Is It Abortion?
Why Do Republicans Lose
Tuesday’s elections have people reading tea leaves again. In Chicago, they elected a Marxist. No surprise. Friends of mine will stay and fight but I think it is a losing cause. Anyone that thinks the new mayor will implement things slowly has another thing coming. As long as he has a compliant city council, things will go at hyper-speed. A Marxist playbook says when you gain an advantage, overwhelm your opponent and give them no say or quarter. Implement quickly before people truly understand what is going on. Force them to submit, or persecute them until they do.
Up north in Wisconsin, two things happened. First, the Republicans got a supermajority in the Senate. Now they have a veto-proof majority. They should send bills to the governor for veto and then if they really want them, pass them and override the governor’s veto. However, they lost a crucial Wisconsin Supreme Court seat which turns the court 4-3 in favor of the left wing. If you know anything about Wisconsin Democrats they have more in common with Brandon Johnson than they do the old Chicago Machine Dems like Dan Rostenkowski. True believers.
People are saying that the Wisconsin race, and other races Republicans lose are due to abortion. The flip side is that if you compromise on abortion, it’s a slippery slope. Morally, abortion is infanticide. You are snuffing out human life no matter how many weeks you engage in it.
In Nevada, Adam Laxalt lost a key Senate race and the big red wave never materialized nationwide. The short answer currently is that abortion was the wedge and somehow suburban moms would vote Republican if the party compromised on the issue. But is it just that or something else?
I see both sides, and I agree with the moral argument. But, just because I agree doesn’t mean that in civil society, it should be so. I agree with a lot of Christians and Orthodox Jews, gay marriage is against the word of God and against the Bible’s teachings. But, in civil society, should the act of gay marriage be tolerated? Suburban moms love gay marriage.
The Democratic Marxists have crossed many lines with me. DEI, equity over merit, drag queens, raising one sex as another sex and doing surgery before the age of consent, humongous government with government programs as the source of relief for all our problems, rampant government spending on nothing worthwhile, crony capitalism, public sector unions, and others to name but a few. The suburban mom crowd would agree with me on many of the other issues once they were educated on them from a different perspective than the mainstream media’s.
When economics is practiced in the right manner, decisions are made on cold, objective, “positive” facts. Should we run and operate our society that way? I don’t think the Founders wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights based entirely on positive economics or even just non-emotional facts because they acknowledged a “Creator”, and injected all kinds of Judeo-Christian themes into the document.
What is the correct strategy to move forward? This is an important question because when you look at the Venn Diagram of issues, the people that are softer pro-lifers, or vehemently pro-lifers have a common cause in things like school choice, limited government, low taxes, a strong border, and other conservative issues. They are winning issues even with elite college-educated people. Lincoln was correct in saying “divided” we cannot stand up against the very strong tide of Marxism that is sweeping many areas of the country.
Educated and sold correctly, the Democrats should be a minority party. Where we draw the line in the sand is critical. That’s why they want to change the laws on voting so much, they know they can’t win in a fair, educated fight.
At this point, many people are tossing in the towel and leaving places like Chicago for other places where the Marxist zealots don’t hold power. Even ardent Democrats I know are leaving for places like South Carolina. SC is a state that potentially will have three candidates in the Republican Presidential race and is as red as red can be. Those same Democrats love something about Republican-run places since so many of them are fleeing there. We can’t all be racists and bad people.
I am deliberately lumping in all Democrats and Marxists together because, at a minimum, 30% of their party aligns with Marxist ideology. If there is just a little dog shit in the tasty brownie, would you still eat it?
I also find myself agreeing with Jason Whitlock a lot. I deliberately linked to him via a far left-wing rag so you could read a biased account. Feel free to read a right-wing version via Freespoke. In the same vein as “unconditional surrender” terms for the enemy in WW2, There is no compromise and can be no compromise with a Marxist. None. They will not stop at compromise. We cannot ignore them. They are zealots and there are five solutions.
Getting them to see the light.
Getting them to be 100% marginalized by persuading everyone else to see the light
Eliminating them in some way. Exile to Cuba or Venezuela is an example.
Secession
Civil War
None are easy and each requires patience, and a different path to solve the issue. The first two will require compromise but seem to be easier than the last three. Having the people who value originalism and capitalism leave the US is not an option since there is literally not one other country to flee to where you could live with the same structure.
It also is worth mentioning that the US is geographically and physically resourced the best in the entire world to prosper and dominate for the next century. Hence, it is worth fighting for.
However, you cannot govern and instill culture without winning elections. I don’t have the answers. With social media, it’s even harder to discuss, find, and carefully consider them because of the distraction. The goalposts aren’t goalposts at all. They constantly change.
Many of the leaders and talking heads I see are poor choices to lead and point the discussion. They are too wrapped up in selling their own books or creating money out of their own podcasts/radio/tv shows. Others are too focused on figuring out ways to use the government to enrich their cronies or to make political points for themselves. They aren’t objective and Socratic enough. Thomas Sowell is too old and reclusive but he would have been perfect. Gary Becker and Milton Friedman are gone. William F. Buckley Jr is long gone too.
A long long time ago I was driving and listening to a Rush Limbaugh radio show. He opined about how abortion was the driving issue between the two parties and would lead to another Civil War. I think today, it is one big issue but there are plenty of others where there are no shades of gray separating the two parties, but it is black and white. For what it’s worth if Rush were alive and well, he’d be a poor choice to lead a strategic discussion too although his input would be valued.
Despite the polling, and despite the persecution Trump is getting, I don’t think he is the way forward. Despite my empathy with what he has and is going to receive, I still don’t think he is the way forward. It is not the current Senate minority leader either. I do think that the Speaker has done a very good job so far in the maelstrom. However, it can’t be him to lead because he has to keep a firm rudder on his ship.
Maybe Russ Roberts?
Again, I don’t have answers. I don’t even have a gut feeling. I am throwing out the questions into the ether because descents happen a lot faster than climbs. When there is no out and the collective feeling is that you are a trap, the five solutions to the problem become more narrow, and there are only two.
Why do Republicans lose? Not a difficult question.
They are not decisive and energetic enough. Decades of vague lukewarm protests and quick surrenders to the aggressive enemy made it something of a traditional policy with them. Also, the party is not clear on their ideology and the program; a huge chunk of Republcans are RINOs, their spirit is eaten away by incessant propaganda and shaming demagogy of the Left. Now they think it is somehow a legitimate excuse that they are not aggressive like the Vulgar Marxist party, as if being "law-abiding" citizens - while laws are written by cheating charlatans - is their only sacred duty.
Argh, I can go on and on.
Simplifying tremendously, Republicans are losing because they are sissies.
They are too stiff-necked on unimportant issues, like abortion, meanwhile ignore the Left destroying the country. They let the enemy use their religious beliefs as a tool and a red herring.
As a woman (and one with experience outside of US), I don't think abortion should be an issue of primary importance. Referrals to religious tenets and moral purity are irrelevant while we believe in separation of church and state (are you?). A compromise on balance between civil rights, medical guideline, access to contraceptives, and societal morals is necessary. The sooner it'll be achieved the better, to clear the field for real job of defeating the Red Cancer.
More and more I am becoming a supporter of a National Divorce. I honestly don't believe that the Leftists can be reasoned with. I especially think that the Gen Z components are lost. I hate the culture and country that they see as ideal. I will not become their subject in a bastardized version of some totalitarian utopia that they envision. I won't.
So I wonder if we presented them with a complete menu of having their entire agenda implemented, and then all the "Right-wing Nazi's" would not be in their midst, would they take that deal? I kind of think they would. They viscerally hate us, and they are militant. They believe that we are the only thing stopping utopia, so if we give them that chance, why not?
The only dispute would be who gets what geography. The easiest solution to me seems to be that they get a kind of "northern" line, while we get the southern part. I don't currently live there, but I'd move if that were the case. The line would have to "squiggle" a bit, but it would be like Europe, but with two countries still easily traversed.
California could become its own, third country. They already act like it now.
The only other solution is to decentralize the federal government, which, frankly, is probably a bit easier. Disband a number of federal agencies and push that money into savings or down to the states. Keep only the military as national and then perhaps the currency. Get rid of the individual income tax and make the states pay a proportionate share to the federal government for security and defense. Let the states figure out how to raise revenue, based on their ideologies. Multi-state crimes would be solved by a reconstituted federal justice department that has a much more limited mission.
I will note, however, that it always seems like the Left opposes these things. Why is that? They hate us, but they won't let us go? Or is it, like you've said, that they know their ideology doesn't really work, and that it requires suckers like us to fund it? That rabbit hole is worth exploring a bit.
We have to think radically different about this, because the current direction of things is a failed republic. I believe it will be economically driven, but again, the mal-educated people will blame us for that, too. They have a remarkable ability to not take responsibility for their policies and to point the finger at everyone but themselves. A failed republic would be no different, and they will learn nothing from it.