Sitting back and observing the current civil war happening within the Republican party should come as no surprise to anyone who resides outside the beltway of Washington, D.C. Pundits, thinkers, writers, and radio hosts who I once admired, have now lost credibility as they have bestowed upon themselves the bastion of what is and isn’t “true conservatism”. Yet, while the civil war wages within the party, the party itself does a disservice to this nation for fighting the wrong battle at the wrong time as the war for the heart of this country wages on.
To myself, this has always been the main issue in regards to the Republicans. For far too long they’ve fought for the soul of conservatism as they’d like it to be, but not for the soul of the nation as it truly is. I highly doubt that the very pundits, thinkers, writers, and hosts whom I’ve come to follow are malevolent in their intent for overlooking this point but I have come to realize that they’ve overlooked it completely. I find it flat out astounding that they fail to recognize the zeitgeist of the times as America has reached a point in which the majority of the voters not only couldn’t give a damn about what is and isn’t conservatism, but have no idea what the word even means. Why? Because year after year, representative after representative, and election after election the elites within the Republican establishment repeatedly betray their constituency as they immediately capitulate on their promises.
Each time a Republican, supporting conservative principles, promising to fight once elected into office, gets elected and then turns on those very principles, it damages the cause of conservatism. The main issue that is always overlooked, sometimes innocently but more often deliberately, by those in power within the Republican party is this; As they wage a civil war between themselves and their base, the nation itself is confronted with a larger civil war between two America’s.The war for America is being waged by those in the former against those in the latter.
The latter, those so covetous of power that they’ve abandoned all principle for the sake of power is what I’d define as America’s ruling class. Our ruling class’s agenda is power for itself. It follows the tenet that Americans are retrograde, racist, and dysfunctional unless properly constrained. As Angelo Codevilla of The American Spectator elaborates on the ruling class’s agenda, “while it stakes its claim through intellectual-moral pretense, it holds power by one of the oldest and prosaic means: patronage and promises thereof. Like left-wing parties always and everywhere, it is a ‘machine’ based on providing tangible rewards to its members.”
This ‘machine’ functions by “transferring money or jobs or privileges — civic as well as economic — to the party’s clients, directly or indirectly. Hence our ruling class’s standard approach to any and all matters, its solution to any and all problems, is to increase the power of the government — meaning of those who run it, meaning themselves, to profit those who pay with political support for privileged jobs, contracts, etc.,” writes Codevilla. Moreover, the crux of the issue is summed up by Codevilla as he notes that all the while the ruling class’s machine operates at full speed, “no prominent Republican challenges the ruling class’s continued claim of superior insight, nor its denigration of the American people as irritable children who must learn their place.” The Republican Party does not disparage the ruling class, because most of its officials either are or would like to be a part of it.
The Republican party can cannibalize their own base all they want, but what it cannot do is stop the momentum that is only beginning to build in support of Americans from both sides of the political aisle who want to see the ruling class in Washington, D.C. utterly destroyed. The reason is simple, Americans have been betrayed by their elected leaders in both political parties and are finally coming to recognize this harsh realization. Speaking about this betrayal in his 1838 Lyceum address, Abraham Lincoln stated, “If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”
Both Republicans and Democrats, our ruling class, have utterly failed this nation for far too long and have betrayed their supporters, the Constitution, and the rule of law with outright impunity. My advice to all Americans in regards to this coming election is to be no longer the dupes and property of the hypocrites and traitors to our country who make up the ruling class. We must conserve what we have left before it is soon gone as whatever the betrayers of our country get, we the people must lose; and what is worse, must lose a great deal more than the others can get; for the ruling class cannot successfully remain in power without destroying, perverting, and corrupting that which is left of our America.
You are so very right PS. And I have been writing on that for decades…Great article.
Reblogged this on Exposing Modern Mugwumps.
Excellent essay kid, and pretty accurately sums up what a lot of us disaffected Republicans have been screaming at the rafters about for two decades. We don’t give a damn about R or D or red or blue anymore, we care about red, white and blue exclusively, but the office seekers and corrupt whores of Washington think the game can go on forever.
They are wrong, and their day of reckoning is coming.
Thought provoking article for those still with their heads in the sand Nick. For the rest of us, it’s a clarion call to put on our big boy (and girl) pants this election season and throw the deadwood out.
Good column. I’d like to add that there is really only one issue in this election. It is language. By adopting the left’s language, we have failed to win a single social issue. From “reproductive rights” to “same-sex marriage” to “pro-choice” to “income equality,” the left has managed to get us to argue using their terms. Today’s debates are supposedly closed by a single word, ending in “ist!” “ism!” or “obe!” This isn’t rational debate. It is to bind ourselves hand and foot. Destroying politically correct language is the heart of the struggle. We must give honest definitions to the issues. I can see only one candidate ready to do that. I hate to use this space to push a particular candidate like this but I won’t mention any names. All best.
Great read! Sharing!.
Agreed and it’s culture in which we on the right have truly lost. We’re too busy fighting ourselves and not the left, now look at where we are at.
PS, it’s not “Now look at Where we’re at”, but “Now look at Where we’re going”
Great article. Never ever apologize to these people again. We must kill PC. Oh and the guy above wouldn’t say it but I will. Trump will do that. 🙂
Great article, Nick. Sadly, Republicans are a greater enemy to Republicans, than are the Democrats.
Democrats are up front about their terrifying agenda. Republicans HAVE no agenda, and promise constituents to oppose that of the Dems. Given ample opportunity to do so, they don’t. In the end, one is no better than the other. #EnemiesOfThePeople #RiseUpNow #RestoreTheGuillotine #LineThemUp
The Republican Party has never stood for conservatism in any form. And when a critical mass of the People begins to understand that Lincoln was the first in the line of American Emperors who have sold this nation out to the banksters and their ilk, abandoning any semblance of conservative – constitutional – principles, we will start to see change, but not before.
Lincoln’s so-called “Republican” party gave us every ill that has led to the endgame we’re watching run its course right now: a predatory central bank, a monetary system and economy manipulated through fiat currency, a burdensome federal tax on income, regionally unbalanced tariffs, neo-mercantilist crony capitalism, a population conscripted into a “national citizenry” and placed under federal rule through the fraud of “equal protection”, endless military adventurism, the utter destruction of State sovereignty and, with that, a federal government which has usurped authority over the limits of its own authority and is, thus, completely out of control.
If that change ever comes, it will be carried primarily by the realization that – at least since the 1860s – there has been no practical difference between Republicans and Democrats at the federal level. None. They are Statists, pure and simple. And that explains the reason for their behavior. It has nothing to do with conservatism, which is merely a label they wave about to gather tribal loyalty in a fake conflict.
The partisan “conflict” we have witnessed for decades is nothing more than kabuki distraction, designed to keep the People divided against and warring amongst themselves, focused on cults of personality, instead of being focused on the workings of policy and learning how they’ve been screwed by the federal government for over 150 years… starting with Lincoln’s unilaterally granting himself the authority to provoke and wage war on civilians, to invade their sovereign States, to disband their duly elected governments, and to jail anyone who spoke out against his Hamiltonian, “American System” economic / war agenda, due process be damned.
Sadly, an overwhelming majority of Americans suffer from cognitive dissonance in this regard, having been indoctrinated practically from birth with a narrative that demands they view the leviathan Lincolnite state as lord, savior and provider, rather than the overweening, festering cesspool it has become.
So true. This is the biggest reason liberals are “winning” the modern debate (on anything). They very effectively use simple, straightforward terms to define complex concepts. If and when the MSM, general public, conservatives, etc. adopt the Left’s definition of X as THE definition for X, the Left wins before the fight even begins. They’re loaded phrases and terms. I don’t know how this tactic can be defeated since the Left owns the MSM. By the time the general public learns a term, the damage is already done.
For example, take “climate change”
Liberals touted “global warming” in the 90s and early 2000s to mean catastrophic and irreparable changes in global weather patterns/occurrences CAUSED by human activity (the culprit being big business and evil corporations). It was the hockey stick graph. Of course it was a scam. When the general public started to realized that “global warming” was a bunch of pseudoscience, the Left very cleverly rebranded the concept as “CLIMATE CHANGE.” As we all know, the Left is telling us that “climate change,” which is caused by human activity, is the greatest security threat to our nation. Importantly, and not surprisingly, the Left tells us that “climate change” can only be alleviated by (1) further regulating big business and the evil corporations that caused this worldwide disaster and (2) by increasing government spending.
Putting aside all the issues I could bring up, the point of this is that the liberals succeeded as soon as they labeled their bogus pseudoscientific theory “Climate Change.” By reducing this incredibly moronic, egotistical, and worldwide concept down to simple phrase that actually means something very basic that is, at its core, very true, the Left succeeded in controlling the narrative and making a successful rebuttal all but impossible in today’s 140-character headline world.
Everyone knows that the weather changes. The seasons change. The temperate at 8 am is almost always different than at 11 am the exact same spot, and usually by many degrees. It rains, it snows; we have drought; we have floods; we have deserts where there used to be rivers and glaciers….all of the continents used to be a single mass of land called Pangaea… So, if the weather obviously changes, then how dumb, idiotic, radical, stupid, etc. do conservatives sound when they so confidently say, “Climate change isn’t real”?
The MSM shames dissenters with headlines such as, “Republican Senator Questions Climate Change Findings” and “80% of Republicans Deny Climate Change” and “Climate Change Deniers Are Always Republicans.”
It’s not that we disagree that the weather/climate is changing, it is that we reject and do not agree with the theory that liberals have labeled “climate change.” But this kind of reasoning does not matter in today’s world. And even if it did, most people who understand the ridiculousness of the Left’s “climate change” are not aware or are not able to articulate why they disagree with the concept because they don’t even realize that the term is loaded. Or, more commonly, a conservative will be discussing, questioning, or arguing about the legitimacy of “climate change” under the incorrect presumption that the person he’s speaking to understands that term as he does. In actuality, most liberals and/or people who have never thought about it before understand the term based on its most basic meaning — that the weather changes (what idiot could possibly deny this? Oh, conservatives of course). It’s too hard to discuss the issues when the definitions can’t even be agreed upon. It is basically like conservatives and liberals are speaking different languages.
Sorry for the very long rant. But I believe this is a legitimate point that deserves more attention. The same thing happens with most, if not all, concepts the Left uses to create division. For example, the “rape culture.” Liberals talk about the “rape culture” using information/statistics/rhetoric that includes/takes into account an array of subjectively perceived wrongs against the woman being polled, from being called a “b*#ch”, being whistled at, being kissed when they didn’t want to, feeling uncomfortable during intercourse, having their butt smacked, being groped, etc. Most conservatives think of rape as that horrific scene depicted in horror movies where women are violently and disgustingly raped by barbarians. Naturally, if someone has such a definition of rape in their head, they simply will never accept that “1 in 4” women who go to college will be victims of rape or attempted rape. Disagree with the Left and you support rape, hate women, and are the son of Hitler.
I could go on and on, but I think you get my point. I hope this post was acceptable and adds to the quality of your website, Nick. Thanks for your articles and points of view.
Good work, kid. I, for one, do not underestimate your generation.
The offspring of those who took Iwo Jima cannot be alien to their fathers.
Please be sure that there are millions, I said millions of men and women just like you who believe everything you just wrote here. God bless, see you on the firing line.
A long view of political parties in America shows that they are constantly evolving. There is no fixed doctrine that either party has. Aside from the parties, though, there are fixed principles and a battle that rages and has raged from even before the Constitution. It is the battle between the view of people as individuals with rights and freedoms, and the view that people are members of groups and masses for elites to lead/manage (that sees people as “human resources”). This conflict has weaved in and out of each and all of the political parties at one time or another in different ways. That happens because, fortunately, in our nation no one person can accomplish much to change the laws and government. That is a good thing, but it also means that you have to be gathered together into political parties to get things done; otherwise you can feel good cursing the darkness, but you won’t accomplish much.
Our federal system was designed by very realistic men with a focus on the individual and the preservation of individual rights and freedoms, preservation from anarchy and preservation from control by elites. The federal system does this by dividing governmental power into many different parts. The power was to be divided among the several states and a federal government, with the federal government divided among three separate branches of government and even the Congress divided into two separate houses. If it often feels to you like nothing gets done in Washington (always an overstatement), rejoice over that rather than condemn it.
Over the course of over two hundred years (and with the help of a Supreme Court that converted itself into a Supreme Legislature, and mistaken changes to the Constitution itself–such as the enactment of the XVIIth Amendment) power has been steadily gathered into Washington and away from the States. It did not happen all at once. It usually happened with each “crisis” as designing people used the crisis to gather power to themselves and away from the people. That is a timeless pattern that we need to be aware of and to resist.
That centralization of power needs to be addressed, and addressed by institutional changes and by changes in the hearts and minds of the people who vote and those whom they elect to government. The changes we want to do, however, are not going to be made by the way the old Roman Republic tried, by calling for some strong man to sort it all out and fix it, as the strong man will likely gather more power into his own hands (that is to say, we do not need a Republican Obama, who sees every opponent as an enemy). It is going to come by many people, the many individuals, working together through parties and by working to win the intellectual battle for individual freedom.
All of that will take time and steady effort. The challenges to freedom did not occur quickly. They have built up over time. It will take steady effort–and restrengthening the role of the States, returning the Supreme Court to a judge according to law not a maker of law, and other reestablishment of the balance of the Constitution–to re-enthrone the individual freedoms and rights as the prevailing doctrine of people in government.
We have made steady progress in recent elections. More and more elected leaders, at the State and federal levels, hold to those principles of freedom and liberty. And they have made great progress in slowing down and in many instances halting the centralization of power. But we need to turn the corner into undoing the damage that has been done over decades. We need to add to that, not erode it by declaring that change has not come quickly enough. And we can and should remove those who, tempted by the taste of power are changed by it for the worse. Not all are.
In the 2016 elections, there are many again, at all levels in these elections, who are motivated by principles of freedom and liberty, and they need our support. In the presidential election, there are also several, in both parties, who want more power to rule the masses. And, at least for now among the Republican candidates, there are several who champion the freedom and liberty and who have records throughout their careers that show their sincerity of their commitment to freedom.
But beware the demagogue, who with no history of promoting the Constitution will try to ride the emotions of national frustration and promise quick solutions to the failures of the Obamas and those who seek to rule us. Trading a popular tyrant for a failed one is no bargain for freedom.
There are Terry. I was lucky enough to have parents who passed down to me what their parents fought for in WWII. Freedom.
Just awesome Nick. You nailed it as usual.
That ‘Rant’ should be required reading in schools, for the children , under the title ‘Truth and Knowledge’.
While I passionately agree with the article, the real test will NOT be who is elected President! Read that again and critically think about it. The real demonstration of the level of pissed Americans will be how many incumbents are returned! Historically, the vast majority are. If honestly PO’d, the vast majority will be terminated. The ONLY ones who deserve to be re-elected are the approx. 125 who voted NO on the Omnibus 2015 bill. This cynic is not optimistic!
Very nice case you lay out, logical and totally believable. It will be linked by me. GOOD JOB Nick Short.
“Destroying politically correct language is the heart of the struggle.” Indeed. And this is where the 21st century soi-disant Conservatives have failed miserably. They, who are supposed to form an intellectual elite, have become lazy and undisciplined.
One of my favorite misnomers in the political debate is the code speak, “social justice”. Since when could Justice ever anything less than ‘social’ – i.e., concerned with the relations between.among individuals, groups, and the state? By pronouncing *their* justice to be “social” the language twisters infer that simple Justice is somehow lacking unless they intervene to right wrongs, to lift up the oppressed, to line their own pockets…
That huge litany did not begin with Lincoln. He can be found guilty of unconstitutionally suspending habeas corpus, but he claimed it was the war which necessitated that – would he have rescinded it had he lived.
Lincoln was elected AFTER seven states had already left the Union and then dared the government to do anything about it. It is open to debate whether he should have let the South simply implode on its own, but he also faced the movement to make slavery legal in the new states coming into being in what was then the ‘far’ west.
As for the central bank, that came into being in 1913, a year of shame which also saw the imposition of federal taxation on individual incomes, with promises that it would never be levied on any but the very rich.
Tensions of states vs federal, of individual vs state, of the right of the state to tax go all the way back to the beginnings of our country, with the first Whiskey Rebellion innn 1791, during George Washington’s reign. Washington himself led troops against the dissenting farmers, who felt betrayed. They’d been accustomed for generations to make distilled spirits from surplus grain and then to use it as a medium of exchange to eke out a precarious living. These men, many of them veterans who’d fought alongside Washington felt betrayed by his government’s willingness to tax their production in order to retire war debts.
This taxation was Alexander Hamilton’s idea, as was the first bank. Hamilton was a city man, a corporatist in a still-agrarian country.
The Whiskey Rebellion demonstrated two things: (1) the new USA’s willingness to repress revolt through the use of force, and (2) the American population’s willingness to REBEL. Washington squelched Pennsylvania’s whiskey rebels, at least on the surface, but Kentucky was another matter. That resentment against the ‘revenoors’ still exists. After all, what was the foundation on which America rested if not rebellion to perceived injustice? That first internecine ‘war’ in 1791 set the tone for the growing rebellion against governmental regulations.
There could have been other ways used to raise revenue to retire the war debt, but this one set the pattern for the future. It gave rise to political parties whose fiscal philosophies rested on differing ideas about governance.
In the end, we don’t know what Lincoln would’ve done had he lived, though his second Inaugural Address left us some clues. Much of the wartime extra-Constitutional excess would have been walked back. The sadistic stupidities of “Reconstruction”, which served to suppress the rise of a middle class in the South, not to mention the reparations needed for the extreme destruction Sherman’s march wreaked on an already destroyed countryside, would have been handled differently by Lincoln. But he wasn’t there to prevent the depredations…and the effects still echo down the generations since.
If I have learned nothing else from watching closely the induced immigration crisis throughout Europe, I now know this, and know it well: cultural wounds inflicted by those in power have an almost eternal presence. I now understand (with the help of research in epigenetics) that Jung’s “collective unconscious” really does influence thought and action. It is more imperative than ever to have leaders with an eye to the long view, leaders with a deep knowledge of history and the importance of a vital, unifying cultural substrate…we may be past any reclamation of the verities of the 20th century. Doesn’t mean we can’t build and learn.
“The challenges to freedom did not occur quickly…”
I think the “challenges” were there from the beginning, from when the far-off colonists began to feel more and more cut off from those making the laws in England while using the colonies to their own advantage.
And the regional differences in those challenges were markedly different. Virginia was England’s client colony, a commercial enterprise run by moneyed interests, a place to put those 2nd and 3rd sons who would never inherit the family titles and who refused (or hadn’t the aptitude) for Holy Orders. Thus the Cavaliers with their heavy burden of knowing one’s place in the order of things…things in England, transplanted to Virginia and the Carolinas. When England’s merchant backers for the Virginia ‘enterprise’ forced slavery onto the dominion, the Massachusetts colony was ready to step in with ships to supply the slaves to the lower colonies and to the Caribbean. They returned with rum & molasses & fruit …and later tobacco and cotton. By the time England got religion and suddenly “saw” the evils of slavery, by some strange coincidence there were enough domestic slaves in the colonies to reproduce and allow for a growing agrarian economy, one that was labor intensive. And one in which slavery had become so woven into the tapestry of the warmer South that the fabric couldn’t be undone.
There were slaves in the north also, but never to the extent they existed in the South.It wasn’t virtue: both climate and geography in New England prevented the huge plantation system with its extended growing season for tobacco and cotton and produce that traveled well.
Even today the same quiet up-close conflict between/among the European states re oil is not qualitatively different from their previous paranoid scramble for the New World’s cotton and tobacco. England, the leader in textile manufacturing, more or less won that battle. And their workers were also slaves. You wouldn’t be caned for leaving those 14 hour/6 days a week mill jobs with the overwhelming noise, toxic air, and light deprivation. But if you left, you were free to starve. The Poor Houses established to take care of the unemployed/unemployable were grim places where families were separated from one another as policy.
it is fascinating to watch what aspects of the past are gone over with a fine tooth comb while equally ugly events are ignored into oblivion.
The basic ‘faults’, factions, fissioning has never stopped. We were simply able to ignore them for so long because of our prosperity. That economic plenty is ending; the current cohort of young people – say 18 to 40 – can remember what used to be (family vacations, lots of material comforts) as they face their own economic strictures of down-sized, part-time or contract work. We have become like Europe now as the fastest growing sector for employment is the government or goverment sub-contractor work. I remember Western Europeans who lived through the deprivations of the 30s and 40s saying that the only jobs worth having were as “civil service clerks”. If you family had enough pull, or you were lucky to find such a placement, you didn’t leave. That sounds like America now: grown kids with lots of college debt returning home.
When I talk to these kids, a lot of them say they’re not going to bother to vote, that it’s all fixed anyway and a pox on all their houses. Meanwhile, their parents are looking for a fix-it guy, a strong man who will bring back better times, times when saved money actually earned interest. They want someone who can dismantle the federal behemoth.
Whoever is unlucky enough to be in office when the whole house of cards – especially fiat money – comes crashing down will be blamed for a broken system just because it finally died on their watch. The problems that began back with FDR, pushed along by LBJ’s welfare state, & the mortgage fraud by the banksters will finally mature and explode over us all. I hope we can hang together as it begins to come apart ever more rapidly.
The age of the market bubble credentialed insist unalienable Rights voters not abandon them now just as they are about to secure Affirmative-Action for “conservatives” too. My masters are you mad?
I’m 2 yrs late, but since Doug Ross is linking to this today….One important thing we can do about language is stop promoting google. If we say “look it up” or “research it,” we are not advertising and promoting an entity that is against us and trying to silence us.