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.
But who's being black & white here on abortion? If the Progrocrats win on the "choice" issue, there will be no "choice" in actuality. Practicing Catholics like me will be forced to pay taxes that support abortion, or won't have the choice to work at medical facilities that refuse to do abortions, nor will medical workers be allowed to refuse to abort. My daughter-in-law is a physician's assistant & practicing Catholic. The Dems who run my state have already loosened abortion laws so that PAs can conduct abortions. Would she still be able to find work in non-abortion clinics & practices if the anti -abortion faction gave up their fight? The Progrocrats think Choice is the fair compromise that Pro Lifers should accept -- one can always choose not to abort a child, or so the claim says. But the reality is, you will end up paying for or assisting in someone else's murdering of a child, and you will not have any choice in the matter at all.
You have no choice in the matter of many things. You taxes are spent on myriad earmarks, military waste, DEI, so called climate change reduction, $billions of "foreign aid" &&&. And all you care about is not to pay for someone else's abortion due to your religious tenets.
There are more important matters at stake now - if not paid attention to, soon there will be no insurance, and no laws, and no doctors, and no hospitals at all, and we all will be living in Kongo, just under a different name.
We were conned into thinking that there should be a separation of church and state. The state must not meddle in the affairs of the church. But no church-free public square, please.
I thought this is one of the axioms of a free democratic society, one of a very few positive outcomes of French Revolution(s). Because one citizen's church is another's "crazy cult". As an atheist and materialist, I don't want my life ruled by either. If there will be rejection of church-free public square on Republican side, then yes, this country is doomed.
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.
With one side "totalitarian" and "socialist" in its founding, and the other reverting back to original principles, how do you stop the original principle country from starting to walk back down the path to socialism, when it is one man one vote? It's not as if you could "ban" the socialists from settling in your country like a kibbutz.
Thought occurred to me, and I think the answer is that you update the Constitution for this new country. Start with the basic document again, and the Bill of Rights, but put in some amendments that essentially make socialism unconstitutional. Yes, there would be a process to amend, but the process has to be onerous and akin to what we have today with amending the Constitution.
I think that having anti-socialist/communist elements of the Constitution will repel enough of the socialists in the first place that they'll never gain a foothold to launch a war on our culture again.
We did make it some 200+ years thus far before they were able to do it, so I'd say that the document we've lived by is pretty darn good. We just need some tweaks and addressing of modern-day issues so that they can't twist it into something like what they're doing now.
No structure is going to be perfect, but it will at the least accomplish like-minded people living amongst each other in relative peace without their basic rights being usurped by a totalitarian predator like the Left.
Absolutely. the "nation" has never been "one people." A split would largely follow the lines of 150 years or so ago. . . which, let us not forget, was both sparked and then prevented, with great brutality, by the republican party in its quest to create a single " nation" governed by an all-powerful federal state.
In a National Divorce scenario, I personally would hope for strict limits on immigration to the nation south of your proposed line from states north of it.
Personally, given how completely alien the philosophy of socialists/Marxists is to me, along with their desire for an all-controlling federal government, I don't understand why they wouldn't want to separate. And, empires have been divided and split for eons. Much like Brexit, I don't think the world collapses overnight. It will take some getting used to, and there will pains, but I think in the end people will like living under the government structure that they can choose.
Their utopia is socialism and a heavy handed government to "fix" societal ills. Mine is the complete opposite. Why should we torture each other and force the other to live in this constant pendulum of aggravation back and forth?
They want to abort their young as they're crying out of the womb? Slaughter away.
They want to tax themselves to the point where the state gets more than they do? Have at it.
They want to control every aspect of their businesses and industry? Penalize the crap out of them.
They want to fight climate change by outlawing every modern convenience we have? Let 'er rip! Live in caves for all I care.
They want to turn schools into sex indoctrination camps for 5 year olds in order to "breed" tolerance? Sure, bring in the drag queens and require an hour every day for gender storytelling and "acceptance."
They want to eliminate the meritocracy and allow for only the government to select who will do what, including doctors, engineers and trades that impact life safety? Hey man, you do you!
And, let's face it, it's gone from polite disagreement to militant hatred, where you can't even have an honest conversation with anyone for fear that they will mark you as someone that needs to be retaliated against for your views. That is no way to live, and it's not healthy for the mentally ill class (a good portion of the Democrat party).
The socialist half will never allow a divorce. They need other people's money to live the life they feel owed to them by society. On the favorable side, the Cultural Revolution in China didn't have a happy ending for many of the most red of the red guards. Time will tell.
Lincoln needed the South's money, which is why he started the inaccurately-named American Civil War. His declared causus belli for raising volunteers was to "collect the imposts", the secession of the Cotton States depriving the Federal monster of revenues; but he and his hagiographers said it as for "equality." A perfect hero for the degenerate American empire.
Every time I read your insight, I say to myself: I'd love to sit and have a beer with you. You put into words what I think. This was outstanding.
A lot regarding election losses has to do w/turnout. Our district in SE Pa. is a good example. We lost our county by 600 votes. 104,000 registered Republicans didn't bother to vote during that election. Apathy is our biggest enemy.
We're in a Civil war right now, a cold one. It's the Marxists and everyone else. But most in the everyone else category don't realize it yet.
If you have electronic voting machines and there are no auditable paper ballots (meaning a legitimate ballot can be physically tied to a legitimate voter), it’s impossible to know if an election result is reliable.
Republicans lose because they don't do the work. Democrats win because they do. Republicans tend to be individualists. Democrats are group-oriented, people-oriented. They get together with other people and do stuff. Even though individually on average they are dumber and crazier than Republicans, the fact that they work together, as members of the species most adapted by evolution for working together in Earth's history, means yeah, they win.
This is not complicated, and it's not the "issues". Do you see lines out the door at Republican Club meetings? You do not. Not one registered Republican in a hundred can even tell you where their local meetings are. Republican voters want the Party to do it for them, and when the Party doesn't do that to their satisfaction, they sit home in a huff.
And that's the main reason why Republicans lose: they get out-worked, and out-played, by people who enjoy all this much more than Republicans do.
I agree almost totally. But look at what happens when "we" protest versus when "they" protest. There are people going to jail for January 6th for years for "parading" while Leftists commit actual burglary, arson and property destruction in the billions and do not even get chased. When they are caught, charges are dropped. A few actually get convicted because the crimes are so heinous that they have no choice. But they are still labeled as "good people just lashing out for good reasons."
When we activate we are cancelled and spit on. So then we have to fight and that's when they use the opportunity to destroy our lives and families.
So there's a bit more to it than just being anti-social, at least for some of us.
The reasons/excuses can be whatever. It doesn't change the facts on the ground. To make an extreme analogy, many Jews in 1930s Germany felt that they couldn't leave, let alone protest, because they had too much to lose.
In any case, the protests are downstream from the political organizing. Republicans will show up to a protest, sometimes, if they get upset enough. But that's it. They won't do the long, slow, day-in, day-out, *decades-long*, work of political organizing. And that's what really gets the job done, not the showy stuff that makes headlines. So Republicans get out-politicked by people by people who actually do political organizing, and are good at it, because they have been practicing.
Part of what's frustrating is that this seems obvious to me, but few on the right seem to want to acknowledge it. Before you can start to solve a problem you have to correctly understand just what the problem is.
Ok, I think I can agree with you, as this is a pretty astute observation.
But I think there are a couple of fundamental problems that I don't know how to solve (yet). The first is that Republicans are fundamentally different than Democrats in terms of their personalities and approach to others. You allude to this. Republicans are a "live and let live" group while Democrats are an activist group. These are generalizations, of course, but that's what we're doing here. So this is a proclivity to stay away from being noticed and attempting to organize others, which can be a soft form of manipulation. The only Republicans I see that are like this are generally the overtly religious ones, but they see their mission as one of promoting their religious principles, not governing ones. For Democrats, government is their principle, so they organize around it.
The second problem is that most Republicans are working people or business people or intensely devoted to family. I'm not saying that Democrats are none of these, but Republicans most definitely are, on average. Where does one find the time to do the hard work of organizing? And is the point to simply take "power" and then relinquish it by dismantling government? I'd say, yeah, that's a cause I can get behind, but I don't think people would rather take time away from these important concerns to fix this.
Whereas most Democrats are: young people, old money liberals, academics without families or people without families (these are all proven correlations, statistically). In other words, they are not concerned with work/family, and their "religion" is government or ideology. Their activism is what gives them purpose, whereas our families, religion and businesses give us purpose.
I guess the only way this changes is when the Republican priorities are under attack, but as you've said, it is so hard to get people to see it.
And, yes, I do believe our values are most definitely under attack -- all of them.
Doesn't that suggest that Republicans are shirking some of their responsibilities? The ones about guarding us all from an out-of-control government? What good does it do to take wonderful care of your family and have lots of kids only to turn them over to a world that is crumbling and wants to kill them? Republicans tend to have their noses too close to the ground, imo. Republicans could pay activists too, as just one tiny example. Republicans make money, kids, and excuses. Democrats make converts, dependents, and coalitions. At Life, Republicans win, but at politics, Democrats win. And we all have to live with that. Point being, in the long run the Republican approach won't work, because while you may not be interested in politics, politics is interested in you. And especially your children.
My wife and I are both unpaid party activists. Getting people involved is difficult, especially when both husband and wife have to work and have children to rear. Quite often they only get snippets of news and that news is terribly slanted. Are you involved or just one of the many independent critics?
Why do republicans lose? Because they are losers. Born in corruption, crony capitalism and imperialism, they have conserved nothing and they hate their own base, which is to say working-class heritage "americans". I despise the democrats but at least they are honest about their nefarious goals. The GOP lies through its collective teeth and seeks the same as the Dems, albeit at a slower pace - all the better to boil the frog. The idea that the republican party is the solution to anything is risible. As Robert Dabney said, they are progressivism's shadow, always scurrying to catch up. The republicans are not and have never been a conservative party.
You're definitely going in the correct (right!) direction here, Jeff. I personally like your Russ Roberts suggestion on a thought-leader.
In terms of issues - I'm much where you are on abortion. Roe was a bad judicial decision, I'm morally against abortion, but I can't ignore the practical realities of its political complexity. Stick to it as a state right and most states will probably come out somewhere with it being legal up to 12-20 weeks. I suspect states (even deep Red or Blue ones) will be punished over time for pushing too far in either direction.
I think you also hit - lightly - on another issue - the GOP needs to do a better job connecting with younger voters. Suburban moms/families are now half Millennials. Aside from abortion, you've got to connect your message to schools (choice should be an easy win for the GOP), jobs, and housing. Housing costs have skyrocketed and GOP politicians advocating for land-use reform and less regulation/red tape could speak to and solve those problems - certainly much more than the Dems just throwing money at the problem. Many of those same solutions would work for job-creation too.
Problem: Adam Laxalt said it was a state's right issue and was hammered because of the party. You cannot separate the candidate from the party (and LIndsay Graham introducing a terrible abortion bill during the campaign didn't help)
Yep - I think it's going to take a few cycles to solve. Many of those trigger abortion laws are going to hurt the GOP everywhere until they're reformed to something more reasonable. And yes - Graham (and Pence) have really mucked things up but calling for more draconian measures.
DeSantis is stuck between a rock and a hard place right now. The state legislature there is supporting a 6 week ban and that'd help RDS in the primary but kill him in a general. He'd be better off still having the 15 week ban he put in place last year.
Good question! Short answer is because a lot of those laws already existed under Roe and those states were used to them. I think we’ll see the most extreme moderate over time though - Maine is trying to pass an extremely permissive one now and I suspect there be pushback at some point.
Also - the media does a great job of publicizing the horror of abortion bans but a terrible job of doing the same for permissive abortions.
And by the way, it’s not about Abortion, per se. Every culture in human history has had some form of child sacrifice for material gain. It’s really just about instilling a sense of control over life itself. A sort of brainwashing that you are your own god, with power over life and death. That kind of power is intoxicating, really. And it can be used to manipulate peoples behavior so they aren’t devastated if they lose it. Keeping power is what abortion is really about. A means to an end. The truly Godly understand that they have no real power without Him. That’s why they also despise God and must kill him (see: Holy Week). God is an alternative to their power, which they cannon abide. The reason Trump was arraigned during Holy Week was to buck up the atheists and communists on their most depressing time of the year. When they have to hear about how their sworn enemy, Jesus, won victory over sin and death. For these are the things they love most. The Bible is correct: these battles are not material, but spiritual.
Its not abortion. Its ballot harvesting. Republicans just don't understand what is required to win. Just look who won to run the RNC and you will understand.
It didn't take much reading to answer the question posed in the Heading. "Morally, abortion is infanticide. You are snuffing out human life no matter how many weeks you engage in it." At least you added the word "Morally" to make it accurate. While I respect the moral argument, it is not where the large majority of Americans are (including me -- you're asking me to equate a single celled zygote with a full term baby; I can't get there). Further, the folks who campaign as pro-lifers also tend to be anti-gay marriage, want students praying in school, and so on. I am conservative because I am a live-and-let-live sort, the type who thinks a free society is one in which the government stays out people's private lives. As long as these are the folks winning GOP primaries, they will continue to also lose to Democrats. I vote GOP almost always, but sometimes the GOP candidate is so horrid, I cannot make myself do it.
I think your response is reasonable, but we are not talking about a "single cell zygote." Maybe some of the most pro-life people are, but that is not the crux of this issue.
Have you ever observed a baby at 6 weeks on an ultrasound? It moves you. Most of the pro-life crowd is simply saying, "hey, we need to cut this off at this point." That to me is pretty reasonable. Now, should there be exceptions for the mother? Yes, I think there should be, and I don't have an objection to a doctor making that decision with her--in good faith.
This issue will never be resolved because the dirty secret is that while many mothers make a hard decision due to medical concerns, most do it as a form of birth control. They don't want their lives disrupted.
But they make the issue out to be a medical one, not about birth control. So the dishonesty about the argument is why there is such emotion on both sides.
Where are the large majority of Americans you mention on the issue? Do you think making abortion illegal after 16 weeks is unreasonable? It is for the extreme prolife people who say a zygote is a human life. But abortion on demand up until and after live birth -- thanks to Governor Northam for making the issue plain -- is just as unreasonable and all but the most extreme pro abortion people are against it. When does a woman's right to chose give way to a fetus's right to life? Me neither. Maybe abortion should just be a completely personal decision and legal through and after birth. No laws, just a medical procedure. Personally, I think abortion should be legal until the child is about 20 years old, maybe 21.
Personally, I do not think making abortion illegal after 16 weeks is unreasonable. I think it's quite reasonable. There are babies that have been successfully born at 21 weeks. So we're getting very close to viability.
But, the Democrat party platform plank on this is that abortion should be totally legal up to and including the full 9 months and birth. That is their platform. So when you say "the most extreme pro abortion" people, you are talking about the party platform, not just the extreme. They believe in zero restrictions, and that is their mainstream view. Don't try to interpret what "they really mean," just take them at their word.
A "medical procedure" is a benign operation that has no victim, but a patient who is theoretically benefiting from it.
An abortion has a baby (or "clump of cells"--if you prefer--victim and a patient. We can dispute the rights of either party, but there is a victim and loss of life either way.
I'm only arguing this because I take issue with the passive voice being used to describe it when it most certainly is more than that. Frankly, it's not even an issue that I would put in my top 3. I'm kind of a status quo person on it, recognizing that we have limited political capital, so we should start with improving our lives and our existing children's lives first.
Why do Republicans lose? I don't know the answer either but I believe that it is a multi-faceted problem, not a singular issue problem. Abortion clearly drives some portion of the electorate away, but is that because they are, as the Dems have become, supporters of abortion up to the point of conception, or is it more likely that they have bought hook, line, and sinker into the fable that the GOP wants to ban all abortions and put women in jail?
I think one of the primary drivers of GOP loses is demoralization of the GOP voter. This is due to a slew of mutually reinforcing tactics the Left has fostered:
(1) Tacit approval of the Leftist big government agenda by a large segment of GOP leadership
(2) Complicity by that same segment of the GOP leadership in punishing upstart, energetic segments of the GOP electorate
(3) Decades of demonization by Leftists controlling ever growing segments of our society, from the media to education to corporations to even now the military
(4) A feeling that we are losing the war even when we win a battle; this is reinforced when those we elect become cogs in the machine rather than the forces for change that we elected
(5) A political system that discourages participation by the types of people we really want to participate, including a fund raising mechanism that hounds the few people willing to put their money where their mouth is (ever spend months staving off PACs and campaigns because you gave money to one campaign you supported and your info got sold off to every grifter in the USA???)
(6) COVID -- frankly our response to COVID broke many, many people, including the small businesses that tend to be more conservative, and gave great power to the worst elements of our society, especially those most power hungry and those most fearful
(7) In-fighting -- far too many on our side are willing to turn on anyone who gets targeted by the Left, providing implicit evidence to the undecided/neutral parties of the (false) truth to the Left's accusation(s). This is doubly compounded by the fifth column RINO segment of the GOP (see 1 & 2).
(8) Money -- the majority, and I think it's a significant majority, of those with money in the country are Leftist in ideology and willing to shovel vast amounts of it into various Leftist organizations working against the USA
(9) Lawlessness -- Not only does the Left foster lawlessness in our cities to create a fearful populace that they can manipulate, but the Left is very willing to bend and break every law to their purposes...thus the 2020 election and other corrupt election systems like Chicago. Our side has not been willing to do the same, in part because the unequal application of the law which is now common will likely mean our side will go to jail while their side will not for the same crimes
(10) Ruthlessness -- The Left will stop at nothing to win. We will not. But worse, we often won't even play the margins because of "principles". A good example of that is the TN "insurrection" and the attempts to expel and/or imprison those who participated. Many on our side say we should not take those actions because we need to take the higher ground. But if we refuse to make our opponents pay for their actions, we will always be on the defensive and most likely we will lose.
There are more reasons, but these are probably the main ones. We are perilously close to losing this country. And there's no real haven for us to go to, unlike those who fled the Nazis, Communists, Iranian fundamentalists, etc over the last 200+ years to come to the USA for shelter.
I'm more bullish on Trump, currently. Maybe he is the way forward (give or take) given the cards that we have been dealt?
Mr. Trump could sprout wings, resurrect people from the dead, do miraculous healings and he would still end up in a Manhattan courthouse persecuted. With great hair, BTW, he looked good.
Trump is a super-hero to me now. What other character could be so on point for what is now the holy grail of crazy?
34 felony counts re: a 130k payment to your gal friend in 2006? How many accounting entries does it take exactly to turn one payment into 34 felonies?
He may not be presidential material again, but he's been given the chance to spin "the 1st president to be indicted" narrative to elevate his status.
He will make them all go endlessly batshit crazy until the day he dies. He's one in a million, and then some. and an ex-president who will leverage this for max pain going forward (until the day he dies, of course).
The Trump indictment is a real doozy. I had a feeling that is all they had, and they are so insane that they think this reflects well on them. Mentally ill -- all of them!
But how many politicians have their own "don't tell" agreements with various "constituents" that were paid the exact same way as this one?
I'll bet they all have at least one, and I'll bet Biden has at least several.
But they grin like Cheshire cats because they know that no one has the balls or wherewithal to turn it against them.
Over a 20 year period prior to 2017 at least $17 million dollars was paid out by congress to settle disputes filed by employees against members of congress, some undoubtedly for sexual harassment. Tax dollars.
Great read Mr Carter. The country is in such a state and there aren't enough Jason Whitlocks out there speaking unvarnished truth. I fear for my country and what will be left for our children. I read somewhere that the Republican "Elite" are too much like the old Washington Generals, always getting creamed by the Harlem Globetrotters! We need to change our paradigm.
No compromise. As Reagan said, "we win, they lose!"
Wish I had a good answer for you. If history is any guide, once they have power (“F-15’s and nukes” as Biden has helpfully reminded AR-15 owners - though they couldn’t even trans groom a bunch of middle eastern goatherders in 20 years) the Marxists have no real problem with committing massive genocide to get their way. And the fascist Oligarchs that use the Marxist hoards to keep the despised middle class in check are largely in agreement that there are too many people on the planet. Buckle up. It’s gonna be a bumpy few decades. All these things must come to pass…
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.
But who's being black & white here on abortion? If the Progrocrats win on the "choice" issue, there will be no "choice" in actuality. Practicing Catholics like me will be forced to pay taxes that support abortion, or won't have the choice to work at medical facilities that refuse to do abortions, nor will medical workers be allowed to refuse to abort. My daughter-in-law is a physician's assistant & practicing Catholic. The Dems who run my state have already loosened abortion laws so that PAs can conduct abortions. Would she still be able to find work in non-abortion clinics & practices if the anti -abortion faction gave up their fight? The Progrocrats think Choice is the fair compromise that Pro Lifers should accept -- one can always choose not to abort a child, or so the claim says. But the reality is, you will end up paying for or assisting in someone else's murdering of a child, and you will not have any choice in the matter at all.
You have no choice in the matter of many things. You taxes are spent on myriad earmarks, military waste, DEI, so called climate change reduction, $billions of "foreign aid" &&&. And all you care about is not to pay for someone else's abortion due to your religious tenets.
There are more important matters at stake now - if not paid attention to, soon there will be no insurance, and no laws, and no doctors, and no hospitals at all, and we all will be living in Kongo, just under a different name.
We were conned into thinking that there should be a separation of church and state. The state must not meddle in the affairs of the church. But no church-free public square, please.
I thought this is one of the axioms of a free democratic society, one of a very few positive outcomes of French Revolution(s). Because one citizen's church is another's "crazy cult". As an atheist and materialist, I don't want my life ruled by either. If there will be rejection of church-free public square on Republican side, then yes, this country is doomed.
Well said Ms Tat!
Thanks, Tom. If I sound angry it's because I am...
We all need to be angry!
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.
With one side "totalitarian" and "socialist" in its founding, and the other reverting back to original principles, how do you stop the original principle country from starting to walk back down the path to socialism, when it is one man one vote? It's not as if you could "ban" the socialists from settling in your country like a kibbutz.
Your response made me smile.
Thought occurred to me, and I think the answer is that you update the Constitution for this new country. Start with the basic document again, and the Bill of Rights, but put in some amendments that essentially make socialism unconstitutional. Yes, there would be a process to amend, but the process has to be onerous and akin to what we have today with amending the Constitution.
I think that having anti-socialist/communist elements of the Constitution will repel enough of the socialists in the first place that they'll never gain a foothold to launch a war on our culture again.
We did make it some 200+ years thus far before they were able to do it, so I'd say that the document we've lived by is pretty darn good. We just need some tweaks and addressing of modern-day issues so that they can't twist it into something like what they're doing now.
No structure is going to be perfect, but it will at the least accomplish like-minded people living amongst each other in relative peace without their basic rights being usurped by a totalitarian predator like the Left.
Absolutely. the "nation" has never been "one people." A split would largely follow the lines of 150 years or so ago. . . which, let us not forget, was both sparked and then prevented, with great brutality, by the republican party in its quest to create a single " nation" governed by an all-powerful federal state.
In a National Divorce scenario, I personally would hope for strict limits on immigration to the nation south of your proposed line from states north of it.
Personally, given how completely alien the philosophy of socialists/Marxists is to me, along with their desire for an all-controlling federal government, I don't understand why they wouldn't want to separate. And, empires have been divided and split for eons. Much like Brexit, I don't think the world collapses overnight. It will take some getting used to, and there will pains, but I think in the end people will like living under the government structure that they can choose.
Their utopia is socialism and a heavy handed government to "fix" societal ills. Mine is the complete opposite. Why should we torture each other and force the other to live in this constant pendulum of aggravation back and forth?
They want to abort their young as they're crying out of the womb? Slaughter away.
They want to tax themselves to the point where the state gets more than they do? Have at it.
They want to control every aspect of their businesses and industry? Penalize the crap out of them.
They want to fight climate change by outlawing every modern convenience we have? Let 'er rip! Live in caves for all I care.
They want to turn schools into sex indoctrination camps for 5 year olds in order to "breed" tolerance? Sure, bring in the drag queens and require an hour every day for gender storytelling and "acceptance."
They want to eliminate the meritocracy and allow for only the government to select who will do what, including doctors, engineers and trades that impact life safety? Hey man, you do you!
And, let's face it, it's gone from polite disagreement to militant hatred, where you can't even have an honest conversation with anyone for fear that they will mark you as someone that needs to be retaliated against for your views. That is no way to live, and it's not healthy for the mentally ill class (a good portion of the Democrat party).
The socialist half will never allow a divorce. They need other people's money to live the life they feel owed to them by society. On the favorable side, the Cultural Revolution in China didn't have a happy ending for many of the most red of the red guards. Time will tell.
And that's how civil wars are started.
Lincoln needed the South's money, which is why he started the inaccurately-named American Civil War. His declared causus belli for raising volunteers was to "collect the imposts", the secession of the Cotton States depriving the Federal monster of revenues; but he and his hagiographers said it as for "equality." A perfect hero for the degenerate American empire.
Every time I read your insight, I say to myself: I'd love to sit and have a beer with you. You put into words what I think. This was outstanding.
A lot regarding election losses has to do w/turnout. Our district in SE Pa. is a good example. We lost our county by 600 votes. 104,000 registered Republicans didn't bother to vote during that election. Apathy is our biggest enemy.
We're in a Civil war right now, a cold one. It's the Marxists and everyone else. But most in the everyone else category don't realize it yet.
Come to Vegas. It's possible. Tomorrow's post will be about beer.
If you have electronic voting machines and there are no auditable paper ballots (meaning a legitimate ballot can be physically tied to a legitimate voter), it’s impossible to know if an election result is reliable.
Republicans lose because they don't do the work. Democrats win because they do. Republicans tend to be individualists. Democrats are group-oriented, people-oriented. They get together with other people and do stuff. Even though individually on average they are dumber and crazier than Republicans, the fact that they work together, as members of the species most adapted by evolution for working together in Earth's history, means yeah, they win.
This is not complicated, and it's not the "issues". Do you see lines out the door at Republican Club meetings? You do not. Not one registered Republican in a hundred can even tell you where their local meetings are. Republican voters want the Party to do it for them, and when the Party doesn't do that to their satisfaction, they sit home in a huff.
And that's the main reason why Republicans lose: they get out-worked, and out-played, by people who enjoy all this much more than Republicans do.
I agree almost totally. But look at what happens when "we" protest versus when "they" protest. There are people going to jail for January 6th for years for "parading" while Leftists commit actual burglary, arson and property destruction in the billions and do not even get chased. When they are caught, charges are dropped. A few actually get convicted because the crimes are so heinous that they have no choice. But they are still labeled as "good people just lashing out for good reasons."
When we activate we are cancelled and spit on. So then we have to fight and that's when they use the opportunity to destroy our lives and families.
So there's a bit more to it than just being anti-social, at least for some of us.
It's called fear, and having something to lose.
The reasons/excuses can be whatever. It doesn't change the facts on the ground. To make an extreme analogy, many Jews in 1930s Germany felt that they couldn't leave, let alone protest, because they had too much to lose.
In any case, the protests are downstream from the political organizing. Republicans will show up to a protest, sometimes, if they get upset enough. But that's it. They won't do the long, slow, day-in, day-out, *decades-long*, work of political organizing. And that's what really gets the job done, not the showy stuff that makes headlines. So Republicans get out-politicked by people by people who actually do political organizing, and are good at it, because they have been practicing.
Part of what's frustrating is that this seems obvious to me, but few on the right seem to want to acknowledge it. Before you can start to solve a problem you have to correctly understand just what the problem is.
Ok, I think I can agree with you, as this is a pretty astute observation.
But I think there are a couple of fundamental problems that I don't know how to solve (yet). The first is that Republicans are fundamentally different than Democrats in terms of their personalities and approach to others. You allude to this. Republicans are a "live and let live" group while Democrats are an activist group. These are generalizations, of course, but that's what we're doing here. So this is a proclivity to stay away from being noticed and attempting to organize others, which can be a soft form of manipulation. The only Republicans I see that are like this are generally the overtly religious ones, but they see their mission as one of promoting their religious principles, not governing ones. For Democrats, government is their principle, so they organize around it.
The second problem is that most Republicans are working people or business people or intensely devoted to family. I'm not saying that Democrats are none of these, but Republicans most definitely are, on average. Where does one find the time to do the hard work of organizing? And is the point to simply take "power" and then relinquish it by dismantling government? I'd say, yeah, that's a cause I can get behind, but I don't think people would rather take time away from these important concerns to fix this.
Whereas most Democrats are: young people, old money liberals, academics without families or people without families (these are all proven correlations, statistically). In other words, they are not concerned with work/family, and their "religion" is government or ideology. Their activism is what gives them purpose, whereas our families, religion and businesses give us purpose.
I guess the only way this changes is when the Republican priorities are under attack, but as you've said, it is so hard to get people to see it.
And, yes, I do believe our values are most definitely under attack -- all of them.
Republicans have more responsibilities while dems have paid activists.
Doesn't that suggest that Republicans are shirking some of their responsibilities? The ones about guarding us all from an out-of-control government? What good does it do to take wonderful care of your family and have lots of kids only to turn them over to a world that is crumbling and wants to kill them? Republicans tend to have their noses too close to the ground, imo. Republicans could pay activists too, as just one tiny example. Republicans make money, kids, and excuses. Democrats make converts, dependents, and coalitions. At Life, Republicans win, but at politics, Democrats win. And we all have to live with that. Point being, in the long run the Republican approach won't work, because while you may not be interested in politics, politics is interested in you. And especially your children.
My wife and I are both unpaid party activists. Getting people involved is difficult, especially when both husband and wife have to work and have children to rear. Quite often they only get snippets of news and that news is terribly slanted. Are you involved or just one of the many independent critics?
Very good point. Even in 'red' states the rats own the school boards.
That's totally true.
Why do republicans lose? Because they are losers. Born in corruption, crony capitalism and imperialism, they have conserved nothing and they hate their own base, which is to say working-class heritage "americans". I despise the democrats but at least they are honest about their nefarious goals. The GOP lies through its collective teeth and seeks the same as the Dems, albeit at a slower pace - all the better to boil the frog. The idea that the republican party is the solution to anything is risible. As Robert Dabney said, they are progressivism's shadow, always scurrying to catch up. The republicans are not and have never been a conservative party.
You're not paying attention to the last 10 years of internal republican party politics.
Incorrect. I just don't take it seriously.
You're definitely going in the correct (right!) direction here, Jeff. I personally like your Russ Roberts suggestion on a thought-leader.
In terms of issues - I'm much where you are on abortion. Roe was a bad judicial decision, I'm morally against abortion, but I can't ignore the practical realities of its political complexity. Stick to it as a state right and most states will probably come out somewhere with it being legal up to 12-20 weeks. I suspect states (even deep Red or Blue ones) will be punished over time for pushing too far in either direction.
I think you also hit - lightly - on another issue - the GOP needs to do a better job connecting with younger voters. Suburban moms/families are now half Millennials. Aside from abortion, you've got to connect your message to schools (choice should be an easy win for the GOP), jobs, and housing. Housing costs have skyrocketed and GOP politicians advocating for land-use reform and less regulation/red tape could speak to and solve those problems - certainly much more than the Dems just throwing money at the problem. Many of those same solutions would work for job-creation too.
Problem: Adam Laxalt said it was a state's right issue and was hammered because of the party. You cannot separate the candidate from the party (and LIndsay Graham introducing a terrible abortion bill during the campaign didn't help)
Yep - I think it's going to take a few cycles to solve. Many of those trigger abortion laws are going to hurt the GOP everywhere until they're reformed to something more reasonable. And yes - Graham (and Pence) have really mucked things up but calling for more draconian measures.
DeSantis is stuck between a rock and a hard place right now. The state legislature there is supporting a 6 week ban and that'd help RDS in the primary but kill him in a general. He'd be better off still having the 15 week ban he put in place last year.
Why isn't it the very liberal abortion laws don't hurt Dems in Blue States?
Good question! Short answer is because a lot of those laws already existed under Roe and those states were used to them. I think we’ll see the most extreme moderate over time though - Maine is trying to pass an extremely permissive one now and I suspect there be pushback at some point.
Also - the media does a great job of publicizing the horror of abortion bans but a terrible job of doing the same for permissive abortions.
And by the way, it’s not about Abortion, per se. Every culture in human history has had some form of child sacrifice for material gain. It’s really just about instilling a sense of control over life itself. A sort of brainwashing that you are your own god, with power over life and death. That kind of power is intoxicating, really. And it can be used to manipulate peoples behavior so they aren’t devastated if they lose it. Keeping power is what abortion is really about. A means to an end. The truly Godly understand that they have no real power without Him. That’s why they also despise God and must kill him (see: Holy Week). God is an alternative to their power, which they cannon abide. The reason Trump was arraigned during Holy Week was to buck up the atheists and communists on their most depressing time of the year. When they have to hear about how their sworn enemy, Jesus, won victory over sin and death. For these are the things they love most. The Bible is correct: these battles are not material, but spiritual.
Its not abortion. Its ballot harvesting. Republicans just don't understand what is required to win. Just look who won to run the RNC and you will understand.
certainly part of it. but I think the party needs to resolve the abortion issue
It didn't take much reading to answer the question posed in the Heading. "Morally, abortion is infanticide. You are snuffing out human life no matter how many weeks you engage in it." At least you added the word "Morally" to make it accurate. While I respect the moral argument, it is not where the large majority of Americans are (including me -- you're asking me to equate a single celled zygote with a full term baby; I can't get there). Further, the folks who campaign as pro-lifers also tend to be anti-gay marriage, want students praying in school, and so on. I am conservative because I am a live-and-let-live sort, the type who thinks a free society is one in which the government stays out people's private lives. As long as these are the folks winning GOP primaries, they will continue to also lose to Democrats. I vote GOP almost always, but sometimes the GOP candidate is so horrid, I cannot make myself do it.
I think your response is reasonable, but we are not talking about a "single cell zygote." Maybe some of the most pro-life people are, but that is not the crux of this issue.
Have you ever observed a baby at 6 weeks on an ultrasound? It moves you. Most of the pro-life crowd is simply saying, "hey, we need to cut this off at this point." That to me is pretty reasonable. Now, should there be exceptions for the mother? Yes, I think there should be, and I don't have an objection to a doctor making that decision with her--in good faith.
This issue will never be resolved because the dirty secret is that while many mothers make a hard decision due to medical concerns, most do it as a form of birth control. They don't want their lives disrupted.
But they make the issue out to be a medical one, not about birth control. So the dishonesty about the argument is why there is such emotion on both sides.
Where are the large majority of Americans you mention on the issue? Do you think making abortion illegal after 16 weeks is unreasonable? It is for the extreme prolife people who say a zygote is a human life. But abortion on demand up until and after live birth -- thanks to Governor Northam for making the issue plain -- is just as unreasonable and all but the most extreme pro abortion people are against it. When does a woman's right to chose give way to a fetus's right to life? Me neither. Maybe abortion should just be a completely personal decision and legal through and after birth. No laws, just a medical procedure. Personally, I think abortion should be legal until the child is about 20 years old, maybe 21.
Personally, I do not think making abortion illegal after 16 weeks is unreasonable. I think it's quite reasonable. There are babies that have been successfully born at 21 weeks. So we're getting very close to viability.
But, the Democrat party platform plank on this is that abortion should be totally legal up to and including the full 9 months and birth. That is their platform. So when you say "the most extreme pro abortion" people, you are talking about the party platform, not just the extreme. They believe in zero restrictions, and that is their mainstream view. Don't try to interpret what "they really mean," just take them at their word.
A "medical procedure" is a benign operation that has no victim, but a patient who is theoretically benefiting from it.
An abortion has a baby (or "clump of cells"--if you prefer--victim and a patient. We can dispute the rights of either party, but there is a victim and loss of life either way.
I'm only arguing this because I take issue with the passive voice being used to describe it when it most certainly is more than that. Frankly, it's not even an issue that I would put in my top 3. I'm kind of a status quo person on it, recognizing that we have limited political capital, so we should start with improving our lives and our existing children's lives first.
Why do Republicans lose? I don't know the answer either but I believe that it is a multi-faceted problem, not a singular issue problem. Abortion clearly drives some portion of the electorate away, but is that because they are, as the Dems have become, supporters of abortion up to the point of conception, or is it more likely that they have bought hook, line, and sinker into the fable that the GOP wants to ban all abortions and put women in jail?
I think one of the primary drivers of GOP loses is demoralization of the GOP voter. This is due to a slew of mutually reinforcing tactics the Left has fostered:
(1) Tacit approval of the Leftist big government agenda by a large segment of GOP leadership
(2) Complicity by that same segment of the GOP leadership in punishing upstart, energetic segments of the GOP electorate
(3) Decades of demonization by Leftists controlling ever growing segments of our society, from the media to education to corporations to even now the military
(4) A feeling that we are losing the war even when we win a battle; this is reinforced when those we elect become cogs in the machine rather than the forces for change that we elected
(5) A political system that discourages participation by the types of people we really want to participate, including a fund raising mechanism that hounds the few people willing to put their money where their mouth is (ever spend months staving off PACs and campaigns because you gave money to one campaign you supported and your info got sold off to every grifter in the USA???)
(6) COVID -- frankly our response to COVID broke many, many people, including the small businesses that tend to be more conservative, and gave great power to the worst elements of our society, especially those most power hungry and those most fearful
(7) In-fighting -- far too many on our side are willing to turn on anyone who gets targeted by the Left, providing implicit evidence to the undecided/neutral parties of the (false) truth to the Left's accusation(s). This is doubly compounded by the fifth column RINO segment of the GOP (see 1 & 2).
(8) Money -- the majority, and I think it's a significant majority, of those with money in the country are Leftist in ideology and willing to shovel vast amounts of it into various Leftist organizations working against the USA
(9) Lawlessness -- Not only does the Left foster lawlessness in our cities to create a fearful populace that they can manipulate, but the Left is very willing to bend and break every law to their purposes...thus the 2020 election and other corrupt election systems like Chicago. Our side has not been willing to do the same, in part because the unequal application of the law which is now common will likely mean our side will go to jail while their side will not for the same crimes
(10) Ruthlessness -- The Left will stop at nothing to win. We will not. But worse, we often won't even play the margins because of "principles". A good example of that is the TN "insurrection" and the attempts to expel and/or imprison those who participated. Many on our side say we should not take those actions because we need to take the higher ground. But if we refuse to make our opponents pay for their actions, we will always be on the defensive and most likely we will lose.
There are more reasons, but these are probably the main ones. We are perilously close to losing this country. And there's no real haven for us to go to, unlike those who fled the Nazis, Communists, Iranian fundamentalists, etc over the last 200+ years to come to the USA for shelter.
Fair points. Chicago is a microcosm. Voters are demoralized, so they don't participate.
Can you say DeSantis?
Like him, like others too. I don't want Trump to be the 2024 standard bearer. He has too many negatives. I don't hate him and appreciate him
I'm more bullish on Trump, currently. Maybe he is the way forward (give or take) given the cards that we have been dealt?
Mr. Trump could sprout wings, resurrect people from the dead, do miraculous healings and he would still end up in a Manhattan courthouse persecuted. With great hair, BTW, he looked good.
Trump is a super-hero to me now. What other character could be so on point for what is now the holy grail of crazy?
34 felony counts re: a 130k payment to your gal friend in 2006? How many accounting entries does it take exactly to turn one payment into 34 felonies?
He may not be presidential material again, but he's been given the chance to spin "the 1st president to be indicted" narrative to elevate his status.
He will make them all go endlessly batshit crazy until the day he dies. He's one in a million, and then some. and an ex-president who will leverage this for max pain going forward (until the day he dies, of course).
Oh, Mr. Bragg is a miserable little bitch.
The Trump indictment is a real doozy. I had a feeling that is all they had, and they are so insane that they think this reflects well on them. Mentally ill -- all of them!
But how many politicians have their own "don't tell" agreements with various "constituents" that were paid the exact same way as this one?
I'll bet they all have at least one, and I'll bet Biden has at least several.
But they grin like Cheshire cats because they know that no one has the balls or wherewithal to turn it against them.
But Trump!
Over a 20 year period prior to 2017 at least $17 million dollars was paid out by congress to settle disputes filed by employees against members of congress, some undoubtedly for sexual harassment. Tax dollars.
Great read Mr Carter. The country is in such a state and there aren't enough Jason Whitlocks out there speaking unvarnished truth. I fear for my country and what will be left for our children. I read somewhere that the Republican "Elite" are too much like the old Washington Generals, always getting creamed by the Harlem Globetrotters! We need to change our paradigm.
No compromise. As Reagan said, "we win, they lose!"
I am waiting for one conservative candidate to come out with a "progressive lefty cultists can kill their babies and we wont stop them" platform.
interesting column on how this country is now a “surface democracy” and managed by a bureaucracy … https://thepsmiths.substack.com/p/review-miti-and-the-japanese-miracle
Also check out smith’s sub stack on South Africa. Chicago is headed in same direction … https://thepsmiths.substack.com/p/review-south-africas-brave-new-world
Wish I had a good answer for you. If history is any guide, once they have power (“F-15’s and nukes” as Biden has helpfully reminded AR-15 owners - though they couldn’t even trans groom a bunch of middle eastern goatherders in 20 years) the Marxists have no real problem with committing massive genocide to get their way. And the fascist Oligarchs that use the Marxist hoards to keep the despised middle class in check are largely in agreement that there are too many people on the planet. Buckle up. It’s gonna be a bumpy few decades. All these things must come to pass…