absurd-government-projects-funded-with-your-money/

          • Cyber Space

            Here are a bunch more. I have no doubt there are loads more examples but I haven’t got all day. http://www.dailywire.com/news/12309/9-ridiculous-things-government-wasted-money-year-aaron-bandler#exit-modal. 1. Fish on treadmills. The National Science Foundation distributed $1.5 million to studying a fish on a treadmill, one of which was a mudskipper fish. It was discovered that the mudskipper fish “exercise longer and recover quicker under higher oxygen concentrations.” There have also been studies on bluegill fish and rockfish on treadmills to study how they flee from predators.

            2. Fraternities and sororities like to party. The National Institutes of Health issued a $5 million grant to Brown University to study fraternities and sororities and came to the shocking conclusion that fraternities and sororities consume more alcohol than other college students and people who attend fraternity and sorority parties are more likely to drink alcohol than at other events. The studies did not bother looking into ways to reduce alcohol consumption among college students.

            3. Hamster cage matches. The National Institutes of Health provided $3.4 million to Northeastern University in Boston to have hamsters fight each other in cage matches to examine their “aggression and anxiety.” The researchers would even give the hamsters steroids which turned them into “violent, vicious” creatures.

            4. Computers binge-watching shows like Desperate Housewives. Researchers had computers view “600 hours of television shows and 400 hours of online videos” so they could analyze, comprehend and anticipate human behavior.

            “Perhaps a marathon of soap operas and sitcoms is not the best way to teach computers, robots, or any other form or intelligence—real or artificial—to understand human behavior,” the report states.

            5. A large marijuana joint that glows in the dark. A National Traffic Highway Safety Administration grant of $35,000 went towards a billboard of a “Giant Marijuana Joint” in Denver, Colorado that can be seen in the dark as a means to discourage driving while stoned on weed. The report notes that the message may be good, but it could have been paid for with the revenue streaming in from selling marijuana.

            “Weeding out waste, like this giant joint, would smoke out more money that could be spent filling pot holes,” the report states.

            6. A study on which gender spends more time playing with Barbie dolls. The study came to the obvious conclusion that girls tended to play with Barbie dolls more often than boys do, as the latter preferred playing with Transformers. The National Institutes of Health spent $300,000 on this kind of research.

            7. The famous Jaws music causes people to view sharks in a negative manner. The National Science Foundation spent $3 million on a study that concluded this, even though it’s self-evident that the intense, growing sense of danger the music instills easily causes a negative association with sharks. A $3 million study on it seems a little unnecessary.

            8. NASA is spending money on a flying monkey. The monkey was scheduled to fly in December 2015 but was delayed due to the weather. NASA should probably focus on space exploration rather than monkeying around with $206,000.

            9. The federal government is subsidizing cheese. The government spent $21.8 million purchasing surplus cheese and providing incentives for companies to enter the cheese industry.

            “Government cheese really grates on taxpayers,” the report states, showing the report’s affinity for cheesy jokes.

          • Zeeky34

            What is are the dollars on the right Y axis? Are they total dollars collected? Inflation idjusted dollars? They give no details. I actually look at data for s living.

          • Zeeky34

            “I am not saying that tax cuts lead to spending cuts. I am saying that we need spending cuts big time.”

            Ain’t happening. Republicans won’t cut anything significant. I noticed you left out the massive growth we saw from the Bush tax cuts. /s

          • Zeeky34

            So by touting Kennedy, should we raise the top tax rate to 91% again so we can cut it back down to 70%? Because that’s what Kennedy did. Almost no one alive today worked in an era with taxes like that. There aren’t many 80 year olds around who remember paying those rates.

          • Cyber Space

            Repost from below and the graph speaks for itself. It certainly did happen with Reagan and I lived through it so don’t tell me it didn’t happen. look at the graph in the article. It speaks for itself. https://www.forbes.com/site…. The following graph clearly reveals the answer. The red line represents the top marginal tax bracket while the blue line shows the total amount of Federal government revenue each year. There are two salient points here. First, as the graph illustrates, as tax rates declined, government revenue increased. Second, there is a strong negative correlation between the two. To review, correlation measures the relationship between two sets of data. The scale ranges from negative one to positive one. A correlation of positive one indicates that the two data sets move in concert with each other. A correlation of negative one indicates that as one set of data moves up, or down, the other moves in the opposite direction. Using the data from 1913 through the end of 2011, the correlation between the maximum marginal income tax bracket and total Federal receipts is a negative 0.50. In simple terms, when taxes are cut, Federal revenue has a very strong tendency to rise! And when taxes are raised, government revenue has a strong tendency to fall.

          • Zeeky34

            This author you posted didn’t control for inflation, diffferences in tax brackets (since they weren’t inflation adjusted until the 80’s and have been moved around throughout that time series even so), population growth. This graph is trash. Congratulations you found a meaningless graph which would fool someone who was innumerate but I’m certainly not that.

  • Zeeky34

    Does Mike not realize that Trump’s approval rating is cratering? The American people don’t approve of the job he is doing. The idea that we’re going to smash anything in favor of this kind of nepotistic unqualified administration is laughable.

    • Uncle Max

      No worries. Trump can’t win the nomination, and even if he does, he has no path to 270. It’s a total ego trip that he’s running. His polling is terrible.

      • Zeeky34

        You still living off the election? We’re a year into the presidency and Trump’s numbers have only gotten worse. He has a record now.

  • Cyber Space

    With the hosanna chorus of “that’s not who we are” echoing through the halls of Congress,- yes the condescending attitude is just unreal. That these people think they can dictate to and lecture us citizens is unreal. The audacity is breathtaking. Don’t tell me what my values are you slime

  • Zeeky34

    I’m sure the elite are quaking in their boots about the idea of a corporate tax cut and the repeal of the estate tax! That should show them that Trump is for the little guy./s

  • Robert Catt

    Luscious Lyndsey Graham, whatever you say pal.

  • Bad Wolf

    As a lifelong conservative I would say that most of conservativism remain sound but there are important problems that conservatives have not effectively addressed that Trump is addressing and addressing properly. Let me spell out some examples:
    1. De-industrializing United States is a really bad idea with massive long-term consequences. Maintaining the lead and industrialization not only provides high wage jobs for the working class but is the absolute key to the emerging future Internet of things, a market far larger than the current Internet, because the ones who write the programs when they controlled the software can produce optimal combinations, much as Apple has long done In computers and phones and iPods,
    2. Flooding the United States with tens of millions of illegal aliens with no skills in an era when the wealth of Dacian is dependent on the skills and innovation of the country and in doing so destroying the livelihoods of American citizen underclass and working-class is a really bad idea with massive long-term consequences and is not at all justified by temporary profit gains by some corporations stemming from wage competition. Controlling our borders is not only a good idea, it is a basic prerequisite for being a nation state.
    3. Saddling our economy with hyper regulation causing a more than $2 trillion yearly cost of compliance is a really bad idea. Cutting those regulations back to size is a really good idea.
    4. Having a corporate tax rate so high that one major American company after another D domiciled to escape being US companies is a really bad idea. Giving foreign companies the advantage of much higher profitability so that they can succeed in high investment industries and cause American companies to fail is an equally bad idea. Pushing to lower corporate and middle income taxes especially on job creating smaller businesses to actually grow our economy is a really good idea.
    5. Settling our military with rules of engagement that preclude victory is a really bad idea. Setting rational rules of engagement and annihilating Isis so they no longer control of the territory was a really good idea.
    6. Failing to defend yourself against the campaigns of vilification which are the post-Alinsky modus operandi of the Democratic Party and allowing yourself to be discredited like Bush or beaten to mush like McCain and Romney is a really bad idea. Using the opponents weapons against them and using modern technology like tweeting and discrediting the media who are utterly biased in attacking you on the other hand is a really good idea.

    Conservatives are correct in valuing limited government, free enterprise, low taxation that allows individuals to keep most of what they earn, empowerment of the individual not the state, maintenance of a strong national defense, and a strong emphasis on the stability of rule of law. But conservatives had not kept up with the time and identified the issues to Trump did, which is why he won, and why he is upgrading the Republican Party in a big way.

  • Mike Sammin

    I’ll have to add American Greatness to my reading list of The Federalist and Victor Davis Hanson.

  • MaxMBJ

    I appreciate the writer’s thesis: We need a new elite. This is populism’s real target. The people who rise up to throw the bums out know that we will always need an elite class just like a group of athletes know they need a coach even as they throw out the present one.

    The new elite will, eventually, become old and stale and need throwing out again. But we buy 20-50 years each time we do. And those glorious first 5-10 years of new elite really changes the world. Reagan’s after-glow lasted until 2000.

  • The Norwalk Avenger

    Term Limits! The only real way to drain the swamp.

  • yuen

    GOP is electorally successful but has almost no legislative success to follow, because it is not a coherent organization; it has gathered very different people like trump, rand paul, paul ryan, newt gingrich, etc; this inclusiveness is both strength and weakness; the desire to have a new elite probably will end up the same way

  • Decidedly Undecided

    Question: With talk of “draining the swamp,” I’m assuming that this refers to lifelong politicians and special interests within Washington, yes?

  • Term limits are the ONLY solution to this problem. The limits should also apply to the Supreme Court. The Presidency should have a single term of 6 years