Cake or Death?

Well, that was fun. Yesterday’s post was one of those I wrote because I had to. It was forced on me by whatever the h*ll it is that makes me write my novels. If I hadn’t written I would become unable to write anything.

I wish whatever the h*ll that is had more sense, because… well, that was fun.

I wrote more than two thousand words so I could carefully explain my reasoning and my motives, and make people understand that this was not what I would PREFER but the only way we can deal with unpleasant reality. Also, that frankly the “let it burn” and “third party” roots have the hallmarks of a false flag operation encouraging them. Which frankly ladies and gents, I DO know about and can smell a mile off. The other side always uses them.

For my pains I was told I’m an “incrementalist” and that I respect authority and that I am mushy and that haven’t I seen that Boehner is the worst thing evah, evah, and the only choice is to start shooting.

That was fun. Have you got it out of your systems, now? Good.

Perhaps now you’ll listen.

When the kids were little Dan and I had a question guaranteed to stop them mid screaming fit (even justified ones against real injustice) “What are you going to gain by this?”

So that is our question for the various options. But first let’s examine the root of the problem and why I think you’re being led on by a false flag operation of posting sneering comments saying “I’m done.”

My main reason for thinking this is that it was in place before this vote. It was in place before the November elections. It has made comments on some blogs places I no longer venture into. It let up a little after November (had to, right?) but by December, it was back.

That’s neither a sane response, nor a response to something that just happened. It’s a campaign, all over, pushing you like cattle in one direction. We’ll examine that direction in a moment.

Look, I’m the first to admit I’d love for the Republicans to get in and to say “Excuse Me, Mr. President, what the hell do you think you’re doing with the executive orders?”

But what good would it do? His ethnicity makes him unimpeacheable. The fact we impeached Clinton makes him unimpeachable. And as we learned with Clinton impeaching a president who has no shame and whose base has no shame does NOT remove him. And yep, the press will paint us as just impeaching democrats not because they’re bottomless pits of corruption, but because we disagree with them.

Now, the latest debacle. It will tell you something even I who am a political junky don’t understand the full mechanics of the senate. BUT from my comments I glean that defeating the damn thing was never on the books. What was on the books was a nuclear option, which would force the dems to decide not to fund DHS, which they couldn’t do.

Our side is afraid of the nuclear option. Yes, it’s stupid. But our side is.

However in the end the horror would have passed, anyway.

And there’s tons of complications to that thing. It’s not like someone brought a bill saying “Do you want to approve Obama’s immigration action?” That’s not how life works. It was embedded in a DHS bill. And if you don’t fund the DHS now, you get to be blamed by Obama when his several setups for an attack pay off.

Take a deep breath and realize what you’re hearing from the press, not even on our side, where we’re influenced by how the mainstream press reports it, is not the full story. Then go investigate. Will you change your mind? I don’t know. I don’t have the time to pour into procedures and details and be sure that they had no other option. BUT if it’s that important to you that you’re considering a third party over it, then go study it. It’s the least you can do before taking such a step (and that’s just a fraction of what it would take to let it burn or go all shooty.) If you don’t do that, consider there’s a good chance you’re being played by the usual way the media reports such things.

Okay, leaving that aside and keeping in mind that the “third party” and “let it burn chorus” was in place before this vote, let’s go back to the basics.

Third party. What do you expect to get by this?

It will split a party that at its best has about 50% of the vote. It has more of the population/values, but that’s not relevant. It’s the vote that matters. And the vote is influenced by rogue IRS agents and by the corrupt media too.

What is more important, HOW is your magical party going to avoid the fate of the Tea Party which got demonized with LIVs in… two years? Tops?

Yeah, the Republican brand sucks. So will any other that is not democrat. Until and unless we take down the media, that’s what we have to work with.

But beyond that – what do you expect to accomplish by saying “I will never vote for a republican again?” or “I’m going third party?”

I know what you think you can accomplish. You think the GOP will fall in line.


What you’re saying is “I’m going to keep the dems in power for the rest of our natural lives.”

You know what the unprincipled (most establishment) GOP hears when you say that? “I’d better cozy up to the left because they’re the future. Let me see what I can concede today. I sure would like to keep my job as the loyal opposition.”

Is that what you want? No? Change your tactics.

And frankly I think that’s what the false flag intended to do on all the prominent conservative blogs, give the squishes in power the idea their own hope and support are the dems. Those comments not only need to not get support, they need to be laughed at.

Have you considered instead starting a group, a campaign, a money collection, and a list (perhaps public) of people who need to be primaried, where their names are added when they step out of line?

Why not? It’s more work, but more effective. As in, compared to screaming you’re leaving, which might accomplish the other side of what you expect.

As for “let it burn”… Guys, we’re not communists. Communists have a (I think in America crazy) faith that if they let it burn what will come back is them, because they are a brutal dictatorship. When you let things burn, everytime in history, what comes back is a brutal dictatorship.

I know what you’re hoping to accomplish there, I do. You want to wipe away fifty years of school indoctrination with a really hard winter.

Guys, I lived through this. I lived through the hard times. You know what people taught to trust and believe in authority do when times are hard? Revolt? You got to be fracking kidding me. They scream for more and more help and for “Someone ought to do something.”

Eventually someone does. Humanity is disastrously prone to the man on the white horse syndrome. Pray we don’t get one here. He’d probably be from the right, yeah, which is where the communists are wrong, but right or left dictators are dictators.

And civil war… It’s something my friend Bill Reader and I often talk about. “Why hasn’t the civil cold war turned hot yet?”

Because we’re emulsified. Because there’s no distinct division. Because the tribal markers are all mixed. Last time I went to vote, I found myself sneering internally that all those women in line were voting dem for sure: middle aged, overweight, wearing colorful clothes, obviously “intellectual” workers (I lived in a college neighborhood.) And then I realized I looked just like them. Because I too am middle aged and an intellectual worker.

Civil war might come. I’m not saying it won’t. I confess in my darker times, I think of the lines in Starship Troopers “And then the veterans had had enough. Coming home from a war they weren’t allowed to win….” And if the US military took over, at least they’d give it back eventually. Almost for sure.

But war is not something that should ever be considered lightly. And I know you imagine it all as shooting government officials. But it wouldn’t be like that. All modern insurrection movements end up doing things like bombing school buses. Now it might be because they’re leftist bastards. Or it might be the logic of the situation.

But if we go that way, the chances are that 90% of the outcomes are that it will burn.

So, am I saying to go along and be good little sheeple?

You guys have to be kidding.

I’m saying we need something like the tea parties (we can even call it the same and tell the mass media to stow it.) We need to demonstrate, remonstrate, primary. People in the establishment GOP need to know we’re not going away but we don’t like them. So they can start behaving, or we’ll pull them down.

That troublesome base the media keeps pitying the GOP for? Yeah, we need to be that.

And we need to be smart about the news and smart about blogs and not accidentally lend weight to the other side by making our squishes think the left is their only hope.

And we need to work. At media, at education, at entertainment. The tide is turning, and pushing the boat in now will work.

Is it less satisfying than the other options. Oh, for sure. I too sometimes just want the grand, simple solution.

But life is never a choice between cake or death. Life is more usually a choice between shit and slightly more shit. In this case the slightly more shit is poisoned too, and leads to dying suffocated in an outhouse. But that doesn’t mean the other choice can be cake and ice cream with sprinkles.

It took them 100 years to get here. 100. We’ve been fighting for 6. I know the individualists fail to organize, but guys, can we manage ten more?

There is hope in time, even if all we can do is move them a little to the right. The GOP RINOS and squishes are by and large older than us. And as for the Dems, the truly malignant ones are OLD. Princess cheekbones is their “young” hope. They can’t dip into the younger generations, because those are fracking crazy identity warriors or very, very dumb. They’re mommy and daddy’s daughters who never questioned anything.

Why is third party or letting it burn such an almighty hurry? My grandmother had a saying, “For the bad life, short times.” War or letting it burn or third party, all mean the dems in power and really bad times. Postponing the evil day and working from inside on changing the gorram GOP and the culture for ten years won’t be pleasant. Many times you’ll wish to beat your head on concrete because it hurts less. But neither of them involves total dem control or mass death.

Ten years. Can we try that?

You see guys, I can’t let it burn. America is my heart and my soul. It burns, I burn. It goes down for the long count and it might be more merciful if I die then.

I have nowhere else to go. I stand here. It’s my last stand.

If it comes to fighting, I’ll fight. If it comes to the end, I’ll hold the idea of America in my heart and try to teach my descendants well.

But it might not have to fall, and might not have to burn.

And all it takes is a little patience, a lot of work, and more work, and more work.

It’s worth a try.

If it doesn’t work, you can always burn it later.  That option is always on the table.

Ask yourself “What do you expect to accomplish with this?” And see if the results are in line with what you want. And if not, think again.

Cromwell for obvious reasons is not one of my heroes. Nonetheless, I find myself quoting him: I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.

871 thoughts on “Cake or Death?

  1. I had to drop out of the prior “conversation” as it was getting nutty. [Frown]

    1. heh, I went from deleting a comment that would have been 4th or 5th to coming back to find 500+, reading through and seeing the issue as I think Milady Sarah does … Shortsightedness, for the most part. Add the Moby action and the shortsighted as too easily driven in ways advantageous to the leftoids.

  2. Why hasn’t the cold civil war turned hot yet?

    IMHO, it’s because the people who would be doing the shooting know what a real cluster*uck it will turn out to be. You really don’t want to be killing your neighbors or your family.

      1. This right here. It’s nowhere near bad enough for me to want to start shooting Americans yet. We’re almost through the obama administration. That doesn’t mean i think the republican party is recoverable though.

      2. I’m less idealistic. The cold civil war hasn’t turned hot because everyone still has too much to lose if it does.
        The day welfare or social security checks don’t go out, that changes

        1. The cold civil war hasn’t turned hot because everyone still has too much to lose if it does.

          Too much to lose? That would be “everything”, including what you’d supposedly be fighting for.

          1. Yes.

            Don’t get me wrong, I was surprised that there wasn’t insurrection when Clinton destroyed the logging industry, or when Bush stole irrigation water from farmers whose livelihoods depended upon it.
            These were impressive displays of restraint, that only emboldened further abuses.
            On the flipside, active resistance could well have removed the velvet glove from the iron fist.
            Sadly, I think we’re past the point where there are many good choices left.
            But a Civil War is a truly horrible thing. Things would have to get very bad indeed for it to be the least of evils.
            I think the above examples (and a few more I’m pretty sure you can come up with) demonstrate that if there is to be one, our “side” is unlikely to be the one that starts it.
            IMO the urban underclass is the most likely flashpoint, and it isn’t against we rednecks out in the hinterlands that they’ll direct their rage.

            1. Don’t get me wrong, I was surprised that there wasn’t insurrection when Clinton destroyed the logging industry, or when Bush stole irrigation water from farmers whose livelihoods depended upon it.

              Both of those, if the water one is places like Klamath, aren’t things that were done by the President. They’re things that were done by bureaucracies, which are much harder to get opposition to, because they are…well, squishy. They were also done under the guise of things that sounded very nice.

              The various attacks on the logging industry are starting to get nasty, because the federal payments that were supposed to make up for them taking away the logging…aren’t, anymore. And the costs from dealing with 20-some years of putting out fires and not cleaning anything up, plus the last ten or fifteen years of actively fighting minor cleanups like when folks lease the grazing rights, are mounting.
              That’s before you add in things like the eco-nuts that deny permission to put out a fire because it was set by lightning, even though it’s the height of summer and there’s a team on site, asking for permission, and cause the largest fire in Washington state history.
              (Carlton Complex Fire, just last summer. There’s articles about the little old lady who lost the house her late husband built, and everything in it, including her cat; she’s the grandma for a couple of my classmates. The only reason she didn’t die is that her daughter in law was there helping her try to pack and her son was up the kill doing a fire line, but it wasn’t enough. If you go to the Farmer’s Market in Twisp, she’s the sweet little– really little, a couple of inches shorter than me!— gal selling paintings, to the left if your back is towards the road.)

    1. Make a list of those that you personnally know (not politicians, voters) that would need to be removed from the body politic either through disenfranchising, or shooting. (In most cases, perhaps all, that would be by shooting.) Look at how many of your friends and/or people that you like are on that list. Think about it.

        1. Half a million or so. Someone once told me my articles before the 12 election got me on the BIG enemy’s list. I hope so. All the best people are.

      1. You know, that is not the incentive you think it is. I got to thinking about that, relatives, yes; people I do business with, yes; but I can honestly say that of everybody I know (in meatspace) there is not a single friend or ‘person I like’ who I have talked to regularly in the last six years that would have made that list in 2008 who has not either a) changed their worldview and thus removed themselves from the list or b) so alienated me that they no longer qualify as either friend or person I like.

        Obama has been EXTREMELY good at one thing, that is in widening divisions between Americans.

        Mauser on the other hand has an extremely good point, I suspect I am on the vast majority of other people’s lists. 🙂

        1. It’s also a somewhat of a false dichotomy, for those of us of the Christian persuasion, as the Christ makes it quite clear in all four Gospels that belief in Him comes before family ties. Belief in Him also happens to preclude socialism, so….

          1. Belief in Christ precludes Socialism? I’m not sure I buy that. Belif in Christ may preclude the kind of cooercive Statism that the Left wants, which is where Socialism seems to end up when prqcticed on a national scale, but that’s a little different. History shows several examples of fine Christian communities that practiced Collectivism in one form or another. The U.S. produced them regularly, throughout the 19th Century. OK, some of them were spectacular failures, but some weren’t. The Amana colony in Iowa comes to mind.

            1. The Apostles did too, and couldn’t make it work even with God for an auditor. I posted on that a while back.

              1. I’m a Christian, but I don’t think Christianity precludes socialism. Reality precludes socialism working. Note that even those “successes” of socialism are examples of tight-knit little societies, that still only managed to be a “success” by placing themselves in the middle of a big, tolerant, capitalistic society who was willing to not only tolerate them, but to do business with them, and to take on such minor chores as protecting them from the rest of the world.

                They were like a ten year old running a “successful” lemonade stand. Sure they made a profit over what they invested in lemonade concentrate and water, but they were only “successful” because their parents provided them a place to live, and all their meals, and their community protects ten year old kids, so that somebody didn’t steal all their profits.

            2. I rather like the way the CCC puts it, as the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.”

              By intent, the terms are rather squishy; it’s basically the family structure expanded way beyond where it can possibly function.

    2. Exactly. And perhaps also because we refuse to be provoked – knowing that those doing the provoking are doing it deliberately, so that they will then have a ready excuse to come down like a ton of bricks.

      1. Provoke them. Force them to overreach, and raise the temperature faster than the frog will tolerate.

        1. Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.
          H. L. Mencken
          US editor (1880 – 1956)

      2. Be on the watch for them to stage something “justifying” a crackdown if their agents provocateur not manage to generate sufficient response. They’ve already attempted it in Florida, Missouri and New York and are using the results to push nationalization of the police.

        “Federal judges and attorneys now routinely urge the appointment of monitors and the imposition of consent decrees to permit them to assume authority over wide swaths of local policing.

        “In his final days as US attorney general, Eric Holder has suggested lowering the standard of proof in civil-rights cases to make it easier to bring federal charges against an accused police officer.

        “As Holder put it last week, “We can make the federal government a better backstop, make this more a part of the process . . . to reassure the American people that decisions are made by people who are really disinterested.”

        “Incidents that were once only of local interest are now fodder for the national news.”
        Thomas A. Reppetto is past president of the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City and a former commander of detectives in the Chicago PD.

        1. “As Holder put it last week, “We can make the federal government a better backstop, make this more a part of the process . . . to reassure the American people that decisions are made by people who are really disinterested.”

          So we are to comforted in the assurance that people who are disinterested, bureaucrats working in departments who we cannot hold accountable, will make better decisions?

          Pull the other one, I’m limping.

  3. “I’m saying we need something like the tea parties (we can even call it the same and tell the mass media to stow it.) We need to demonstrate, remonstrate, primary. People in the establishment GOP need to know we’re not going away but we don’t like them. So they can start behaving, or we’ll pull them down.”

    this is something I can get behind, but the new candidate HAS to have integrity, or we’re right back to where we started. And a Constitutional convention is pretty much the same as letting it burn. It will fundamentally change this nation, and not likely for the better. There aren’t enough small government types, yet, to push through a decent Constitution and we’d likely end up with more statist hell.

    1. I keep telling people that the time to actually influence the process is in the primaries, not the general election. The general election is when you vote for your “team” not the person. You pick the people during the primaries.

      1. Given that they have the party rules and election law rigged in their favor, and are willing to play dirty even with those advantages, as they did in Mississippi … are you willing to pull them down even if they get past the primary – even if it means we have to endure a Democrat in the office for a term – if they refuse to act in a consistently-principled manner?

        If not, you may never be rid of them, for they are far more equipped to overcome primary opposition than opposition in the general.

        1. It’s hard, but hardly impossible. Mike Lee is a senator because of a primary challenge. Mia Love lost three years ago, won last year, and is already in trouble for 2016. I understand that even in New York they are getting the representatives that reflect the district, and expect them to act accordingly. I don’t think that Mississippi will have the same problem with their elections next time that they did this time. People may be slow to anger, but they push back pretty hard when they get there.

          1. Except Mike Lee took them by surprise, and they’re still trying to get rid of him.

            The Republican party campaigned much harder against insurgents in the primaries than they ever have against Democrats in the general.
            I don’t expect this to change.

            1. The establishment will fight to keep its place? You think we’re giving us news? We KNOW we’re fighting a two-front war. It’s still better than surrendering.

              1. OTOH, do you realize how few people volunteering to be precinct captains and the like are needed to take over a local party? We need to slow down and make the long march, not charge forward and scare the sheeple.

        2. Yes, children, if you’re not going to kill them all, you’re gonna have to cope with them. Which means playing chess. Think some moves ahead. Figure you *will* lose some pieces.

          1. Which means playing chess. Think some moves ahead.

            That door swings both ways. Keep in mind that Progressive implosions will drive people away from them IF there is a credible alternative to them.

            OTOH, if that alternative is not consistently principled, not only is he/she is less likely to be considered credible by the people … it is easier for their opponents to paint them with stereotypes like out-of-touch and bought-by-the-rich-and-powerful.

            1. Yes. The central logic behind putting the Socialists in charge is that they will overreach. They can’t help themselves. Without “bipartisan” cover, they’ll overreach faster, and farther, and they’ll be the poster children.

              Ultimately, they can’t organize an orgy in a whorehouse.

                1. Can they? As you keep reminding us, this isn’t Europe. Especially if they get encouragement to overreach. One of the things you’ve been telling us, and it’s true, is that they can’t stand mockery.

                  1. no and we’re more prickly than Europe. BUT we are, the young kids aren’t. Don’t get me started on the young’uns I know. They can grow used to the idea that decline is a thing. The problem about “hitting bottom” is that we keep redifining bottom. Right now close to 30% of the working age population is sitting out or underemployed. But we’re told we have 5% unemployement and it’s all flowers and ice cream. Would you know bottom when we hit it.
                    Yeah yeah the debt. Hon, even Greece goes on, and they’re not eating each other on the streets. Unless you think we’re on the Venezuela track, and I don’t.

                    1. Item: for most recipients it is no longer embarrassing to be suckling at the government teat. A bare forty years ago wearing a “Welfare Coat” was acutely embarrassing; nowadays it is a mark of successfully gaming the system. “Welfare Queen” has gone from badge of shame to pride achievement in the three decades since Reagan’s presidency.

                      Rust never sleeps, nor can we afford to.

                2. Europe has survived despite its embrace of “social democracy”, the way I see it, because so many within it are willing to support it – at a significant expense to their liberty and prosperity that is holding them back from greater things, be they achievement or quality of life – while still being able to benefit from the global economy.

                  (That, and because they didn’t have to spend as much to prevent being grafted into the Soviet socialized-medicine system (among other things) … thanks to Americans like my great uncles, who lived for three decades with Minuteman II silos dispersed all around their farms in western Missouri.)

                  And you can correct me if I’m wrong, but I see that willingness to submit as having some basis in their own flavor of Progressive profit-phobia, mixed with lower expectations for their own lives and a higher level of trust in the Powers That Be … perhaps all driven by the perceived need to prove to the rest of the world that they are no longer warmongering/colonialist empires driven by profit for the rich among them.

                  I don’t think you can count, in this day and age of computer-driven stock trading and just-in-time commerce, on the crash coming slowly … and once it comes, consequences on an existential level could come at VERY short notice, given the technological capabilities of rogue states vs. an American military that, by then, may not have support of a robust American economy and/or be a generation or two behind in technology themselves because of shifting the gun/butter balance towards butter.

                  1. Europe has survived despite its embrace of “social democracy”, because of America. Period. Dot.

                    1. And they all have an arrogant love of their own country, no matter how messed up it is. The left in the US hate their country with a demented passion. that’s the important difference. Sarah, does even the farthest left Portuguese hate Portugal?

                  2. Italy is looking at their pitiful remnant of a military and the very much not vast distance separating themselves from IS in Libya, and wondering how many of the refugees streaming in are actual refugees.

                    Then there’s this:

                    George Friedman has a reputation as a geopolitical thinker, one who tries to work out the balance of forces in today’s world. Stratfor, the consultancy he founded some 20 years ago, puts out highly regarded and mostly speculative studies. He is the author of several books, the latest of which is Flash Points, whose subtitle — The Emerging Crisis in Europe — gives away the game. Opening chapters describe how Europe took its time to become the standard-bearer of civilization, only to throw everything away in the 31 deadly years between 1914 and 1945. In the turmoil, he and his family — originally Hungarian — escaped the Nazis and the Communists only by chance.

                    In Friedman’s view, Germany is once more unsettling Europe. Of course Germans do not want to go to war, but because of national character and geography they are the strongest power among a lot of lesser nation-states unable to handle it. Playing the part that has come their way, Germans are “simultaneously afraid of what they have achieved and tremendously proud of it,” as Friedman puts it. Chance again: The collapse of the Soviet Union granted Germany a free hand. Vladimir Putin should not be seen as a bad man but merely a realist doing what anyone in his position would do: pushing to recover lost ground. Invading and taking possession of parts of Georgia, Putin discovered that “NATO’s military capacity is minimal,” as Friedman sums it up. The fighting in Ukraine is thus part of the process of drawing the line between Russia and Germany on the west of the continent, the line that Hitler and Stalin so disastrously failed to draw. Poland and the Baltic republics are likely to be tested next.

                    The European Union is another institution with minimal capacity. Its foundational promise of peace and prosperity was an attractive illusion. The breakup of Yugoslavia and the current financial crisis show that national sovereignty trumps any common European purpose. “Shambles” is the term Friedman applies to the EU. Belgium, Spain, and the United Kingdom contain forces of disintegration. France has become a kind of wraith.

        3. No franchise in team sports has ever been able to assemble all the best players of their time, not even the richest. (Steinbrenner’s Yankees anyone?) Sometimes you play with the people you get. Meanwhile you hope the young talent you are developing in the minors mature.

          We have reason to hope — there is an overwhelming tide of conservatives coming up in the state legislatures. Let’s see what we can do to support, encourage and help them maintain their conservative principles.

          1. And, while there are a lot of youngsters (school age) swallowing what the media puts out hook line and sinker, we’re starting to get a generation who sees the cracks and once past the age of stupid may start thinking, especially with the availability of information currently out there.

    2. I belive Milton Friedman said something to the effect that you can’t rely on voting in good people, you need to set up the system such that even bad people act in a good way.

      I don’t care if a politician has no principle beyond winning the next election, so long as the system makes it clear that voting with Progressives is a surefire way to lose the next election.

      1. Friedman was not the first. Why do you think that we got a government with three branches? The founder’s did not assume that we could rely on the kindness of strangers — or even of friends.

      2. This is why political whores are not necessarily a terrible thing. Sure I would rather have someone with the same principles as me, almost everyone would, problem is not everyone’s principles are the same. If you can’t get someone with your principles in office, the next best thing is to hire a whore, who will do whatever the client (you, the voter) pays them to do.

          1. Well yeah, that is kind of the nature of the beast. I was going to continue the metaphor by mentioning how you need to punish them when they don’t stay bought, but decided to be polite.

          2. I know RAH defined an “honest politician” as one who stays bought; don’t know if he lifted that from elsewhere or drafted it hisself.

    3. No, the new camdidate does not need integrity. In fact an out and out scoundrel might be what we need, if he was the right kind of scoundrel. The nation has survived its share of scoundrels and fools.

      The key is that it took a long time for the Republican establishment to become Democrat Lite. It will take as long to go back,or forward, to what we might like.

      We’re getting there in the State level, at least in some states. Walker could not have been elected Govorner in the 70’s.

      I really think that the LIRPs power peaked with the ousting of Nixon (who was a RINO domestically, except he loathed the hippies). They fumbled the next election and got Carter. Since then they have been losing, slowly. They spend more political capitol than they get back. Consistantly. Obamacare was supposed to pay them dividends for decades. Instead it’s become a political liability. Their efforts to teal elections are getting sloppier each cycle.

      Oh, we can’t just sit back and wait, but we haven’t real cause for despair either.

      The LIRPs never got a real hold on the military. They don’t understand it well enough, and hate studying it. They failed to disarm the publc. The Education complex is shakey and getting worse. Healthcare is a mess, and after Obamacare’s train wreck they’ll have a hard time selling the next iteration.

      Keep calm and your powder dry.

  4. In a related way, I was talking to my wife about Secretary Clinton’s email issues and if it might lead to criminal prosecution. In the course of the conversation she stated that she was fairly certain the Gov Perry would be convicted for vetoing the funding for the Travis Country DA. My response was that if Rick Perry (whom I am not a huge fan of) was convicted then I was going to move out of Texas…and then I thought…where would I move to? Its like after the 2012 election when one of my ebulient liberal friends asked me where I would move to since the country was doomed.

    1. Just a note. If you really want to irritate liberals, never ever refer to her by her job title, or using her first name. Always, always, call her Mrs. Clinton, or even Mrs. Bill Clinton if you really want to get on their nerves. And, they can’t even accuse you of being disrespectful..

    2. It is a local jury and judge — they can convict anybody. Not getting laughed out of the appellate court is a different matter, but they could likely stall an appeal long enough (cough*Ted Stevens* cough) to disrupt a Perry presidential campaign.

      Nowhere near long enough to keep him out of the cabinet, however. Nothing saying the AG has to have a law degree, is there?

  5. ding,ding,ding,ding,ding,
    See, this is why you’re the writer and I am just a reader. You say what I am thinking so much better than I.
    People keep wanting PERFECT. There is NO PERFECT. Why?
    Because what I find perfect is in no way what others would find as perfect. Might be close, but it won’t ever be perfect.
    What say we work at getting closer to perfect instead of going the opposite way freaking intentionally, huh?

  6. Amen! Two things. We have been fighting for over 40 years, and have been successful. See how far we have come on Gun Rights, from an almost universal ban in most places, coupled with the twattle about “Only in a Militia! You have to follow government rules to have a gun!” from the Supreme Court, to an almost universal concealed carry. And in the process, getting the Supreme Court to roll back the “Commerce Clause” some. Amazing, and something the “Real Republicans(TM)” should be doing cartwheels over. By rights, the American experiment should have been over when the Supreme Court said D.C. could stop you from growing a potato for your own use……

    I agree that it’s a false flag operation. I think the Democrats are trying to “break the logjam”. The Republicans, “RINOs” and all, have stopped the ACA cold. An incredible act of political will, and if the base were to actually notice it, and start respecting and working with the party, the Democrats would be SOL. And the Democrats want National Health Care, so bad. The Republicans stopped them from using the “Commerce Clause” to get the Totalitarian government they burn for, and having the power of life and death is their end-run. If they can’t get it, then the Republicans just might be successful in returning us to a pre-Wilson level of Freedom.

    Why hasn’t the cold war gone hot? Because things are getting better, if you pay attention, and the people who would actually be doing the fighting pay attention. Nothing like getting hanged in a fortnight to focus the mind….

    1. “The Republicans, “RINOs” and all, have stopped the ACA cold. ”

      They did? What did they do? All I’ve seen is court cases affecting ACA, not legislation.

        1. Ah. I was not claiming the Republicans had destroyed the ACA. It still exists. But they are not allowing any modifications to it, “Stopping it cold”. Thus the alarming number of Executive Orders from Obama stopping various elements of the ACA from being implemented. Rather funny, when you think of it…….

      1. Ah, the ACA was written very quickly, in the dark of the night, and lacking any coherent oversight, was written very badly. The Democrats just needed a bill, any bill. Any problems or mistakes would be fixed “Post-Production”. See, for example, the case before the Supreme Court right now, about the exchanges. The Democrats bragged about how the states HAD to set up exchanges if they wanted the money. Alas, now that it is clear the States aren’t going to do so, they are reduced to trying to claim their previous public statements were just lies. What they want to do, of course, is just “fix” that little problem, but the Republicans are holding the line, and they don’t have the votes. So they are reduced to dancing in front of the Supreme Court. There are many examples like this, but they aren’t “sexy” or visible, because the Democrats can count votes, and they don’t have them. If the “RINOs” were as corrupt and venial as everyone thinks, there would be votes. Heck, even the principled must shake a little, seeing what the “Justice” department did to Sen. Ted Stevens, and yet they have not broken. Wow, we are truly blessed with better Republicans then we deserve.

        1. As the then Speaker said, We had to pass the law to find out what was in it. One of her rare moments of candor: the intent clearly was to rewrite it ad infinitum until it got us to single payer (however many insurance companies acted as fronts for the payer.) Like any good whitewash job, you have to keep painting it over until the dirt underneath doesn’t show through.

        1. Tell me which parts have been removed from effect … as opposed to hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles, just waiting for the media to persuade the Republicans to get out of the way.

          1. None. The ACA has been stopped cold, but removed? Don’t Have The Votes. Period. Any attempt now will just be vetoed, and we will be demonized in the process. Removed requires the Presidency. It is, again, the Cold Equations. And it is why Sarah is so correct that this is the time to get more Republicans elected, as opposed to pushing for the only chance the ACA has to thrive, a third party……

            1. Problem is, the Establishment GOP has a history of not reversing legislated Progressive overreach, even when they do have the power to do so, with a few exceptions like 1990’s welfare reform.

              They are too enamored of the virtual-reality game of politics, to be counted upon to deal with the real world … yet they have rigged that virtual-reality game to stay in power.

              1. When has the “Establishment” GOP had the numbers to reverse legislated Progressive overreach? The system is designed for a devoted minority to stop the majority, and reversing any legislation breaks someone’s bowl, so most Republican majorities weren’t. And the “Establishment” still managed reverse things (your “few exceptions”). Given that the Permanent Government is completely Leftist, and the Press has been completely Leftist for generations, I think this actually speaks very well of the Republicans. This is not the time for “DOOOOM”, this is the time to use new media, and the internet, to push over the rotten edifices, and see what we can do when we are in control of more then one branch out of five!

                1. When has the “Establishment” GOP had the numbers to reverse legislated Progressive overreach?

                  In Congress, from 1994 to 2001, and from 2003 to 2006 – and when they tried in those few exceptions, they did it.

                  In the White House, from 2000 to 2008 … and I have my doubts that the GOP Congress today will muck up the machinations of President Putt Putt to anywhere near the same degree that the Dems did with Mr. Bush.

                  They had the freakin’ Trifecta from 2003 to 2006 … and while the wars were admittedly distracting, we got Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind when we should have got an open ANWR and Social Security reform passed. And do we really want to talk about “comprehensive” immigration reform as the GOP was seeking back then?

                  The system is designed for a devoted minority to stop the majority, and reversing any legislation breaks someone’s bowl, so most Republican majorities weren’t.

                  The Dems found the way around that with the PPACA … and the GOP refuses to play by the same rules, now that they are in power.

                  As for “DOOOOM” … until our people return to reliance upon the responsible exercise of personal initiative, and our leaders return to consistently-principled governance that is focused upon protecting liberty instead of playing Heroes to stay in power … we are in peril no matter which party holds power and I refuse to lend the credibility of my vote to such Dumboes – let alone Dumbasses – any longer.

                  1. I know I’m harping, it’s a weakness. Nonetheless.

                    …our leaders return to consistently-principled governance that is focused upon protecting liberty instead of playing Heroes to stay in power…

                    How do you expect them to return to a place they’ve never been?

                  2. No, we are not “In peril no matter which party holds power”. There is a vast difference in the two. Name the Republican Detroit. Name the Democrat Palin. While I am often annoyed by the Republicans, they are evil on a human scale. The Democrats are EVIL. Concentration camps and Infanticide vs. reform slower then I would like. There is NO comparison.

                    1. The Republican Detroit? It may end up being the entire United States, if the GOP continues to maintain the Blue Model delusion in the name of media/identity politics and their own comfort with the delusion.

                      I too like Sarah, and would love to see her as head of the EPA in a Walker Administration. But they are only two out of many … and neither are the real problem: the “gatekeepers” who protect the Good Ol’ Boys who wouldn’t be caught dead going out on a limb like these two have.

                      I really want Walker to be our next President … but will the gatekeepers allow it?

                      If one kills with malice, while the other stands idly by in the name of politics while the people are left starving and deluded … we get dead people, ether way.

                      And to let that happen, when the people could be informed of reality instead of living in their leaders’ delusion, is unconscionable if we truly value life and liberty.

                    2. Actually we are in peril regardless of which party holds power. Just like we are in peril whenever we get behind the wheel of an automobile. But if we pay attention and drive in a reasonable manner we can greatly minimize that peril on Sunday afternoon in July, not paying attention to the Republicans is like tapping a keg in the back and drinking straight from the tap while driving down the road and checking our email. Electing more Progressives or Communists like our current ‘Anointed One’ is like driving the Autobahn at a 120, on black ice, while blindfolded, however.

                      We need to watch whoever is in power, it is just that we need to keep and/or remove some from power regardless how closely they are watched.

                  3. I refuse to lend the credibility of my vote to such Dumboes – let alone Dumbasses – any longer.

                    Don’t sweat it — your vote doesn’t lend much credibility. Nor does mine, nor any one else’s here. It is only when we all vote in the same direction that we gain any credibility. Thus the hysterical response to the TEA Party movement.

              2. The enemy in that case is rational ignorance. It’s a variable state that puts the vast mess of government out of reform reach because people don’t have time to deal with one more crisis right now. The thing about rational ignorance is that you can reorganize government to use modern information systems techniques to inform everybody much more efficiently than at present. this stuff is maybe 20-30 years old and was born in the offices of CEOs of fortune 100 companies who didn’t want to go to jail or lose their jobs. Those people can’t afford rational ignorance.

                For about 10-15 years, there have been open source versions of the tools that CEOs use. Getting those tools into the hands of people is “free stuff” of a non-malignant variety and it’s the progs who would be against it because it would facilitate the elimination of all their prior bad reforms.

                The question then becomes, what do you have to hide? And they have so much to hide.

            2. Not arguing with now being the time to get more Republicans (particularly those with a backbone) elected; but I guess your definition and mine of “stopped cold” or just a leetle different.

              Somehow I think all those other people who have to either buy healthcare or pay a fine (or ignore it if you don’t loan the government money ahead of time, and just pay your taxes at the end of the year) are not going to agree that the ACA was “stopped cold.”

  7. Ross Perot – false flag, split the vote– That’s when I realized that we are too far along this road for a third party. G-d bless our souls.

    1. Oh, we were “too far along this road” almost a century ago. The “Bull Moose” Party gave us Wilson, the American Fascist. Another example of making the Perfect the Enemy of the Good, and ending up with the Evil……

      1. It has nothing to do with how far down a road we are, it’s basic math. With our electoral system where whoever gets the most votes wins and a nationally elected President the only stable conditions are one or two parties. Third parties only throw elections to the unsplit party until one side or the other of the split party is absorbed.

        Now if we had something like IRV we could have third parties (you think Congress is gridlocked now?).

        1. Yep. It is the rules of the game, the Cold Equations. In any “Winner Take All” system, a third party gets the party they disagree with most elected. “The Moving Finger Moves On”…….

          1. Maybe we should start a Progressive Party. Platform of more affirmative action, only women and people of color running for office, repatriations for slavery, single payer health care, Community Reinvestment Act on steroids, representation of felons by color (same % of whites as blacks), anything else moonbatty that we can think of.

            Rip the base right off of the bottom of the Democrats.

            1. Alas, the “Anthill” people are better at politics then the grumpy goats that make up the Republicans. There was a “Progressive” party, the American Communist party. They, evil but not idiots, joined the Democrats and took them over from within. As opposed to the “Real Republicans(TM)”, who are up to what? 7 or 8? parties in their quest for Purity…….

            2. *snort*

              I’m imagining the contortions as the current progressive apparatus looks for the solution to “women and people of color.” Faucahontas writ large.

              Hah! I like it.

            3. It is advisable that 3rd Potty advocates read and reflect upon Orwell’s essay about pacifists being objectively pro-Hitler — and apply it to their own arguments.

              If you truly want an effective 3rd Party, better to support the GREEN Party or the PETA Party and thus divide the Left’s base. The great thing about Lizzie Borden Warren is she drives Hillary (and any other Dem champion) from the Far left into the Lunatic Left. For what shall it profit a candidate to win Massachussetts if by doing so she loses the Industrial Mid-West?

          1. Similar problem in Canada. Lots of parties here, leading to long periods of a party being in power.

    2. I worked with a bunch of ex-EDS employees, heard a lot of “Ross” stories. I’m so glad that he never got elected, he would have been a disaster.

  8. If it comes to fighting, I’ll fight. If it comes to the end, I’ll hold the idea of America in my heart and try to teach my descendants well. But it might not have to fall, and might not have to burn.

    These are exactly the same reasons I am challenging your position on this. I really want to avoid the fall, the burn, and waking up in the ruins of Utopia … and to avoid all that, I think that we have to get the entire population to SERIOUSLY question that century of conventional wisdom the Progressives have embedded so successfully in our society, and challenge it at its most fundamental levels.

    Until our political leadership is willing to do this – in word and deed – playing the virtual-reality game that we call “modern politics” is a dangerous distraction.

    The status quo has to be SUBSTANTIALLY challenged, starting NOW. Because I don’t think we can count on having even just ten years to turn things around.

      1. You and I may be challenging it – I consider my comments here, at Instapundit (as well as on the Professor’s USA Today articles), and elsewhere as part of that effort … by presenting arguments with a sound basis in fundamental principle that might just do a better job at penetrating the rhetorical armor of Progressives. I do so in the hope that other principled souls might find them useful.

        But where are our cultural, economic, and political leaders using their resources to challenge it in substantial ways, using the resources at their disposal to reach farther than you or I can to challenge the status quo?

        They are not willing to even articulate a most fundamental, unpleasant truth – that the paradigm our society has operated under since the end of World War II is based upon a delusion: that an elite few who KnowBetter(TM) can solve our problems FOR us, better than we can ourselves.

        Even many who call themselves “conservative” – including leaders in the GOP – are willing to continue living in that delusion, because certain elements of it bring them profit/pleasure/comfort … and because that, for anyone born after 1945, it is very likely that life in that delusion is all they know.

        They continue to accept that delusion as The Way Things Are and beyond challenge, as we head toward cliffs of intergenerational soico-economic decline and perhaps even World War … cliffs that are closer than even we, let alone our career politicians in EITHER party, think they are.

        Like I said, I don’t think we even have ten years.

        1. But where are our cultural, economic, and political leaders using their resources to challenge it in substantial ways, using the resources at their disposal to reach farther than you or I can to challenge the status quo?

          I — it’s a weird time for me right now, there’s RL stuff, but I’m trying not to bleed anger and whatnot all over the internet. Nevertheless.

          Why do you keep bringing up our “leaders?” Aside from being a misnomer, why do you expect them to take action against their own interests?

          I find a serious disconnect between “outsourcing our responsibilities” and “why don’t our leaders lead?

          1. I expect them to lead, because they have the resources and influence to lead people that won’t listen to you or I away from the cliff of decline … instead of using those same resources, especially their monopoly upon the coercive force of law, to lead us right over it.

            I expect that those I trust to lead, will lead according to the basic interest of each citizen … the interest in a society where they can live free and pursue happiness … before all else, including their own personal benefit.

            And the first step in such leadership is NOT intervening to buffer us from the need to exercise our own responsibilities …. be it managing our own finances, watching out for our own jobs, overseeing the education of our children, and all the other areas where individual responsibility and initiative are the secret sauce of living in a sustainable manner.

            In other words, our leaders need to be telling others what I am telling you and them right now: it is time to stop looking to those deemed “experts” and “leaders” to make our decisions and solve our problems FOR us. Instead, let us engage in the responsible exercise of personal initiative to both take care of ourselves and be our neighbor’s keeper, with proven “experts” advising OUR decisions and our “leaders” focusing on securing the unalienable rights that allow us to engage in that responsible exercise.

            1. Well, there’s the difference. I don’t expect them to lead, I expect them to act according to their self-interest. I hope they might do so consistently.

              I certainly don’t trust them. Trusting them to lead according to the basic interest of each citizen? No.

              They’re people, not the annointed.

              And I find your last paragraph to turn back on an assumption of purity in leadership, an impossibility.

              1. If our leadership can’t limit themselves to their primary and legitimate mission: “to secure these rights”, as stated in our Declaration of Independence … we are fools to lend them our votes and access to government’s monopoly on coercive force.

                Try as we have through the years to limit our leaders through checks and balances, sooner or later the quality of our governance comes down to the “content of their character” … as we have seen graphically in the last few years of “executive actions”.

                No matter which party they come from.

                And right now, because so many among us are predisposed towards merely “following the leader”, we need leaders of good character to help – or at least, not get in the way of – our efforts to return to a nation where responsibility and initiative and wisdom – not credentials and connections and popularity – are the keys to success.

                1. If so many are prone to “following the leader” it’s time to undermine the idea that the political class are leaders.

                  Not foment plans that rely on them being, um — reliable.

                  It’s easy to declare us fools for “lending our votes” or “access to government’s monopoly on coercive force.”

                  Somewhat more difficult to realize the absence of choice. If we fail to “lend our votes” to some faction, the rot will grow unchecked.

                  Nice principles up there on the high road.

                  How’s about getting down here in the muck with the rest of us and help push this car out of the ditch?

                  1. How about we get the GOP Establishment out of the drivers’ seat, so they don’t stand on the brakes while we push?

                    There is only one sure way to do that – not vote for them, unless they start acting substantially with principle, and consistently so.

                    Even in the general, because they are far more capable in the primaries than in the general. If they think they can take us for granted once they get past the primary,

                    Luke, down-thread, describes well what we are up against:

                    I live in the most conservative district in what is famously the most conservative state in the country. I’m represented by corrupt suckweasel. Every attempt at removing this loathsome individual through the primary process has been met with the national Republican party and associated interest groups dumping millions of dollars into helping him retain his seat. The last time around, he was refreshingly honest and his campaign amounted to “the pork, the whole pork, and nothing but the pork”.
                    And he beat us like a rented mule.

                    1. No, the only sure way to do it is to take over the party machinery, to get conservative candidates elected at the low levels where their gatekeeper power is greatly reduced, so that when it comes time to pick the next Senator or governor all of the candidates with the necessary experience are conservatives.

                2. “It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. “

            2. Your problem is a lack of coherence — you denounce our leaders for being dogs while expecting them to act like cats. They will act according to their natures and it is up to us to craft incentive that will direct them properly. Refer back to Milton Friedman, as cited above.

              The government glacier is moving in one direction, crushing all beneath it, and it is absurd to expect anybody to do more than slow its growth — reversing the floe will be a task for many generations. I doubt it will be seriously undertaken until the awful truth about the Ponzi scheme called Social Security becomes undeniable (and never underestimate the public ability to ignore an overwhelming problem.)

              “I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain.”

              Note: his son had to study politics and war as well, as must we, his philosophical descendants. You may not be interested in politics and war, but politics and war are always interested in you — especially when you are not paying attention to them.

              Rust never sleeps.

          2. NOTE: it is easier for a “leader” to play the Hero and promise to solve people’s problems FOR them to garner votes, than it is to garner votes by building a record of securing life and liberty, for the latter is mundane and doesn’t tickle voters’ ears.

    1. I think that we have to get the entire population to SERIOUSLY question that century of conventional wisdom the Progressives have embedded so successfully in our society, and challenge it at its most fundamental levels.

      You’ve issued the challenge, care to define your proposal? How do you plan to get the entire population to do — anything? Sarah said 10 years, I’ll give you 100 years, and you’ll still fail. You’re not bringing the entire population into line. Any mission that starts with the impossible as the first objective is a fool’s errand.

      Until our political leadership is willing to do this – in word and deed – …

      Fuck our “political leadership.” Apologies for the language, but seriously. You’ve got a whole post bemoaning the outsourcing of our personal responsibility and you’re appealing to the political leadership? Politicians need to be brought to heel, leashed and directed. Any expectations of serious direction changes emanating from the political establishment is to misunderstand the nature of politicians and their relationship with their constituencies.

      The status quo has to be SUBSTANTIALLY challenged, starting NOW.

      You’re late to the party, where ya been?

      The status quo is being challenged, frequently substantially. It has been happening. More to the point, Sarah has been issuing those challenges for some time. One of ’em apparently brought you here.

      She’s put her career on the line, opened herself to the scorn and abuse of the stranger nuts in the online fruitcake, stepped up and stood beside her compatriots when they were drawing the heavy fire…

      Do you have something to offer, something to SUBSTANTIALLY challenge the status quo, or are you just after chopping at the foundations of someone who does?

      1. Yes, I do.

        Start by telling the truth about our condition, and demanding that our leaders do the same even when it places their careers at risk … making it clear WHY it is the truth … as well as ACTING in accordance with that truth.

        What I see right now, from most, is opposition to selected symptoms of the Progressive/Blue Model delusion – while other attributes are tolerated when not embraced.

        Try putting employers and unions on EQUAL footing in the eyes of the law, instead of giving EITHER preferences and loopholes in the eyes of the law that allow their operation as money-laundering machines for politicians. It can be done … Scott Walker has successfully worked towards this. Where are our leaders at the Federal level doing the same?

        Try getting government out of the compassion-and-care businesses … from welfare to health care to Medicare … even though government, by its very structure and the human limitations of its operatives, is rendered incapable of doing jobs effectively and efficiently, as we have seen via the Great Society welfare state, the PPACA, and the balance sheets of Social Security and Medicare.

        Try identifying the Department of Education as the Department of Redundancy and pushing for its shutdown as such.

        Try identifying the Department of Commerce as the Department of the Chamber of Commerce and paring it and its potential for crony capitalism back. BTW, I think that future leaders will have to do this before they EVER attempt to scale back the other government interventions I talk about above, just to establish their credibility as something other than a shill for the rich-and-powerful.

        I have been told by others to “grow up” … guess what? We all have to “grow up” and face the truth NOW, before the delusion leads us to intergenerational decline. And if men/women want to be called “leaders”, they need to lead the nation to this truth.

        1. Those are fairly consistently top-down solutions. They are efforts at change that require the change already exist for their success.

            1. Yep. It’s a shaky pillar to build things on.

              Termite ridden. Rotting. Sitting on muddy foundations. At the edge of a roaring river.

              Hmph. Guess I don’t believe in it, either.

          1. They were imposed from the top down by law , and by law suck resources and incentive from those who should be dealing with these issues … impeding their efforts to operate outside of central control.

            And you see the effects in the private sector … from employees who are caught flat-footed when their employer shuts the doors, thinking that if they just went along the union their future was secure … to religious folk who think that rendering unto Caesar so that Caesar can do their job of caring for the poor is truly charitable, and have a “gave at the office” attitude when asked to do more.

            Because of their coercive nature, they have to be dismantled from the top down.

            But they aren’t the only aspects of the Blue Social Model that need to be dismantled. I see the effort hinging on whether or not people begin to rely upon their own initiative – as individuals and neighbors – and act responsibly to make sure their own productivity is as high as possible, their finances and lifestyle are balanced, their kids are getting properly educated, and that their less fortunate neighbors get the help they need.

            EVERYONE has to change, or it won’t matter what kind of leaders we have.

            1. There’s nothing you’re saying about the structure of the system that comes as a surprise to anyone in this community.

              You just seem to expect to put “miracle leaders” in power to effect changes to the system without first having the culture to elect those leaders.

              Do you want to discuss theory? Enumerate the things about the system that need correction, those that need elimination and the black corners that need to be killed with fire? We can do that. But it’s theory. It’s not a plan. And when it relies on an assumption of homogeneous political thought in the population, it’s not theory — it’s fantasy.

              If EVERYONE has to change, if EVERYONE has to do anything in order to bring about your desired system then it’s a dream.

              An impossible dream.

              1. I’m not looking for “miracle” leaders – I’m looking for leaders who, as soon as possible, will demonstrate the character needed to (despite politics) get out of the way of changing that culture, by refusing to perpetuate the Blue Social Model delusion in its various forms.

                That choice to NOT act to “help” us is the kind of leadership we saw from the GOP in 1995, and have seen flashes of in Scott Walker’s efforts.

                And mark my words, the culture will change, sooner or later – either very, very painfully as reality yanks the last vestiges of that delusion away from a people that are unprepared for the yanking, or less painfully if we face up to the reality NOW.

                Some of us already have changed – by improving the way we run our own lives and even getting out the truth to others. But as long as our social, cultural, economic, and political elites refuse to face up to the delusion, millions will think everything is all right … right up until it isn’t.

                1. I’m fairly sure the bulk of the community here expects the culture will change, as you say. Again, nothing new there. So, don’t mind me if I don’t mark your words. I’ve already got notes on the idea.

                  You keep laying it out there, I keep hammering it:

                  You’re looking for leaders who are going to do (whatever) despite politics? Jeff Gauch already covered this.

                  You’re expecting the social, cultural, economic and political elites to “face up” to — anything that rocks their boat? Lemme refer you to Jeff Gauch, again.

                  You apparently think our current crop of leaders are the problem, and we need new leaders to correct the problem, in the absence of those leaders millions will wander blindly over the cliff.

                  I think the current idea that these nitwits are leaders, or should be, is the problem. I’m out to elect representatives, and to punish them when they get too full of themselves and decide to lead.

                  I look to resurrect a fine American feeling: Feel free to lead, the only people following are those who want to watch you step on your dick.

                  1. My problem with your’s (and Sarah’s) take on this, is that once the primary is over, you fall right in line … and our current crop of leaders, who …

                    > Have the coercive force of law at their disposal, to reward some and punish others.
                    > Law that includes election law and party rules, that has been crafted over the years to lock the less-than-connected – like you, Sarah, and me – out despite our best efforts.
                    > Have influence over millions of people, who are already preconditioned, thanks to decades of immersion in the delusion of the Blue Social Model, will simply follow the leader.

                    … know that you will fall right into line, because they have put great effort into rigging the game that way.

                    They know that, once they get past the primary, there are only two choices left – them and a Dumbass – even if they are Dumbo.

                    And they know the facts on the ground, printed in bold above. Yes, the culture needs to change, but it probably will not change fast enough – or will sustain the change – unless the leadership changes, as well.

                    Sometimes, the only way to win, is not to play.

                    1. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-hah…

                      *wipes eyes, catches breath*

                      Sarah, falling right into line…


                      *chokes, turns blue*

                      Your credibility is holed, might look to the water you’re taking on, I think you may be sinking.

                    2. Yep. Fortunately I was standing in a field watching my dogs romp, so nobody stopped by to see what all the cackling was about.

                    3. Eamon, how many times has our hostess, and you, have said on these two threads words to the effect that “we must work within the GOP”, which infers that not voting for whoever the GOP offers up is NOT an option, because it will “elect the Democrat”?

                      Answer that, before you impugn my credibility.

                    4. You mistake me, sir. I don’t impugn your integrity.

                      You do.

                      If your assessment rests on the assumption that any call to work within the (workable) framework is rolling over for all the nonsense the fossils in the GOP decide to creak about — well, your illusion is more comprehensive than I thought.

                      Unless you’ve been lurking, or you’ve jumped names, you’re new here. Don’t presume you can intuit my stance, or Sarah’s. Take us at our words.

                      Do not assume one statement is a proxy for an entire philosophy. Aside from the damage you do to your credibility, you insult your host without foundation.

                    5. Eamon, if you are not willing to withhold your vote from the GOP in ANY election, if their present leadership will not allow the sound principles and people you fight for to see the light of day, and do so in time to actually make a difference in this nation … they have you and they KNOW it.

                      And because they KNOW it, they will not change. As I have said, they are far better equipped to put you off in the primaries, despite your best efforts.

                      I am happy to work with Republicans that exhibit even a measure of sound principle, like Scott Walker. But I am no longer going to vote for Dumbo simply because he’s not a Dumbass.

                      However any party that would actually nominate a third Bush doesn’t deserve my support of their political stupidity, no matter how much I liked the first two … I mean, it’s going to eat up a lot of campaign cash just to transport his “dynasty” baggage with him, no matter how good he might be.

                    6. You’re full of assumptions. They begin to irritate me.

                      I’m away from the computer at the moment, so I can’t easily scan the thread to see what foundations your assumptions may rest on. If I find them later, I’ll endeavor to tear them down.

                      If I don’t find them, I’ll assume you’re unable to argue in good faith, preferring to argue against a scarecrow me.

                    7. We fall right in line. (fingers on either side of nose, head bowed. Counting to a million. And a half) Falling right in line is NOT a problem with anyone on this blog, nor has it ever been. No, we don’t fall right in line — we harry, we harass, we remonstrate and we continue to work on the culture. What we don’t do is expect the impossible from mere humans.

                    8. Sometimes, the only way to win, is not to play.

                      Yeah, that was a particularly STUPID quote from Wargames. Not playing means avoiding the whole conflict. But it while it takes at least two sides to have a war, it only takes one side to take over and push through things that will make the craptastic mess we have right now look like milk and honey.

                    9. “Sometimes, the only way to win, is not to play.”

                      “What if somebody had a war, and nobody showed up.”

                      Yep about an equal level of intelligence shown in both those quotes.

                    10. “Sometimes, the only way to win, is not to play.”

                      Sure worked well for those cities upon whom Genghis Khan’s hordes came a’callin’.

                      In politics, as soon as you stop playing you stop mattering to those counting the votes. Sure, the game is rigged but you can’t win if you don’t play.

                      If you truly believed that taking your marbles home was an effective strategy you wouldn’t be out here trying to get everybody else to follow it.

                    11. “The conqueror is always a lover of peace; he would prefer to take over our country unopposed.”

                      ― Carl von Clausewitz

                2. Not looking for miracle leaders? That’s the only kind who fit the job description you’ve provided.

        2. “and demanding that our leaders do the same even when it places their careers at risk”

          You might as well demand that fish don’t swim or that cats refrain from liking themselves. You won’t get anywhere demanding things violate their basic nature. Politicians who risk their careers speaking unpopular truths don’t exist. People who speak unpopular truths don’t win elections, which means they aren’t politicians.

          If you want popular truths spoken you must speak them. More importantly you must convince others. We must make unpopular truths popular. THEN the politicians will speak it.

          1. And I am speaking them … including the truth that we are fooling ourselves if we don’t deal with this more fundamentally, and forcefully so.

            As with stray cats, I don’t consider feeding unprincipled politicians prudent … you just get more of them hanging around, except the politicians aren’t predisposed to use the litter box.

          2. In classical Greece, Aristotle cited as an example of rhetoric the priestess who told her son to avoid politics because there, if you tell the truth, men hate you, and if you tell lies, the gods hate you.

            Such has it ever been.

            Which suggests that any strategy that doesn’t deal with it is doomed.

              1. “They planned their campaigns just as you might make a splendid piece of harness. It looks very well; and answers very well; until it gets broken; and then you are done for. Now I made my campaigns of ropes. If anything went wrong, I tied a knot; and went on.” Wellington

          3. In Texas, this TEA Party is working on
            * passing School Choice and Educational Reform in the form of
            objective evaluations for teachers and superintendents;
            * electing only Rule of Law judges in Harris County and State-wide
            * Supporting intra-state compacts, defined Article V Convention of States legislation to let our US legislators know that if they cannot do what is right, WTP will;
            * Core government functions only to encourage WTP to re-form civic associations at the local level;
            * more concerned citizens to step up as precinct chairs => SREC members to RENEW the Republican Party with WTP instead of ruling elites.

            Having helped elect the most conservative state-wide officials ever, we want Texas to be as safe and secure as possible. We will continue our fight to take over Republican leadership positions in the State to either take over the Party or see it morph into a new party that shares its members values.

            Reince Priebus has said that there is a legal agreement that the Party will not contest voter fraud incidents that would impact minority voters. If true, if the Republican Party cannot or will not deal with voter fraud, there is no other choice than to take over the Party and morph it into one that can and will.

            So, while I agree with Sarah and history that a third party would be catastrophic, I also believe at this time that we must work to either make the party represent the People’s values, or be transfigured minus the “leadership,” just as the Whigs became Republicans when the Whig ruling elites would not end slavery.

            PS Texas loves our Senator, Ted Cruz, and Judge Hanen!

            1. The Whigs did not become Republicans. The anti-slavery Whigs joined with anti-slavery Democrats to form the Republican party. The non-anti-slavery groups eventually caused the Democrat Party to split, allowing Lincoln to win in 1860.

        3. Leaders are overrated. What we need is public servants who do their damn jobs, mind the public’s business, stay within the Constisutional limits of government, and go home at the end of their terms and do something useful.

          If we work hard at it, we might see something of the like abkit the year 3000.

          Which doesn’t mean we won’t see improvements sooner.

  9. That was great Sarah, thank you for verbalizing that position. I really despair sometimes when i see how very lightly some folks take the idea of armed resistance, the “knock it all down” crowd. In a way, I was proud of this country when Obama was elected, not because of him, but because a peaceful surrender of executive power was accomplished as it was designed. Let’s use this system to change it again.

    1. Frankly the real test is if Obama peacefully hands power over to someone like Walker, someone committed to undoing everything the SCOAMF has worked for.

        1. I’m pretty sure that even if his Secret Service detail doesn’t put an end to it right quick there are a few gentlemen at 8th and I who would take issue with that turn of events.

          1. *checks Bing maps*

            Says it’s about three miles from the Pentagon to the Whitehouse, so anybody that passes their PFT should be there in less than half an hour…..

            1. You know, part of me wishes that he would try it. It would discredit Democrats and Progressives for decades. But it would also destroy his legacy, so there’s no way he would try. Unless he was fairly certain he could get away with it.

              1. I understand the impulse, but they’d just change their name and sweep it under the rug. Probably by slandering the guys who stopped them.

                The “just DO IT so we can deal with it” is strong, though.

  10. You hit on an idea Ive had for a while. I need to just do it. Create a site that names and shames politicians, from local to federal, on their actual voting record. Not a single issue site, like the NRA scorecard, but maybe a grading on how that vote falls in line with their oath of office.

    We can always hang them later, if we have to. At least we would have an accurate targeting list.

  11. I don’t want war. I don’t want it all to burn.
    The alternative is longer, harder and requires personal accountability from everyone involved.
    Let me explain.
    I don’t want my kids indoctrinated, so I don’t have TV. I monitor the movies they watch, games they play and internet sites they visit. (They are in grade school, so it’s not that hard. For now.)
    If we can remove the influence of liberal media, our job becomes much easier. But how do we remove that influence?
    Well, we’re are not the left, so we won’t outlaw their media. Instead, we make a better alternative. Unbroken and American Sniper are a good start, but we need more.
    Baen books and the EloE will also go a long way, but we need more.
    We need to actively support more conservative entertainment, as well as news sources.
    And most of all, for me at least, we need all you Huns and Hoydens to keep writing, or I’m going to run out of things to read.

    1. One of my biggest irritations with the GOP is that they aren’t using the 2016 primary season to highlight and support alternative media. Telling ABC, CNN, et al. to pound sand and turn to PJ Media, Redstate, etc. to moderate the primary debates would go a long way to breaking the backs of Progressives. Could you imagine Bill Whittle moderating a debate between Bush, Perry, Walker, Cruz, and Paul?

      1. In a way the GOP is doing this but in partnership with the media outlets that still reach 90% of the US. It’s a big start and very important to see, for example, Hugh Hewitt involved in the first four debates.

        1. Oh, I missed that bit. Good. I still want me some Whittle. Or Klaven, that would hilarious. Ooh, Steven Green. Forget drunkblogging, drunk moderating! The candidates belly up the the bar where Green mixes drinks and asks questions. Either would do quite a lot to destroy the stereotype of conservatives as angry, humorless white men.

              1. Making me snort with laughter at my computer at work has my coworkers giving me weird looks.

            1. yes, but when Hillary talks about all of her accomplishments, what are you supposed to respond?

          1. It will happen slowly, but the fact that Priebus recognized the issue and moved to resolve it is a positive thing. Having people like Hewitt asking questions that really matter to conservatives…not Stepanopholus asking about taking away contraceptives.

            Unfortunately the MSM is still the best game in town to reach the most people.

            1. But we’ve been fighting the GOP since Washington crossed the Delaware and NOTHING EVER CHANGES!!!11!!ELEVEN!

            2. Unfortunately, the MSM offers a legitimating function in the public mind for which there is no alternative. General election debates will have to be done under their aegis.

              Doesn’t mean we cannot reject the Candy Crowleys, however. Make the process like a jury selection: each party gets to nominate a certain number of interlocutors/moderators, each party gets to veto a somewhat smaller number, some for cause, some without reason — just because.

          2. If Green could do this in a video series of all the half-decent candidates individually … wow, viral ain’t in it!

                1. That’s the one. Come on, it’s a Web series. An epically awesome Web series, but still…

      2. Yes, exactly. Unfortunately the establishment WILL be the last part we take over.
        And on the other tentacle, if they go all alternative, they lose the people who watch at home COMPLETELY. They might lose them anyway, but…

        1. I was thinking that there would be a rebroadcast agreement with Fox, say that the online venues get to rest ream the debates on Fox for the cable cutters while Fox broadcasts the online debates for the TV audience.

    2. Yep. One note though, as they leave elementary, instead of forbidding books, give them books to read. Let them watch certain movies. The Patriot and Independence Day (yes, I know, but trust me) are favorites around here. Also P. J. O’Rourke, Eat the Rich. We didn’t have TV till they were eight, and neither of them is that interested. And yep, it’s more work. And takes time. G-d help us, I hope we have the time, but it’s going to be a tight squeak through, even without a counter-march.

        1. As someone in theater, I can tell you why 1776 isn’t produced that often anymore. It’s too darned male-heavy—there’s all of two small women roles. And worse, it’s male roles that *sing*—almost impossible to drop women in* without screwing up the vocal balance. (Especially that beautiful and chilling bass ode to slavery. You NEED a good talent for that one or the horror doesn’t come through.)

          There are substantially more women than men interested in doing theater, and not nearly enough singing men out there. I’ve seen it presented all of once, because as much as people love it, it’s hard to put on.

          *Much easier to drop women into male roles when there’s no singing involved. Oregon Shakespeare Festival put on an all-female production of Two Gentlemen of Verona last year simply because they had a passel of talented women on hand and thought, Why not? Shakespeare worked with all-male casts…

          1. (Especially that beautiful and chilling bass ode to slavery. You NEED a good talent for that one or the horror doesn’t come through.)


            to Rum
            to Slaves
            Oh, what a beautiful waltz!

          1. “I have come to the conclusion that one USELESS man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress.”

        2. Quite a number of us do. 😉

          I do so with the book in my lap and rum, neat, at my side.

                1. All Day?? ’round heah we start the celebration on July 2nd and continue through the 4th. Some of the High Orthodox believers don’t stop until August 2 and a few extremists don’t count it as over until they’ve celebrated the signature of Matthew Thornton, signed on November 19.

                  Only the most dedicated observe through the signature of Col. Thomas McKean of Delaware, which didn’t come until 1781.

      1. All my kids do is read. My living room is lined with bookshelves, and older boy reads voraciously.
        They do watch television programs on DVD, but they are mostly older shows or current stuff that I approve of, like Mythbusters. (My boys do love the explosions.)
        I will be watching what they get assigned in school, and trying to discuss what they read. My wife is especially good at that.

          1. He was still chewing on books when he was up to reading them? My he was precocious. 😉

            1. And talented in other ways — I cannot for the life of me comfortably read the same book I have in my mouth.

              1. Now, that I want a picture of…. unless you want to keep the mutant abilities under wraps until he hits school to surprise the teachers….

          2. Hmmm … I just finished “rereading” Orphans of the Sky (thanks, Audible!) and was surprised at the amount of subtext in there. Phineas Narby ranks with Orwell’s Napoleon as a character study of the drive for power. Hugh’s questioning of the nature of his universe is a delight.

            It has been over four decades since I last visited the book and I strongly recommend it.

        1. Prof, if you guys want to home school, drop me a note. I’d be delighted to help you start. Idaho is the easiest state to home school in.

      2. We poke at the stories that get told.

        Starfall has a version of Three Billy Goats Gruff that has the troll as a victim; he shows up and sets up camp on the nice side of a bridge, where one side is eaten off and the other is green, tries to forbid the goats to cross, and the bridge gets knocked down… after talking to my daughter, she now doesn’t like him, because she now understand he screwed up grazing rotation, destroyed the bridge, and was just trying to take the stuff that looked pretty even though it obviously belonged to someone because they made a bridge to reach it.
        The “pretty” side won’t stay pretty for long with nothing to graze off the weeds and tall grass to let the flowers grow, and his selfishness destroyed the bridge, which wasn’t his.

        Triple win: made her think about who is set up as the good guy, think about how did it get that way, and taught some basic animal husbandry techniques.

  12. Regarding the EO vote:

    Given the way the Senate rules are structured and it’s current composition, Harry Reid can block anything he wants. A lot of the hope behind the DHS stratagem was that political pressure could peel enough defectors from Reid to get the bill to the floor. That was always a stupid plan. After the 2010 and 2014 elections the only Democrats left are the true believers. It’s going to be even less effective in the future, Reid has shown that of the Democrats stick together the GOP will cave and give them what they want.

    That leaves the nuclear option. McClellan could have gone full nuclear (IMO, he should have done it the first day), but there is a lot of risk to that – the GOP stands a reasonable chance of losing the Senate in ’16. The passage of the clean Senate bill offered a way forward. You see, when both houses pass different bills there is usually a conference committee convened to hash out a compromise report that goes to both houses for passage. The thing is that Senate rules don’t allow reports for budget bills (like DHS funding) to be filibustered, they have to go to a floor vote after 20 hours of debate. The rub is that one house has to request a conference and the other has to agree, and in the Senate that agreement can be filibustered. Boehner requested a conference within hours of getting the Senate bill, but Reid was filibustering the agreement resolution. McClellan could have changed the rules to eliminate filibusters of conference agreements, but he didn’t. Perhaps he was hoping that political pressure would mount to force the Democrats to cave.

    And that’s where action returns to the House. The house rules permit, in certain circumstances, any member to bring a bill to the floor for a vote. Pelosi was moving down that path with the Senate bill, and Boehner knew that there were enough squishes in his caucus who would vote for any DHS funding bill. Now that rule can be blocked, but that would mean taking action to block DHS funding and taking blame for the DHS shutdown. If he had the cover a conference committee would provide Boehner might have been willing to risk it, but he was totally exposed. In the end he caved and led the House where it was going to go anyway.

    1. If the 4 Dems have 51 votes in the Senate on the first day of the next session- they’re going nuclear. The old rules where both sides play by the riules is no longer in effect. When the Democrats lockstepped behind Clinton’s lies under oath as meaningless is when it became painfully obvious.

      If one side plays by the rules, and the other side cheats, the rules players have to win by a huge margin. Or change the rules.

      1. Depends on who the minority leader is. If he’s halfway competent – and the President is a Democrat, I agree with you. If it’s still McClellan, they probably won’t bother. The dems will go nuclear the first time it would help them advance their agenda. McClellan’s failure to see that and respond in kind is the major reason I hold him in utter contempt.

        The next Senate is going to be critical, which is why having a Presidential candidate that people are actually excited about is so important, and why this third party defeatist nonsense is so dangerous.

        1. I’m not so sure that he failed to see that. I know the rule of thumb is never attribute to malice what can be as easily explained by incompetence; but after a certain point incompetence starts to become unbelievable.

          1. I think that there’s more than a little similarity between Senator McClellan and his namesake. He views this Senate majority as his and is loath to endanger it, not realizing that it was given to him to fight with.

      1. I just remembered that that other one of yours was death or chocolate.

        1. Perhaps the one Hook had made for the Lost Boys in Peter pan. Beautiful, delicious-looking, green… dyed with poison.

      1. That is the point of the strip in question Vexxarr, which you should read all of. (And give him money. And prod him to start a Patreon.)

    1. There’s always Dr. Sanity’s WMD chocolate cake. And yes, it is a weapon of dietary destruction that will kill any diabetics that come within a meter of it. But they’ll die happy!

  13. Apparently I should have stuck around in the comments yesterday. Missed all the brouhaha.


    Or maybe — maybe it’s better I was otherwise engaged…

    1. Well, I got most of my laundry sorted for folding, and all of the socks matched up…. LOTS of comments, although a sizable chunk of the text was probably borderline auto-generated by an IP-masked troll.

  14. Wow, I go off reading last weeks suggestions (all very good) and Sarah writes some Insty-linked post with hundreds of comments.

    There is a way for a third-party to influence America, but the angry ones want to start at the wrong end. The way to support and defend the constitution is to start grooming candidates in State and Local positions, entering Federal candidates with congresscritters before presidents. Once 34 States are controlled, at the state level, an Article V Constitutional Convention can be ordered.

    But, while we wait, the GOP could be a lot more active in ‘battlespace’ preparations. First the ‘Reid Option’, the formerly known process called the Nuclear Option, renamed in honor of the first Senate Leader that clearly proved that Progressives honor power over process. Why hasn’t McConnell invoked the option for *everything*. When the press whines, say “I’m just doing what Democrat Harry Reid started.” I don’t expect Congress to be able to do anything decisive with president ‘Veto’ in office, but again, get those defunding bills and other measures in a bill and force the one to veto. When the press tries to blame the GOP… ‘we passed it, he vetoed it.’ should be the only offer of regret to the media.

    The keystone pipeline was a good example. We now have on record, the ‘moderate’ Dems, and can use the vote of the remainder as a reminder to the voters of what their party stands for. Congress hasn’t done anything for several years. It is Reid’s fault, but of course, the media can blame the GOP, and the low information voters can’t be troubled to understand. The sound bite ‘we passed the bill and the president vetoed it.’ pretty well encapsulates who is saying yes and who is saying no.

  15. Once again Sarah, you are setting up a straw man and knocking it down.

    I speak only my own point of view, and will not be pigeon-holed into a stereotype by your analysis. I do not advocate a third party movement nor a “let it burn” escapism. I assert that the house is on fire and you are focused on a trivial leaking toilet valve. Whether we like it or not, the national cancer is spreading fast and we will not talk ourselves into remission with a political pep rally. The fall is going to happen because that is the cause and effect of the parasitism that is sweeping the country. And sooner is better.

    1. The fall is going to happen because that is the cause and effect of the parasitism that is sweeping the country. And sooner is better.

      If this is all you’ve got, then stand aside.

      Some of us, me certainly, intend to stand against the “fall” regardless of your pessimism and certainty.

      Some of us, me again, have some concept of the death, destruction and horror of such a “fall” and don’t intend to sit on the fucking sidelines while it comes to a country we love.

      Some of us, yeah — still me, don’t have any silly assumptions about the inevitability of human systems or the “cause and effect” of social institutions.

      Succeed or fail, proven wrong and naive or not, I will not sit around moaning about the “fall” and hoping it comes soon so I may glory in my prescience as I lay dying.

      1. And also, oh, for the love of Bob, they have no idea how much ruin there is in a nation. Portugal has been about to “fall” for the same exact reasons since the 11th century.

        1. Comes from assuming the “country” is the people, maybe.

          People, individually, can be quite stubborn about falling down and staying there.

          And countries can limp along sucking off those people for a long time.

      2. That’s a rather condescending assumption on your part, as well as being inaccurate. I do not advocate standing on the sidelines and watching the collapse anymore than you do. I advocate against stupidity and wrongheadedness. It is truly lazy and stupid to assume that the only four options available to us are stay-the-course, third party, war, or abide the collapse.

        The intelligent among us are not content to remain trapped within that straightjacket of choices. Open your mind and let some light in.

        1. The intelligent among us… Open your mind… what? Did you wander over from Democratic Underground?
          What are your oh, so excellent choices? Enlighten us oh great one.

          1. Not choices, alternative strategies. I would prefer to not be obtuse in my answer, but I choose to do so nonetheless.

            The corruption of our government is a symptom of our national decline as a people. That is where the source of the disease is centered. Even if we got rid of all the bad actors in Washington DC, this underlying disease would still be festering, and likely spawn a new crop of bad politicians in due time.

            Curing this disease is daunting, but not hopeless. However, this disease approximates a form of serious cancer, and consequently the remedy will be neither pleasant nor painless.

            I live in Denver also. We can talk sometime if you wish.

                1. Not quite. I’m saying that a large cohort of our population is in serious distress due to an entitlement addiction, and if we don’t address that problem, we have no hope of improving the political calculus. Imagine trying to tackle an epidemic by holding improved political rallies.

                    1. No Sarah. As mentioned elsewhere, there are no quick and simple answers because the problem is very difficult and complex. I would love to discuss this with you in detail because I very much respect your intelligence and commitment to a good cause. You have a large and effective voice, and would be instrumental in any solution I could name. I just think that you are missing an important aspect of this problem.

                    2. You’ve been offered a chance to discuss this in any level of detail. Any at all.

                      You’ve declined.

                      I find your desire to meet with Sarah, and your flattery, suspect.

                      In fact, I find everything you’ve done here today suspect.

                    3. I am indeed sorry if I have crossed a line in my posts with respect to personal privacy. My compliments of Sarah are sincere. As evidence, she has earned that respect here on this board, so my noticing is nothing special. Perhaps a full blown treatise is warranted. How much space do you want to give me?

            1. Why choose to be obtuse? The internet is for communication, and it’s not helpful to communication to be obtuse!

              I stand with Sarah, an mi mama, anyway. Unless you present a clear, compelling, and somehow completely overlook yet extremely obtainable path, I’ll look at the choices available and say “Revolucion is the worst of all bad ideas, and those that advocate it have never lived through one.”

              Heck, my dear husband spent years working toward free and fair elections for all, not just whites, and even he openly acknowledges that the change in governments has driven the country into a smoking wreck. On the other hand, that is directly the result and fault of apartheid, and it’ll be two generations before the country really shows signs of healing. He is deeply committed to the USA now, even if it’s not the States in which he grew up, and if you want to know just how bad an unacknowledged civil war can get, he can start to tell you… but as you’ve never experienced bare feet sticking out of a burning bus by the side of the road as a common sight and smell, I know you will fail to understand.

              1. Here’s the short version. An addict needs to hit bottom before there is any real hope of recovery. Enablers are a bit part of the problem because they get in the way of this necessary step. Hitting bottom is a painful and difficult thing (some people don’t survive), but it is this severe pain that ultimately motivates real change.

                You may disagree that we have not become a nation of many entitlement addicts, but that ignores all the welfare bribes that have been paid out over the last few decades using trillions in borrowed funds.

                Attacking this problem is enormously difficult and requires a lot of explanation. I have offered to do so in person because I don’t want to start a flame war on this website nor behave as a troll.

                We agree that Sarah is a force for good in this world and it is my hope that she is open to a new perspective. Staying the course with more oomph and patience is just a form of denial.

                1. What constitutes “hitting bottom?” Please explain how it’s substantially different from “let it burn.”

                  1. As with a serious drug addict, hitting bottom is often unique to each case. There are commonalities, but the specifics are often impossible to predict and there is wide variation. Some people have high bottoms and others have low bottoms. But experience tells us that the longer the addiction goes on, the deeper the bottom and greater the chances of no bounce back.

                2. “An addict needs to hit bottom before there is any real hope of recovery.”

                  I call BS, that statement is complete and utter hogwash. Are you seriously claiming that no drug addict, alcoholic, gambling addict, etc. ever quit before they hit rock bottom?

                  Are you interested in real estate? I’ve got some real nice beach frontage for sale, just south of Tucson.

                  1. All addicts hit a bottom, it’s just that some bottoms are higher than others. If you don’t know that, then you don’t know what you’re talking about.

                    1. Oh I know what I’m talking about all right, you’re a willful idiot if you actually believe what you say.

                  2. I have actually heard this before– it generally means that they declare that nobody is an addict if they stop without “hitting bottom.” Circular.

            2. Playing coy with your proposals is a good way to make yourself look like a troll. By saying “Oh, I have other ideas, but I’m not going to talk about them”, you’re effectively playing the “You have to pass it to know what’s in it” game and opening yourself to the accusation that you’re waving a false flag.

              You want to claim the you have alternative strategies? Name them.

              You want to claim there are answers beyond the long (and often thankless) cultural war most of the regulars here have been waging for quite a few years now? Name them.

              If you’re not prepared to put your ideas on the line, don’t expect us to respect them – or, by extension, you.

            3. I would prefer to not be obtuse in my answer, but I would have to be rational in order not to.

              There, I fixed it for you.

            4. The corruption of our government is a symptom of our national decline as a people. That is where the source of the disease is centered. Even if we got rid of all the bad actors in Washington DC, this underlying disease would still be festering, and likely spawn a new crop of bad politicians in due time.

              This is, oddly, nearly word for word what fascists have used as their reasoning for the hundred years there’s been fascism.

              It also goes back to Alcibiades.

              It rarely turns out well for anyone but the people who manage to come out on top.

          2. Remember that disagreeing with someone like this could only be because you don’t comprehend what he’s saying, rather than just thinking they’re wrong.

            Usually the people who talk about open mindedness need to open their own.

    2. Oh, good G-d. Why is sooner better? And if you think the worst the better how are you NOT advocating letting it burn?
      And what do you expect to gain from this, for you, for us, for the world?

      1. I want what you want, a better world for my children. It is both immoral and irresponsible to leave them this mess to grow up in.

        As I explained to Eamon above, we are not constrained to just the four alternatives that you mention in the OP (stay-the-course, third party, war, or abide the collapse). We must what we must do and intelligence is our best guide. Let me try to explain by analogy.

        If someone broke into your home and tried to harm your children, you would not constrain yourself to a limited number of defense options in order to protect your kids. You would do whatever it takes to keep them safe.

        Well, I believe that we are rapidly approaching that level of desperation. The de Tocqueville tipping point has been passed in this country. Today, more people vote for a living rather than work for a living. You are not going to win over these entitlement junkies with a rousing political speech. They are hooked on the government handout, and will vote themselves more benefits until the ship sinks.

        We have better and more effective options. And we are not battling a trivial foe.

        1. Tom. I think the problem here is that you have never lived through this. We’re nowhere near that point. You don’t have enough people with you. And firing will not create a better world. I don’t even know what to say. I recommend you read a lot of history. Real history, not the “and then the downtrodden won.”

          1. We’re missing each other in this comment thread. I have read history. In yesterday’s post, you mentioned the Fall of the Roman Empire as an admonition against the devastation of a hard fall. The Roman’s took three centuries to drive slowly into the ditch, and it was miserable all the way down. Is that what you want?

            1. If I mentioned the fall of the Roman Empire as an example of a hard fall, I was on the hard stuff. I think I mentioned what happened after as what would happen here.
              Three centuries. ARE YOU HIGH? Five centuries is the minimum for the “decadence and fall” but it wasn’t driving into the ditch. It was “men on a white horse” all the way. It was glorious revolution. It was — state your options and show your work, pardner. I don’t like your drift.

              1. The Roman Empire only lasted about five centuries, so unless your suggesting that there was no rise, just sustained fall, then perhaps you should re-read the history. And yes, there was strife and ongoing civil war on the way down. I would argue that was a manifestation of a damaged people rather than just a bad streak of luck with tyrannical leaders. Ignore the cancer in the body politic if you wish, but praying for the next messiah is actually the easy way out.

                  1. See my comment to Dorothy Grant above.

                    It is my opinion that the fundamental problem is that we have been too affluent for too long. As a result, we have become a nation in which a very large percentage of our population has been seduced into an addiction to entitlement benefits. As such, for these people, their self respect and self reliance have atrophied to the point where they now have effectively become parasites on the productive part in society. I do not blame these people. In many ways they are victims of insidious manipulation by self-serving politicians who buy votes on the cheap into to ensure their incumbency. Politician as drug pusher, if you will.

                    We have lots of experience with treating serious addiction in this country. That is where the solutions lie. I know that is difficult to comprehend, or seems like an improbable stretch of analogy, but that is why the problem is being ignored.

                    1. “It is my opinion that the fundamental problem is that we have been too affluent for too long.” “At some point you have made enough money.”
                      Who died and made either of you my Lord?

                    2. So, you’re saying that a good chunk of the American people are are locked into entitlements, have a low sense of self-worth as a result, and would gladly sell their souls (or at least their votes) for, oh, say, an Obamaphone?

                      And that there are politicians who take advantage of this?

                      Um, yeah, kinda noticed that. Might have had something to do with why Romney lost in 2012.

                      Also noticed that there’s these guys on the radio, who go by the names Glenn, Sean, and Rush who just may have mentioned this once or twice on their shows — and in a far more entertaining manner, with a lot less beating around the bush.

                    3. Rush has only been doing it over a quarter century, since the Fairness Doctrine got struck down (there’s another advance, regaining ground lost at the far end of the century)…. Give it a few more years, he’ll have been doing his show as long as the Fairness Doctrine was going.

                    4. It is my opinion that the fundamental problem is that we have been too affluent for too long.

                      So, basically, you’re saying that you side with the Progressives who want to return us to 19th (maybe 18th) century population and tech levels?

                      Yeah, yeah, I know. “That’s not what I said!” And maybe the point is, you’re not saying anything that has any “there” there. You keep spouting off about what’s wrong, and then making nebulous statements about how we should change that, and THERE is where you really sound like a Progressive, because, except for the leadership, they hardly ever come across with any definite plans for things to actually DO to address the problems that they point out.

                    5. The question is, since both he and Weisshaupt are in Denver, do they know each other? Are their offices close to one another, in the fed building?
                      What? Like you haven’t thought about it. After all we’re “constitution believers” and therefore potential terrorists. They’re just trying to draw us out…

                1. Actually the Roman Empire lasted about 1450 years. You forget the Eastern part – Byzantium, which did not fall until the Turks conquered the last of it in 1453.

                  1. Yes, that finesse is literally correct. And some have argued that the Roman Empire morphed into the Catholic Church and hence is still with us today. Either way, my point was that a slow suffering torturous decline is not necessarily preferable to a quick fall and (hopefully) a remedial rebound.

                    1. ” And some have argued that the Roman Empire morphed into the Catholic Church and hence is still with us today.”

                      Umm… yeah…

                      *backs away slowly*

                      Foxfier… Mary,

                      He’s all yours.

                    2. *shrug* Solidly in the “A pineapple statue at the Vatican shows that they’re controlled by secret society” area.

                      It’s a rabbit hole– just like so many times before, when you challenge him he tries to get you to run somewhere else. Pretty standard drunk college kid technique so they can feel smart by “controlling” the conversation; the end goal is for them to eventually say something you don’t counter so obviously that even a drunk pothead can notice it, so they can declare victory.

                  2. If you have to relocate your capital because you lost control of the original, you’ve declined. Seriously.

        2. State your alternatives. Clearly, and in the open.

          Or to hell with your “intelligent among us” and “open your mind” bullshit.

          Because — what I’m seeing, parsing your vagueness, is an ugly thing. If you truly advocate that ugly thing, I’ll not just be standing against you.

          If you are advocating something else, you do yourself a disservice with the coy play.

          So, lay it out there.

                  1. Hey, that’s a great way to smoke Fed The Fred out! If we get an anonymous post saying “Really, people? That’s just cruel!” … then we can tell him we didn’t really mean it, here’s milk for his porringer and butter for his bread.

                1. I thought Fed the Fred was here only as an observer. If there’s provocation happening, it’s probably from higher up—maybe it’s coming from Boss his Bess.


          1. I’m with you there Eamon 110% — whenever someone starts playing coy like that, my Bullshit Detector starts ringing the plaster off the wall.

            As for his veiled comments like: “Curing this disease is daunting, but not hopeless. However, this disease approximates a form of serious cancer, and consequently the remedy will be neither pleasant nor painless.”


            “Whether we like it or not, the national cancer is spreading fast and we will not talk ourselves into remission with a political pep rally. The fall is going to happen because that is the cause and effect of the parasitism that is sweeping the country. And sooner is better.”

            I’m thinking he’s proposing — in some way, shape, or form — to “cut the cancer out”, “eliminate the parasites” or some other 80’s action-movie catch-phrase. Either way, he’s implying he’s got some nasty snake-oil for sale, the kind that can end up with cattle-cars, gas chambers, and incinerators — only for those he deems as either “cancer cells” or “parasites”, of course. Strikes me as the kind of person who believes “You can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs.” However, he fails to learn from history where, during this last century, in order to cut out the “cancer” and get rid of the “parasites,” upwards of around 100 million “eggs” were broken — and not a single bloody omelet to show for it.

            1. This is sure the bell ringing in my head.

              An ugliness I’ll not see starting up, in this community or this country.

            2. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that concept of a final solution came out of your head, not mine. What does that say about your psychology?

              I think these people can and should be helped to overcome their addiction to government entitlements. You seem to be in the enabler camp. Ignore the addiction and hope for the best.

              1. I’ll freely admit, it came out of my head, as well. It came out as a result of trying to parse all of your vague references and indistinct analogies.

                What it says about my psychology is that I’m suspicious of people who play coy with their arguments and insult others.

                Your present games are not allaying those suspicions.

              2. Actually, it’s the inevitable result of your failure to espouse a potential solution.

                Vague comments about “helping” people overcome their addiction to entitlements, and nothing more, invariably leads people to wonder just how you’re going to help generational welfare recipients who are “addicted” to those entitlements.

                Especially since addiction treatment doesn’t work unless the person in question actually wants to overcome the addiction. You have failed to illustrate how they will want that help.

              3. Actually, the idea of Endlösung came out of the heads of the last bunch of people who were proposing to cut out the cancer of conspiracists crushing their country.

            3. I don’t think he’s proposing the Final Solution to the Welfare Problem.
              What he is proposing, basically, is forcing everyone on government to go cold turkey.
              That is, taking the crutch away from the people with broken legs.

              1. Well, if that’s all he’s proposing, then why doesn’t he come out and say it? The “cold-turkey on government benefits” idea has been kicked around (if not outright beaten to death) for decades.

                1. Because it’s an incredibly stupid idea?

                  “Hey, let’s do what will happen if things don’t get fixed to fix everything! Then we get all the down sides of a final crash, plus it’s a deliberate choice so the angry folks actually have a point, and because it’s artificial there’s no chance of organic adjustment to avoid the impact!”

                  About all it has is strong emotional appeal and simplicity. Even a freaking gardener can figure out that you don’t yank a trellis out, you slowly remove it and put in supports where required.

              2. Then he needs to say what he means instead of beating around the bush.

                Of course cold turkey will never happen either, unless you want violence and riots in the cities.

                1. Cold turkey will happen once we run out of money. And, yes, there will be violence and riots in the cities. It’s what I see as the most probable failure scenario for our current situation.

              3. I’m not suggesting anything of the sort. Once again, you betray your own bias and shortcomings with that speculation.

                Our “poor” are now literally dying of obesity-related maladies. That is how bad our entitlement problem has become. What we are doing to these people is cruel, not compassionate. I am not throwing out simple answers because there aren’t any. This problem is very difficult and complex. If the answers were simple and easy, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

                If you want a flame inducing response, then be advised that abounding stupidity has become an ancillary side-effect of this problem, as evidenced here.

                    1. However blunt it may be, it still doesn’t answer to the point in question.

                      What, specifically, are your proposed solutions?

                      Oh, and calling Joseph an idiot won’t even scuff his paint.

                    2. If we didn’t have pointy elbows we couldn’t make a place at the bar to by the house a round.

                      Occasionally we sharpen them on each other, but near as I can see most of the time we buy the whiskey for our opponents to pour on their injuries.

                      Interlopers assuming they can cut with such weak fare — ’tis funny.

                    3. TomA. Originally I had you pegged as a “dangerous idiot.” Well, I was wrong, and for that I apologize. As I’ve read more of your posts, I realize I should have pegged you as a “fucking idiot.”

                      Carry on.

                    4. I’m actually kind of insulted that idiot is the best insult that you can come up with. You spew so much bullshit in your other comments, I would think that you would be able to come up with a string of insults much better than idiot.

                  1. well, it seems that what he is saying is all he has to say, and that is what he means … ergo nothing of substance.
                    Somehow we all seem impervious to his brilliance or something.

                1. If you want a flame inducing response, then be advised that abounding stupidity has become an ancillary side-effect of this problem, as evidenced here.

                  You are doing a fine job proving your point, so there’s that.

                2. (Snorts) Please. I’m a Christian and a conservative on the Internet. I had worse thrown at me by sixteen-year-olds when I was fifteen.
                  Anyone who talks so darkly about problems and refuses to even hint at what they think the solutions would be is either a tom-fool or a provocateur.
                  I will do you the courtesy of thinking you the former. Good day sir.

                3. I’m not suggesting anything of the sort. Once again, you betray your own bias and shortcomings with that speculation.

                  Nah, they’re just remembering that such statements as yours have been rather consistently associated with people proposing “final solutions” through history.

                1. You’re not paying attention. The folks at the Huffington Post would be forming a lynch mob if they read my posts regarding entitlement addiction. That is a secret that they absolutely do not want discussed in the public domain.

                  If you disagree with my contentions, then make your argument as to why I’m wrong.

                  1. There’s several people here who’d like to make some arguments against your contentions. Once we figure out what the hell they are.

                    If she’s not paying attention, maybe it’s because you’re not saying anything?

                    1. If not a taboo subject, then what would you call it? How often do hear it addressed in the media or in political debate? It is apparently incomprehensible to the members of this board. I acknowledge that it is a unpopular topic, but that doesn’t make it irrelevant.

                    2. WHAT is a taboo subject, Tom? Ending welfare? We discuss it all the time, we just don’t think it’s possible. Not short term. And btw, Josh K., aka “statist” Josh has made the argument for it better than anything you’ve said.
                      WHAT other subject. It’s incomprehensible because you haven’t SAID it and none of us is a mind reader.

            1. It ain’t the weed that is the problem, it’s the 7up and acid he washed it down with.

        3. What are the options?

          Turning every major city into Beirut but worse? Watching as the United States of America loses it’s soul? Is that what you want?

          What do you think happens after the option you allude to? Do you think something better is born out of the ashes like the mythical phoenix?

        4. Actually, no, I would constrain myself to a limited number of defense options. I would not use flashbangs or frag grenades for home defense, or start burning the house down to smoke them out, as that would probably kill mine own. I would not sweep the rooms with full-auto fire to clear them, as bullets go a very long way through sheetrock and could kill mine own children and the neighbors. I would not release pepper spray in an enclosed space. I would not use brenneke slugs in the shotgun, if I had another alternative. (In fact, this is why the shotgun is not loaded with the good slugs.)

          I would not set up deathtraps ahead of time in mine own house just in case I might have intruders, nor would I set up an entrapment to lure them in the way I best want to kill them. I would not open the gas line, evacuate the house, and fire a flare round in a window.

          I also would not walk up to them and challenge them to fisticuffs, or pistols at twenty paces at dawn, because those would not be valid methods of defense against honorless home intruders.

          If they were down, not moving, and no longer a threat, I would call 911, not slit their throats just to make sure. I most certainly would not tie them to the front gate and necklace them as an example and warning to any and all witnesses of what happens to intruders on my property.

          So, you see, by the rules of civilized behavior, and the rules of not killing mine own family or my neighbors through aggravated stupidity, I am constrained to a limited number of methods of defense. This is Not A Bad Thing.

          I warn you, sir, that when you talk in terms of “hitting bottom” and “doing whatever it takes”, you are not thinking consequences all the way through. Have you ever smelled a human being who’s been burnt alive? I assure you, that’s not a smell you can ever forget. Have you ever watched a mob drag a woman from her house, rape her, and hack her to death with machetes because she accepted food for her children from the wrong faction? Have you ever found you could not even help the children pick up the pieces and put them into a garbage bag to bury her, because simple association would be enough to assure the same kind of death for them, if not worse?

          Americans are stupidly blind at how bad the world can get, and appallingly ignorant at the depths of brutality, savagery, and hatred that are normal to the rest of the world. This Is A Good Thing.Don’t be in such a hurry to cast aside all the hard work and blessings that have built a nation the average African would cheerfully commit mass murder just to enter, the beacon of freedom and prosperity that encourages parents all over Sud America to send their children alone, hoping they’ll survive the beatings, rape, starvation, sickness, and make it to a place where the poor are fat.

          1. Good God, by the time you got done ruling out all the things that you wouldn’t do, your children would indeed be dead. Perhaps prioritizing and implementing good options should precede ruling out everything else you can think of. I certainly hope that no children have to rely upon your quick thinking for protection.

            You also presume that I favor a Dystopian collapse. I do not. I fear that that is where we are headed if we ignore the root problem.

            1. Even your insults are kinda thin.

              You know, ruling out the monumentally stupid “defensive” measures in advance speeds the thinking in the moment. And makes for a more effective defense.

              That you don’t know that, and that you don’t feel the points of her barbs regarding violence and war, marks you as an unserious opponent.

              1. Eamon, let me be crystal clear. I do not favor violence and war. That is the last alternative that should be contemplated. I think that if we address the root problem of entitlement addiction, civil war is very unlikely. Conversely, if we proceed down the merry path of solely trying to fix the political system (and then failing in that), then conflict is very likely.

                1. Are you holding off the crystal clarity for a follow-on comment?

                  How, specifically, do you believe we can address the root problem of entitlement addiction?

                  1. See my reply to Sarah above. If she wants to give me a soapbox for the ensuing treatise, then you’ll have all your brain can handle. Be careful what you wish for.

                    1. You have wasted enough words not saying anything to this point, you could have laid it out succinctly long ago.

                      And don’t expect anyone to grant you an imprimatur to ramble on at length about your chosen topic with no clue what it is you might be advocating.

                      I’ve already said I find you suspicious, asking someone to grant you a soapbox just ratchets it up.

                    2. Eamon, you repeatedly demand a clear presentation of the solutions I would advocate. I tell you that there are no quick and simple answers to this difficult and complex problem. You demand specifics anyway. I suggest that a lengthy response would be needed and therefore require Sarah’s approval. You say no way, that is suspicious. You want to have your cake and eat it too. And I’m the one being irrational.

                    3. You’re being obscure.

                      That’s why you’ve been called on it. You’re hinting at some brilliant plan, tossing out insults willy-nilly and offering nothing to indicate you have any plan, much less that anything qualifies it as brilliant.

                    4. Yeah, yeah, “Don’t make me turn the full strength of my massive intellect and rhetorical skills on you.”

                      A guy tried that on me at an Objectivist thing 30 years ago. A half hour later, he left in tears.

                      I’ve seen more intellectual depth in the plastic object in the envelope in a box of Cracker-Jacks.

                  2. Merciful heavens, Eamon. Why are you encouraging this guy? If he had something concrete to say, he’d say it. If he had something other than vague references to “hitting bottom”, and bright-eyed hope that we’d bounce back from whatever he means by that (and at this point, I’m less and less convinced that he is able to articulate what he means by it), then he’d sack up and lay his arguments out.

                    I’ve run into plenty of people who had similar issues when I was more involved with the local tea party groups. On one memorable occasion, we were working our way through ‘The 5000 Year Leap’, with different group members presenting from the book, and the guy who was presenting was having a hard time really getting out his point. People were starting to take issue with what they thought he was getting at, and I stepped in and pointed out that it was this guy’s turn to talk, his turn to present, and that we needed to hear him out. Everyone sort of nodded and agreed, and I looked at the guy and said “Okay, so, what is it you’re really trying to say?” And while I don’t remember the exact thing that he said, it was something along the lines of “I think a democratic republic is a dumb idea, and that we should go to a direct democracy.”

                    At that point, the room sort of blew up on him, and I just raised my hands and stepped back. Because that guy totally made his own bed, and now he was going to have to lay in it. His rather not very well thought out and error laden bed.

                    I imagine something similar would happen here, if we ever got past the obfuscation, bare assertion fallacies, appeals to flattery, etc. It doesn’t mean that TomA’s proposing something like a final solution, or that he’s looking to kick the crutches out from under welfare recipients, or toss grandma off a cliff. But he’s not willing to say what he is for in anything but vague references and a lot of offense taking. And that should give us some indication of the way his “proposal” would sound if he dared actually speak it out loud. Or if he were able to speak it out loud, I’m not sure which is more accurate, and the results are the same in either case.

                    (Meanwhile, doesn’t that whole thing sort of remind you of “I have a secret plan to end Vietnam?” Personally, I will be reading all of his future comments in Nixon’s voice. Ups the entertainment value. And the insults sort of flow a little better if you read them in Nixon.)

                    1. Zachary, I take your point.

                      I’m just aiming at a clear record. Because his behavior rings my bells.

                      But I’m gonna do the Nixon read, from here on out.

                    2. “If he had something other than vague references to “hitting bottom”, and bright-eyed hope that we’d bounce back from whatever he means by that”

                      But everybody’s bottoms are different, some are high, some are low, some are wide, some are dumb, and we’ve even got a jack-bottom explaining it all to us.

    3. If you have followed our esteemed hostess for any amount of time you would know that she is not a one trick pony. And I don’t mean in authorial voice. Her range of subjects and issues are even more varied than she has writing styles. She has better sense than to try and address everything every time — that would require encyclopedic volumes.

    4. For Eamon, here are the specifics (in common language and abbreviated form).

      First, recognize that you cannot hope to solve a problem until you first understand it.

      Second, investigate the premise that entitlement addiction may be a serious and growing problem here in this country. Perhaps a private think tank would take on this assignment.

      Third, attempt to estimate the size and consequences of this addiction if you determine that it is indeed a serious problem. For example, this addiction could be playing a major role in determining the outcome of elections if people choose only to vote for politicians that promise more entitlements.

      Fourth, attempt to determine if self-serving politicians are deliberately growing this problem in order to enhance their own incumbency. In other words, is this a vicious cycle of corruption and dependency?

      Fifth, if you find the above to be true, then admit that you have a problem. Do not hide from this truth because it is embarrassing or politically incorrect to speak of it.

      Sixth, take the lessons learned in treating other forms of addiction and apply that knowledge to addressing this form of the problem. For example, it is known that enabling is not helpful and that most addicts need to hit a bottom of sorts before they become sincerely motivated to change. A habit is a hard thing to break, even if it’s largely psychological.

      Seventh, recognize that there is no “best” or “single” way to wean addicts away from their harmful behavior. It will likely take much time and trial-and-error effort to determine the most effective strategies for attacking this problem on a large scale. This is not a trivial problem and the solutions will not be easy. The 12 Step program can be a starting guide.

      Eighth, do not expect any help from Washington DC because they have a vested interest in continuing the vote buying addiction. Assume they will be adversarial and fight this effort tooth and nail. Same for the national media.

      Ninth, recognize that it will take great courage to stand up and face this problem openly, and that the price of action will be extreme condemnation by the current opinion leaders in society. This fight is not for the faint of heart.

      Tenth, as such, recognize that this battle will be much more difficult to fight that an actual shooting war and that we are starting out in the minority. We will need every good idea possible in order to have any chance of success. We cannot know in advance what will work and what will not, so don’t let ignorance turn into paralysis.

      There is more, but this is the gist of it.

        1. Sarah, I never claimed that any of this is new or edgy. It may have had lots of discussion here on your blog (I wouldn’t know, I’m new here), but you are disingenuous to imply that this topic gets lots of play in the national debate. How many politicians have referred to entitlement as an addiction? Not many, I’ll wager.

          And if you portray this problem as just welfare malfeasance or misguided social policy, then you’re missing the key point, These people are not behaving as they do because they are bad people, but because they are hooked on a bad habit. And that dependence drives their voting behavior and perpetuates a cycle of electing corrupt politicians.

          And you are now side-stepping my original point. Which is that until you tackle this problem, staying the course with politics as usual will not succeed. Even if you got rid of Boehner and McConnell, these addicts will replace them with the next generation of entitlement enablers.

          And for the benefit of the peanut gallery, no, I am not suggesting a new federal program to rehabilitate entitlement addicts. That is the fox guarding the hen house. I’m suggesting that you’re ignoring the root problem because it’s harder to solve than dancing to the same-old political tune. Dance on in your bliss, but don’t expect miracles.

          1. “I never claimed that any of this is new or edgy.”
            “The folks at the Huffington Post would be forming a lynch mob if they read my posts regarding entitlement addiction. That is a secret that they absolutely do not want discussed in the public domain.”

            1. You’re confusing “new and edgy” with controversial. The reason I originally offered to discuss this topic with Sarah is a separate setting was because I knew it was controversial and I didn’t want to turn her blog site into a flame zone with these controversial (and potentially incendiary) ideas. If this blog thread had appeared on the Huffington Post, I can assure that they would not view it as merely “new and edgy.”

          2. You don’t seem to understand that this issue has already been studied Look into sites like The Heritage Foundation, The CATO Institute, Town Hall, National Review, and the American Enterprise Institute. You’ll get some insights you might not realize existed.

            And you might want to look at Public Choice Theory before you talk about corruption. Here’s a good overview.

            You say we must treat welfare like an addiction but we shouldn’t create programs to treat it. First, where is your information coming from that welfare is an addiction? How do you plan on getting all these welfare recipients to treatment? Why should they go? And who is going to pay the counselors?

            You’re treating an economic issue as medical. And that is why you sound so foolish.

            1. James, you’re coming in late, so please allow me to provide some context.

              Sarah’s OP was essentially a recommendation to stay-the-course with current politics and not defect to the alternatives of Third Party or Let It Burn. I offered the opinion that we should not limit ourselves to the stated options of Stay-the-course, Third Party, Let It Burn, or civil war; and that none of those address the serious core issue of entitlement addiction (not welfare addiction as you put it).

              My reasoning is that this addiction is serious and growing, and that the members of this group will habitually vote for politicians that promise evermore entitlement benefits. I know that many people perceive this behavior as being a volitional character flaw, but it practice it is functionally no different than a heroin addiction. A habit is a hard thing to break.

              As such, no amount of political adjustment is likely to solve the problem of addicts habitually electing corrupt politicians who promise the world in exchange for a reliable vote and ensure their incumbency. I have argued that this is the pressing problem and requires our urgent attention. Yes, it is a very difficult and intractable problem, but ignoring does make things better.

              Despite repeated entreaties for a magic bullet solution, I do not have one; and if one existed, it would likely already be in motion. I have offered a stepwise process to attacking the problem and leveraging off of our experience and knowledge gained from treating other forms of addiction. This is just common sense, nothing remarkable.

              And yes, I am aware that other organizations have studied this problem in some form, but none of them seem to recognize that the malady is more like an addiction rather than bad judgement.

              I could be entirely wrong in my analysis. No one here has yet to make the case that entitlement addiction does not exist.

      1. It’s early in the morning, I’m feeling snarky:

        We can all rest easy now.

        All this anguish, for nothing.

        We just need — entitlements anonymous.

          1. ” Does Obamacare cover it?”

            Only if you are a single mother, or a racial minority, or a non-standard gender, or identify as a non-standard gender, or…

      2. Oh, dear G_d. I got roused up to see this stupid regurgitated garbage? WTF!?!?!? You think this is new and brilliant? A think tank needs to study Welfare Entitlement.. Ever hear of the Heritage Foundation? It’s been done. Go back and do some homework before you write up your ill conceived manifesto. Google is your friend. The rest of us think you’re a conceited idiot.

          1. I can’t laugh. The few braincells I have are recovering from the moonshine and reading that crap cause a few of them to commit seppuku.

            1. But at least you lost an hour to Daylight Savings Time, right?

              Non-sequiturs. They’re my only defense.

            1. Holy crap. I’m rather glad I didn’t spend more than a handful of minutes in this thread. This Tom guy is….really bad at this.

                    1. Yep. I mean, it delves into such taboo subjects as people living lives dependent on entitlements.


                      I mean, other than the millions of times most of us have said it.

      3. Hmm…

        First, recognize that you cannot hope to solve a problem until you first understand it.

        Nonsense. I have worked a tech support desk. I have solved many problems without having understood them.

        Second, investigate the premise that entitlement addiction may be a serious and growing problem here in this country.

        I don’t think I have seen any actual disagreement that entitlement addiction is a problem, at least on this blog. However, your earlier claim that it comes from “being too affluent for too long” does not follow.

        Third, attempt to estimate the size and consequences of this addiction if you determine that it is indeed a serious problem

        Yeah, we already know it’s huge. It’s been pointed out a couple of bajillion times.

        Fourth, attempt to determine if self-serving politicians are deliberately growing this problem in order to enhance their own incumbency.

        Well, it’s almost certain SOME of them are. Duh.

        Fifth, if you find the above to be true, then admit that you have a problem

        WHOA, Nellie! How does this constitute ME having a problem?

        Sixth, take the lessons learned in treating other forms of addiction and apply that knowledge to addressing this form of the problem.

        You implied you had a plan. IF you had a plan, you should have already performed this step, and had the actual plan ready to present. Not tell us, “Admit you have a problem, no go research how to fix it yourself.”

        Seventh, recognize that there is no “best” or “single” way to wean addicts away from their harmful behavior.

        Yeah? No kidding. How about this plan you had, again?

        Eighth, do not expect any help from Washington DC because they have a vested interest in continuing the vote buying addiction. Assume they will be adversarial and fight this effort tooth and nail.

        Duh, again.

        Ninth, recognize that it will take great courage to stand up and face this problem openly, and that the price of action will be extreme condemnation by the current opinion leaders in society.

        And again, HOW exactly do you propose this?

        Tenth, as such, recognize that this battle will be much more difficult to fight that an actual shooting war and that we are starting out in the minority

        More difficult than facing the possibility of killing relatives and former friends? Not for me, and I would wager not for a whole lot of people.

        As for being in the minority, probably not so much as you think. There are a lot of people who recognize the problems with entitlements.

        But as far as a plan goes? You still are offering nothing but vague handwaving, when you implied that you had a plan.

          1. Affluence is relative. As our hostess and many others have pointed out, someone on welfare still lives better than 80% plus of the planet.

            1. Heck, the only reason I live better than most on welfare is because I budget well, there are plenty of them whose net income, after taxes, exceeds mine.

              1. In fairness to the recipients, as Welfare is predicated on wealth as much as on income, anybody on Welfare who practices fiscal frugality is severely punished.

                As Admiral Ackbar said, It’s a trap!

                You can check-out any time you like, But you can never leave.

          2. I’m not arguing that people shouldn’t be allowed to earn whatever they can based upon their ability and productivity. I’m arguing that three generations of national affluence have eliminated most forms of hardship in life and that has made many of us soft. And that softness has fostered the growth of entitlement addiction.

            Look at all of the things that are practically free at government expense; food, shelter, education, health care, job training and jobs, two years of unemployment compensation, social security retirement, (Hell, we now provide free cell phones), and on and on. It’s no surprise that people get on the dole and choose to vote for a living versus actual work.

            If you think this is a trivial problem, then you haven’t been paying attention to how serious and widespread the addiction is.

            1. Nobody here thinks this is a trivial problem, we also don’t think it is a taboo problem. Nor does you restating it 37 times count as a solution to the problem.

              “I’m arguing that three generations of national affluence have eliminated most forms of hardship in life and that has made many of us soft. And that softness has fostered the growth of entitlement addiction.”

              And I’m arguing that entitlements have fostered the growth of entitlement addiction, not national affluence.

        1. “WHOA, Nellie! How does this constitute ME having a problem?”

          If you live here in the United States, and if the entitlement addicts succeed in taking down this country, then you will go down with the ship too. That makes it a problem for every honorable citizen.

      4. Oh for frack sake.

        You didn’t lay out anything here but crap that has already been tried. All those words you’ve typed and this is what you deliver? Your grand plan? Pathetic.


        You do realize that this has been known, discussed, and a bone of contention since FDR instituted Social Security? Oh and it is most definitely is NOT a taboo subject around here. In fact we could be the volunteer version of that all important think tank that you think needs established. (because apparently the hundreds of them already discussing this subject haven’t crossed your radar)

    5. I assert that the house is on fire …

      I assert the house is graham crackers, chocolate bars and marshmallows and that we need to meld it together for s’mores.

      Mere assertion does not constitute an argument.

  16. I think it’s too late, but I admire your optimism. If the DHS was de-funded I have no doubt there would be a huge false flag killing if not several. Maybe even a city lost. People have not figured out that DC is full of monsters that make Larry Correia’s writing look like children’s books. Uncle Joe Stalin showed these folks his play-book.

    1. I think – I HOPE – that the political class has some concept of how angry the public would get if we lost a city. Some minor attack, about the size of Boston, might have the desired effect. Lose a city, and hell will go for a walk with the sleeves rolled up, and if the LIRPs think they could channel that they are even more foolish than I thought they were.

  17. Frankly, I think the first step we all have to take is to stop being meek & mild sheeple. Get a reputation for being outspoken and argumentative. If a friend, co-worker or relative makes an idiotic statement, call them out on it. Make them prove it or take it back, be in their face with the facts, and don’t let some mealy-mouthed idiot shut you down with “Can’t we all just get along?” That’s the language of appeasement.

    Vidkun Quisling and Neville Chamberlain both disarmed their peoples by mealy-mouthed platitudes. Charles Lindbergh was an outspoken adherent to Naziism. On the other hand, Winston Churchill was an out-spoken, no-holds-barred rough houser. He didn’t say a lot – compared to Chamberlain – but what he said had impact, and people eventually listened.

    People, we aren’t trying to win friends, but to influence people. And we can”t influence them unless we insist on being heard. I decided a few years ago that I would no longer keep my opinions to myself. I would argue the point with anyone who tried pushing a contrary idea. I’ve lost friends; I’ve had people unfriend me on social networks. But they know where I stand – and more important – why. Interestingly a liberal relative has re-friended me in the mean time, and another, who is supposed to be conservative, has cut ties. And my liberal sister has been tracking closer to center than before.

    Sorry! Didn’t mean to write a blog! But I don’t see we have a choice in methods. Not if we want to win in our lifetimes.

    1. There are times when civility – particularly the mealy-mouthed variety – in response to intellectual dishonesty is counterproductive in the defense of liberty.

    2. This actually works really well. There is at least one forum I’m on that had a moderator say he didn’t know what about the general subject of the blog attracted so many conservatives. I pointed out it was that there were so many of us but that we didn’t feel obligated to listen to the BS. Also, if one of us speaks up generally more join in the chorus.

  18. “What are you going to gain by this?”

    I believe by creating a third party a la the GOP out of the Whigs (perhaps instead of third party a better term would be a splinter part) I believe we would gain two things:

    1. A temporary bypassing of the seniority system and its time serving requirement that corrupts even well intended politicians prior to their achieving leadership roles.

    2. A system that will harness the will to power that defines those seeking political to productive ends.

    First idea, if we go back to your post yesterday you made this comment:

    And then let’s say you manage to send your bright shining boys and girls to DC. What do you think will happen? I’ll tell you what will happen. What happens to republicans. Their offices will be penetrated, their information corrupted and they’ll become – at best – like the republicans.

    However, you didn’t think to apply this to your idea of elect more conservative Republicans. In fact, this problem applies to a take over the GOP as well as a third party because of the need to time serve your way into leadership and thus control of the agenda. Few people remember that 20 years ago John Boehner was one of the architects of the “Contract With America”. How is it one of the Gang of Seven that lead to the Gingrich Revolution is now leader of a caucus that cannot even stand together against Obama after winning a stunning election victory premised on that very goal?

    Because he had to time serve his way up the institution.

    The idea of basing a new party on a strong section of the existing GOP is in part based on cutting out the seniority chain. The good Republicans of which you keep telling us to elect more are all junior and thus corrupted. What we need is a method to get them quickly up the leadership chain without allowing time for their corruption. The GOP had an opportunity to allow that last year when Eric Cantor went down to a defeat in the primary but the general opinion was Kevin McCarthy did not qualify. He is part of the leadership senior chain having been a deputy whip prior to 2010. Steve Scalise, the current whip, may qualify.

    As an aside, getting pushed up the leadership chain early due to his stance on the seating of Frank McCluskey was a key to Newt’s success where he achieved his place about a decade faster than normal.

    So, a third party formed by splintering off the lower half of the seniority tree would bypass, at least initially, this time serving form of corruption and move individuals like Crux, Lee, Price, and so on into leadership immediately.

    The second idea is to encourage them to leap to get this bypass. The story history tells us of the collapse of the Whigs is dedicated anti-slavery people got feed up with go along to get along leadership and the party collapsed. I suspect that’s true as far as it goes but why would mid-level Whigs give up their position all of a sudden to burnish their anti-slavery credentials.

    Simple, power. I suspect many of the elected Whigs who carried over to the GOP were motivated as much by the chance to be the big-wigs with power now instead of waiting their turn and maybe never getting there. With both parties significantly out of sync with the electorate they saw and seized an opportunity to gain power by appealing to that part of the populace that was not represented by either party.

    The tricky part, and I’ll admit I have a hard time seeing around this by the electoral process period, existing party or new, is that the ideological part that we’re going to try to tempt power hungry people with is the devolution of power away from the seats they are seeking. Will they be willing to take half a loaf of power now in exchange for the possibility of two loaves in 20 years? What is the discount rate on power?

    This are questions to which I don’t have an answer.

    1. 1. A temporary bypassing of the seniority system and its time serving requirement that corrupts even well intended politicians prior to their achieving leadership roles.

      Which will, like, totally work after the third party results in the Democrats retaking a veto-proof majority under President Clinton_45.

      1. I see…so the idea that it might work in 2018 is utterly meaningless because it didn’t work in 2016. Not to mention that even minority parties have leadership and effective leadership by the minority party in just one House is currently controlling the agenda in the entire Congress.

        By all means, we wouldn’t want to risk emulating that when we could just continue it instead.

  19. Hi Sarah. I love your work generally, and I think most of the country agrees that starting a third party is completely useless. So how about we compromise?

    1) I agree that voting Republican is the best political alternative,
    2) And you agree that politics is not how we’re going to get out of this.

    America’s debt is more than is sustainable. The rest of the world is going to collapse into extremely bloody, long-term fighting. The Middle East already has done. And in America, King Putt wants to legalize millions of new citizens in a frank invasion. We’re in the end-game, and while I can do the politics thing for fifty years, things will come to a head a lot quicker than that.

    Are you willing to stand up to the criminal IRS and refuse to pay the king’s taxes? Will you advocate for viewpoints you don’t completely share, just because we all have to stick together? Will you be sympathetic to people who are targeted as criminals, maybe even offer some small help for people to resist? Money, a megaphone, more? I’m not asking you to go out and start firing into the crowd, or even stop paying your taxes right now. But the only question on a lot of people’s minds is, can we rely on you?

    And the question’s not just for Sarah, but for all of you. Especially me. So yes.

    1. So what are you advocating? What is your end game?

      You say that the collapse is going to come. You seem to make the point that it is foolish to keep playing the long game. So what should we do?

  20. I’m wondering what would happen if billboards were to go up in Jim Boehner’s district And Washington D.C. calling him “The best Republican Speaker the Democrats have ever had”. It seems immature but I’m wondering how unsafe we could make his Speakership and house seats if we forced him to defend himself to his peers and constituents.

    1. I imagine it would go very well for the Democrats, who,after all, are the ones pushing the lie they would support Boehner for the Speakership. Boehner has stopped them cold on the ACA, and many other issues, and got a win out of the last shutdown, the one that was supposed to return Congress to them. “Oh, No! Don’t throw me in that briarpatch!” they are saying quite loudly. Why are you falling for it?

      (And his Speakership is quite safe. Alas, his “Real Conservative(TM)” opponents couldn’t count votes, and moved too soon, and too publicly. If you are going to kill the King, Kill the King! Stupid to even try, after the biggest Republican victory in what?, a century?, but they did, and he is going to be wow-bulletproof until there’s an actual Legislative debacle, and it doesn’t look like there’s going to be one anytime soon, other then in the eyes of “the Base”, who aren’t the ones who get to vote.)

    2. It’s John Boehner, not Jim Boehner. His district starts just a few miles from where I sit typing this. As far as I can tell, nobody around here really likes him, they just dislike the Democrats and/or figure having the Speaker be from their district is good for the district. I think they’d support a solid alternate candidate in the Republican primary if one appeared. OTOH, they may be too “conservative” to change to supporting a conservative.

      1. The way he acts I think his district is one of the “Safe” ones. I think I also remember the last guy who ran against him was destroyed economically as well.

        1. Of Boehner’s challengers, Winteregg was a 32-year old high school teacher, Gurr a businessman, and the Tea Party candidate dropped out the weak before the vote. ISTR neither Gurr nor Winteregg had any real political experience, nor much in the way of campaign funding. OTOH, Winteregg did have one of the best quotes of the 2014 election cycle when he accused Boehner of being responsible for “electile dysfunction.”

  21. Since deep down I’m a mean SOB, I’m going to say a mean, SOB thing: Essentially we are asked to change the GOP from within. If it is possible to do so, why couldn’t we do so with the Democrats? And if it’s not possible with the Democrats, why is it possible with the GOP?

    Yeah, the only other option is to play the donkey in Animal Farm, who knowingly nods his head at the goings on until the horse is carted to the renderer. But unless the hearts and minds of the American people change, we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

      1. I spent a couple decades trying to do that in California. (Maybe the conditions there make it undoable.)

        I’d recommend a different approach, frankly, they don’t listen.

    1. Because conservatives have been laying down an intellectual framework in the GOP since Goldwater (and depending on how you count it, Coolidge). Theoretically we could do it with the Democrats, at least until 2010, after that the conservative element of the party was pretty much wiped out.

    2. Because the democrats are communists. You’re not a mean SOB, you’re a blinkered one. Communists are organized, we’re not. We’re getting there and we’ve already made a marked difference in the GOP. BUT if we can’t take over the GOP, why do you think we can start a third party? EXACTLY?

      1. I would argue they are fascists, and point to their belief in a strong central government to make the masses “do the right thing.” Be that as it may, my point is not third party, unless it’s from dissatisfied Democrats. My point is that if we’re unlikely to change the Democrats from within, I have little hope to change the GOP, either. That’s the damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

        I think a more effective application would be selling the ideals of liberty and a strong interpretation of the Constitution to voters so that it becomes one of their top concerns. That puts pressure on both. I doubt i will cut significantly into the maybe 20% – 30% who’d vote for a yellow dog if it was on the ticket, but it’ll affect the rest.

        1. Do you think the change will happen overnight? Or in five years? Or ten years?


          It will happen over a long time, which is the point. Of course,w we can just give up and not play that game.

          1. Do it right, and it can happen in 18 or less. It takes winning hearts and minds for that.

        2. Communism and Fascism are artifically differentiated as a result of postwar Soviet agitprop. Back in the 1920s and 30s they were all Socialism, with only various minor tribal differences between them, such as the reverence for Marx. After the Great Patriotic War there was a need to rewrite that history, but the postwar Socialists still ended up tribally differentiating – see the great split between China and the USSR. Nowadays it would be very difficult to enumerate a lot of differences between the Communist Chinese and the German National Socialists.

          1. OK, to be fair on that last, one of the differences is that the Chinese Communist Party is far more, well, circumspect in their how they remedy their undesirable ethnic populations problems than the National Socialists were. More retail than wholesale, as it were.

        3. Heinlein called it “the red fascism.” So, six of one. But what I’m trying to tell you, Timid, is that Republicans and Democrats are not the same, in structure or organization. You’re ignoring that we’ve been taking over the Republicans since Goldwater and concertedly (and with marked success for six years.) Comparing apples to hedgehogs doesn’t make your argument credible.

          1. And the ones my grandparent’s generation fought were the “black fascists.” Now we’re muttering here about the “blue would-be fascists.”

          2. Sarah, this is your blog. But with no disrespect, not long ago, in regards to another organization, you were pointing out it was nigh impossible to change things from within. As a former Stealth Republican who thought the Democrats would change from within after Carter, I agree with that. I gave up on the Democrats completely in the early 1990s, and became a Republican, which was how I was voting, anyway.

            Then the Republicans turned out to be a virtual difference only, for despite their rhetoric, most of they time they do not act on it. Which leaves us in a mell of a hess, for third parties in American politics act as spoilers, and in this case a Republican split would grease the rails for the Democrats.

            Yet for a good many of us, the idea of telling the Republicans to go to Berkley is attractive because we bought into the GOP as opposition to the Democrats; saw the difference they could make, only to see them flitter it away and pretty much jump to whatever tune called the the MSM. A false flag operation? As someone who flew a false flag in the Democrats, it’s possible. It’s also possible that so many of us are so disillusioned that we’ve said to blazes with it, whether it’s with a party or a nation hellbent on self-destruction.

            Now we’re asked to believe that even though it’s nigh impossible to change an organization from within, we can do this with the Republicans? That’s a hard sell. That’s why I pin my hopes not on changing a party, but on changing hearts an minds of voters. For while it may be impossible to change a party from within, it’s entirely possible to change a party from without, particularly one where it’s members risk their cushy job. Most politicians will put their dachas before their ideology every time.

            1. Yes, I HAVE been waiting for that. Thank you for bringing it up. The thing is I was pointing that out about SFWA, but if you don’t see the difference between a club that confers ONLY prestige (and a nifty party at cons, and a directory of members) and one that is formed for governance? I can’t explain it to you.
              For SFWA not only is the game not worth the candle, but the nature of the club means people who want to work for a living are fish out of water there.
              For the GOP it’s different, and we’ve been making progress.
              That said, you’re right and the important work needs to be in the culture. Or perhaps I think that because that’s where I labor.
              We have fifty years of bad schooling to undo. I just don’t think we do it with “one hard winter.”
              It’s not an either/or. Keep pushing on both fronts. I think we have tech on our side and the turning will be easier and faster than we think.
              The disagreement here is not even on methods, it’s on “For fuck’s sake, stop scaring the idiots in washington, because it makes our fight harder right now. There’s a time to scare them. RIGHT NOW is not it.” And “Now is not the time to burn it all down.”

            2. The difference between SFWA and the Republicans is that SFWA can’t send men with guns out. There’s only so much effort to go around, and this is more important. I don’t have to bother reforming SFWA by whatever method; they’re essentially irrelevant.

              I believe the phrase is “not worth the powder it would take to blow them to Hell.”

              1. The one I am familiar with is, “not worth the powder it would take to blow their brains out.”

                Oh, we’re talking about SFWA, they don’t have any brains to blow out, sorry.

                1. I liked the formula Weber came up with: “If their brains were turned to antimatter, the explosion wouldn’t blow a gnat’s nose.”

        4. Changing the GOP from within has been done in living memory. Reagan did it — read Craig Shirley’s Reagan’s Revolution for a description of what the party platform of Nixon, Rockefeller and Ford was … and how the platform of Reagan differed.

          Even today the party pays lip service to Reagan’s principles, so all we subverters need do is make them own those. Changing the Red Facists Democrats requires a very different infrastructure; the more reasonable stroke would be to intensify its internal contradictions and bust it wide open.

      1. That was for illustrative use only – the system is more fragile than most realize. A full freezer and a generator is a good investment these days.

  22. As someone unabashedly in the “let it burn” camp, I believe I have a few worthwhile point or two to add to the discussion.

    We cannot save the Republican party for the simple reason that the party does not wish to be saved. They fight much harder against attempts to reform them than they do against Democrats. Worse, the general public is, at best, ambivalent about the idea.
    I live in the most conservative district in what is famously the most conservative state in the country. I’m represented by corrupt suckweasel. Every attempt at removing this loathsome individual through the primary process has been met with the national Republican party and associated interest groups dumping millions of dollars into helping him retain his seat. The last time around, he was refreshingly honest and his campaign amounted to “the pork, the whole pork, and nothing but the pork”.
    And he beat us like a rented mule.

    The national Republican party has no interest in returning the power they currently hold to the states. Sure, it’s what we elected them to do, but it’s clearly in their best interests not to do it. Few people are Cinncinatius.

    Portions of the country are irrevocably lost to us. Worse, half the country’s population lives in these urban democratic strongholds.

    We can fight, and we can make a difference, but it will be localized. I’ve spent a couple of decades trying to help save the nation. At best, I’ll wind up helping to save my community. And that’s the optimistic projection.
    Which doesn’t mean I’m going to strike my colors. Lost Causes are still worth fighting for.
    But we’re likely playing the role of Nock’s Isaiah to some future remnant.

    1. Who do you think is the party? Precisely. The establishment stuffed shirts are not the party. They’ve never been. Study the Reagan/first Bush split and who supported them.

      1. The party is loosely comprised of all people who register as a member and vote regularly.

        At best, we comprise a quarter of it. And that’s being optimistic.

        I’d love it if the citizenry was more interested and involved.
        But it isn’t.

        1. It’s actually a little worse than what you describe, since the Republicans have mostly open primaries, and Democrats have taken advantage of that even when “Republicans” haven’t been as blatant as MS 2014.

            1. Explain. At least here, it was the establishment that ended open primaries a few years ago. You might have a good explanation, but I have seen the opposite from the GOP myself, as they push to close primaries. I can even make an argument for closing primaries, but have to disagree with it on principle.
              I shouldn’t have to register as a particular party in order to vote in the primary, and then only be able to vote for candidates running on that parties ticket. If I think that a republican candidate is the best choice for governor, but I prefer one of the democratic candidates for senator, and possibly a libertarian for state treasurer, I should be able to vote for the candidate of my choice (one per position, not one per party).

              1. bearcat, the gist of the problem is that the primaries are supposed to be for the party to pick the candidates they will then vote for in the general. The vileprogs that are allowed in under an open primary are picking either the candidate they think they can defeat in the general OR (as in MS 2014) the RINO who will be as close to their goals as possible so they don’t lose anything substantive.

  23. For my pains I was told I’m an “incrementalist” and that I respect authority and that I am mushy and that haven’t I seen that Boehner is the worst thing evah, evah, and the only choice is to start shooting.

    Good heavens, the root of a lot of my disagreements with you is your apparent bone-level resistance to authority, even if it’s legitimate. You don’t give in to it all the time, but the different ways of “sez who?!” have different results.

    Knee-jerk resistance to authority is at least as bad as knee-jerk following of authority, it can just look a bit different because the folks who glorify resisting authority are pretty dang picky about who is counted as authority. (And– amazingly– it’s never them. Even when they argue from authority….)

    1. I would posit: knee-jerk resistance to authority is not as bad, and certainly not worse. Knee-jerk rejection, however — yes. As bad and worse.

        1. No argument. Initially resistant but smart enough to assess is a different beast than thoughtlessly resistant through and through.

      1. Basically:
        going “you are successful in something; I will listen to you” is going to have a slightly higher rate of success than “you are successful in something; I will automatically reject anything you say.”

        The fallacy is argument from invalid authority, after all– how are you going to figure out who is most likely a valid authority if you just automatically listen to anybody who says they are?

  24. Dear Sarah, didn’t you get enough yesterday? Are you doing the same thing today, and expecting a different outcome?
    And if it’s a choice between Cake and Death, I’ll have a ham and cheese sandwich, heated enough to make the cheese soft, with mayo. And coffee. Water for dessert.

  25. People got awfully rude in that last post. It’s not much fun to see our side self-cannibalize.

    Setting things right depends on people being intelligent and rational, patient, and taking the long view.

    Then there’s the other side. I mean, if you want to see irrational, foaming at the mouth hatred, go take a look at David Gerrold’s facebook.

    Why doesn’t stuff like that turn people off of the left? I dunno, maybe people LIKE to be a part of destructive, irrational hate. Maybe that gives them the little lift they desperately want inside, even if it is ultimately empty. It might even give them some temporary victories, but being empty, it will collapse sooner than a solid framework of beliefs.

    Let it burn is hateful emptiness on our side. The idea that a Conservative Utopia will arise from the ashes is little different from the leftist’s idea that a Socialist Utopia will arise from the ashes of a “revolution”.

    1. “Let It Burn” looks a bit like the old 19th century Marxist-Anarchist nihilism with the numbers filed off. And do I detect a whiff of a “false consciousness” argument? And isn’t the desire for a strong leader redolent of interwar years, when scientific statism was all the rage?
      Aaaand I’ll just leave this here:

      1. I think the “let it burn” contingent is a combination of false flag operatives and immensely-frustrated anti-leftists. I think the frustration among those who oppose the left is very high, but I suspect there are agent provocateur lefties trying to stir up trouble just to make their opponents look unreasonable. The left is constantly engaged in attacks on the reasonableness of its opponents, and any grist in their mill is a bonus.

        1. Oh, yes. That’s what I think too. I think people like Chris Muir, Bill Quick, our own Snelson and John Stry and a ton of other people I LOVE are just burned out. Honestly, if I hadn’t so much experience of going beyond the burn out in publishing I might join them. I GET them. I just think they need to do what my grandma said and fashion their guts into a new heart.

          1. My reasoning for everyone to stop voting republican and to just let the democrats have it is fairly simple.
            First, the current republicans have sold us out and like the democrats, they don’t love this country and will do anything for power. So they must go. To get rid of the there are only three ways:
            1) wait for them to die. But this takes too long, and allows others of the same ilk to take their place
            2) kill them. While this would certainly work, the political and social upheaval would probably tear the country apart.
            3) stop electing them, cut them off at the knees. – this would force them to either join the democrat party to be re-elected, or leave office.
            Second, if we remove them from power by not voting for them anymore, yes the democrats will push through their anti-American agenda full force. That is a good thing, because it will get everyone off the fence, and many of those who vote democrat ‘because Republicans are evil’ will wake up (just like many are starting to do now that they see what’s about to happen to the internet, and they find that their jobs are being given to aliens).
            Third, once these people wake up, and start complaining, two things can happen:
            1) convention of the states, which is currently gaining momentum slowly, would be heavily pushed, in order to reign in our government gone wild.
            2) a new party, to replace the Republicans, would form. One that (for now at least) would be a lot more concerned about what the base thinks.

            Now how long would all of this take? I’d say four to eight years. Ten years top. We live in an information heavy age after all.

            Now, if we don’t stop the government now, while we still can, in a relatively peaceable manner, we will be seeing a war. It will probably start out as a civil one, but unless China and Russia have serious internal problems of their own by then, I can guarantee you they’ll be landing troops here in the USA by the boat load. Probably they’ll be disguised as ‘UN peacekeepers’ at first, but it will be bloody, it will be long, and it will be the end of this country. China is already on a path that will lead to war in the south pacific, the parallels to 1930’s Japan are pretty obvious. I’m waiting for the Japanese to announce that they have nuclear weapons. I’m sure they have them already, but are just being quiet for now, because China has already started to conquer lands that do not belong to it (and our news media is ignoring it, ask the Philippines).

            Russia is also on the move, they’ve attacked two countries and taken back quite a bit of old USSR territory, Putin has clearly stated that he wants to get back all of the could war territories, and so far, the west has again done nothing.

            Then there is Iran, which will probably have the bomb soon. Did you know they were building an ICBM base in Venezuela? Most people don’t. Since Chavez died, there hasn’t been any information in the press about it. I wonder if they’re still building it? Iran has missiles that can reach as far as DC right now from such a base.

            So, in short, this is not a time for us to fall into civil war. The current path I see as leading us to one (I may be wrong, but I doubt it). So, that is why I won’t vote republican anymore (with the possible exception of Scott Walker if he runs). Voting for failure, only promotes failure.

            And as to those who say ‘well they can’t win, so why should they fight’? I seem to recall a group of three hundred men who took on an army, in a fight that was said ‘they can never win’, and everyone was right, they didn’t win, and they were all killed. But because they FOUGHT that fight, everyone else was inspired to fight as well, and eventually they won the war. You do not inspire your base, your people, your foot soldiers, by rolling over and showing your belly. But fighting, and fighting hard, trying to win, always inspires people, and THAT is the American Way. To fight the good fight, always, even when you know you don’t have a hope of winning it.

            1. err, and how are you going to keep the dems from changing things so you cannot fix them? This is like letting the Soviets nuke us so we could then nuke them (if we survive) then hope we had enough to rebuild.
              Not a good move.

                1. As I replied to the above: “What is stopping them now? Not the Republicans.”
                  That is not meant to be a trite statement, think about it.

                    1. I have thought about this. I have a very good understanding of how the entire system works. There is more that exists in the system of ‘checks and balances’ than just the Congress or the Supreme Court.
                      It’s called the States. And the people. If you push too fast, they do push back. Prohibition proved that. Look into how many people got convicted for drinking.

                    2. I’ve been there too, my ideas offered above, are to try and keep us from becoming Europe.
                      Our current path however will have us there soon enough if we don’t change it.

              1. Well what is stopping them now? Not the Republican party as we have clearly seen.
                Trouble is coming. Serious trouble. I have proposed what I think is a good way to deal with some of it. Our current course will not deal with it, and may in fact make things worse.

                1. John, this is where I tell you that you’re full of it. They might be profit and power minded, but they’re not communists, which is where the hatred comes from. Unless this is “hate as defined by me.”

                  1. Why do they have to be communists to hate us? They want an oligarchy, so they can hold into power forever. Many people hate republics, not just communists. Have you seen the GOP leadership taking any course to protect the republic recently? Now that they were in a position that they could?
                    Look at how the left is in bed with Islam, even though they hate each other. They just hate the Republic even more. Each just thinks they can control the other, once they win.

            2. It seems to me that your point 3 could be addressed by a strong anti-incumbency movement within the conservative electorate.

              Kinda like the Tea Party.

  26. And if you don’t fund the DHS now, you get to be blamed by Obama when his several setups for an attack pay off.

    If anybody hasn’t heard, a bomb-sniffing dog flipped out in front of the White House today, and a vendor’s cart caught fire and/or exploded, news wasn’t very clear.

  27. It may already have been mentioned (I don’t have the time right now to go through all of the comments, and might not keep up with new ones anyway, this being one of THOSE posts).

    The BEST way to influence who gets into office (nominated, anyway) is to take over the precinct committees. These are the people who actually run the primaries; and, if you think they are “non-partisan” as they say – well, you probably believe that MSNBC is a news organization.

    Not enough attention to who is on the precinct committees (which control the rest of the leadership of the local Party) is how my district ended up with McSally. (Which is still better than what we did have – which is a sad, sad, comment on the electorate around here.)

    Now, it is a thankless job – like all volunteer things, you will be the 1% that does 99% of the work. But it really is the only way to truly change “politics as usual.”

  28. Another point to ponder- those who have read Hunter Thompson’s “Fear & Loathing on the Campaign Trail ’72” that the Left was frustrated with the Dem establishment and was also wanting to “burn it down”, or go third party. But what actually happened is that those wild eyed, radical leftist kids didn’t leave. Most became even more involved, and a few short years later, wound up running the Democratic party. The same party that beat, tear gassed, and firehosed them in Chicago ’68.

    1. Which brings up some interesting parallels between Nixon’s comments about the Hippies, and Obama’s characterizations of the Tea Party, 2nd Amendment activists, etc.

  29. My congress critter did not vote for the DHS – executive amnesty debacle. While, on its face, the vote against the DHS bill did not stop it or slow the demise of the republic, but for today, it was enough. So, I wrote him a note of thanks. The email I got in reply was priceless. His email clearly conveyed the little positive regard he typically got for his efforts.

    In the “carrot and stick” approach, you need a carrot sometimes. Those who immediately pull out the “3rd party and damn them all” card might be better served by writing a note of thanks to their representative for when they do good, as much, if not more so, than damning them publically when they don’t.

  30. I am going to drop a single comment aimed at both the let burn and start shooting camps! Have you ever been involved in combat or cleaning up after combat or a real natural disaster? How many of you had to put kids and women in body bags? Or just parts of bodies because the dead are mixed up to the point that you can not tell what goes with whom! Have you had to clean up the mess from someone you have blown to bloody bits? Unless you have done one or more of these things you need to shut your mouths! I have done all of them and if you are advocating that sort of action then I would bet real money you have not! Picking up body parts sucks where they are strangers to do it for friends and family will break most people!

    Nine years Search And Rescue USCG and almost eight in Law Enforcement. 37 personal saves 293 assists as crew. Four dead due to resisting arrest with firearms(1) or putting a third person’s life directly at risk(3).

    Unless you can match my experience please shut it up!

  31. Tom Kratman has been running a series of essays on this topic over on Every Joe:
    • The Breakup of the United States: Why It’s Such a Terrible Idea
    • The Breakup of the United States II: Political Alignments
    • The Political Optical Illusions, I through V
    • The Rest of the Political Optical Illusions
    • How the Moderate Masses Can Help Avoid the Breakup of the U.S.
    There’s some digression about the use of political spectra, but it’s an interesting read overall. Some of the same points you’re making, Sarah; and some very different ones too.

  32. I appreciate the thoughts and don’t entirely disagree, but the evidence that the Republicans aren’t also a bottomless pit of corruption is… what exactly?

    1. That they don’t pull the ultimate solution. That they don’t incite one side against the other.
      And even if they were a pit of corruption — and give me evidence they ARE. Don’t you think the adversarial press would uncover real stuff instead of thought crime if they could? — they don’t hate this country and that makes them preferable. and if you don’t know that, it’s because you don’t WANT to know. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

  33. You sound like a Tory in 1775. “Don’t break up; we can still work things out if we cooperate with the king!”

    1. Ah, so you want the country to fall is that it? Do you wish to see millions die? Do you wish to see our major cities turn into war zones that make Beirut look like a Sunday picnic? Is that what you want?

    2. I believe I’ll boggle.

      Is there a monarch on an island off somewhere across the Atlantic dictating terms, and I just haven’t heard about it? Might we break with that monarch and maintain our colonial integrity?

      Or are you just trying to make specious comparisons in a shallow effort to link people to the losing side of the last revolution in order to discredit their argument and bolster your own — I can’t very well say argument, can I? You haven’t made one. Ego?

      Perhaps a more current reference, one that has some link, however small, to the topic at hand might make your point for you. Any point would do.

      We could scrounge one up from the lost and found if you don’t have one of your own.

      1. I’d like to be clear on what I just heard here:
        “Perhaps a more current reference, one that has some link, however small, to the topic at hand ”

        The Founders and their successful struggle against overwhelming odds have no relevance to our situation? Seriously?

        1. Hm. I believe that’s a legitimate complaint, sir. Truly.

          Except — the original commenter labeling Sarah a Tory: I’m not seeing the direct reference to the Founders and their successful struggle. I’m seeing an aspersion cast because it harkens to the sentiments people hold about the Founders and their struggle.

          Because Sarah supporting the king of England in 1775 is ridiculous.

          And the corollary sentiment in 2015 is equally so.

          1. “it harkens to the sentiments people hold about the Founders and their struggle.”

            You mean like titling your post “Winter at Valley Forge”, and then characterizing those of us who disagree as “Small wonder then that, as in that bleak winter at Valley Forge, people are deserting, taking their kits, going home.”? That type of harkening? Frankly, your objection to one and not the other reminds me of the basic SJW contention that “it’s not racist when we say it.”

            From where I sit, if Sarah’s analogy to 1775 is good, so is his. Goose, Gander, sauce, some assembly required.

            1. If it pleases you.

              I do think she’s gone to some pains to flesh her arguments out, rather than tossing out silly one liners.

                1. I’m just trying to avoid a blue-on-blue.

                  We can disagree on this point, and move on.

                  1. Because we still agree on the situation, and what we want. JUST NOT ON HOW TO GET THERE.
                    And hell, I have my moments. I’m a depressive. I have my “everything is lost” time. I just get this sense that is wrong. And I’d like people to consider my view.

              1. Sarah, both sides are engaged in a spiritual battle right now. There’s a reason Patrick Henry included that line “The gentlemen cry ‘Peace, Peace’, but there is no peace.” Because he saw those around him who exactly wanted to compromise and give up. That’s why his analogy also strikes a chord.

                And I wasn’t saying your analogy was invalid; my objection was to Eamon saying, as I saw it, that his side could use an analogy, or a metaphor, or an image, but no one else could.

                1. My objection to the commenter — first time here — was the insult of calling me a royalist. You’ll admit it’s unwarranted?
                  As for both sides? WHAT SIDES? I think we’re on the same, and if you’re right we’ll end fighting the same way.
                  And if you’re not, the same.
                  It’s the peering into the crystal ball we disagree on. And I could be wrong.
                  The one thing I’m sure about is that — just as the founders tried everything before shooting — once the shooting starts, a lot of us will not only die (dying by itself is not a tragedy) but the outcome will be awful.

          1. And the founders DID run out the clock on trying to hold things together, didn’t they?

            Francis Smith, under the orders of Thomas Gage, marched on Concord to in an attempt to confiscate arms and ammunition on April 19th of that year. Benjamin Franklin, returning from England in an attempt to resolve the issue politically, stepped ashore on May 5. My sources do not say when he actually left England nor how long a trans-atlantic voyage was at the time. One source suggests such journeys took about six weeks in the early 19th century.

            Yeah, looks like they were trying to resolve things peaceably right up until the other side touched off the conflict.

            1. A bit more complicated. There are always fire eaters, and there were some that held opinions that the colonists could never be part of British government, and thus better off on their own. I’d have to look it up, but even George III made a remarkably prescient statement.

              Most colonists, however, wanted full rights as Englishmen. That was their cause even after the shooting started, and would remain into 1776. But there were those more than willing to thumb their nose at Britain and go their own way before Concord and Lexington.

              1. And after Concord as well. The idea of independence wasn’t solidified until 1778. The victory at Saratoga created rumors that King George III was willing to give the Colonists major concessions in return for peace. France was worried that England would turn directly to them if the war ended. France negotiated and signed the Treaty of Alliance which committed France to military help in return for the colonies committing to independence.

              2. yes, sure there were. BUT the founding fathers, the very people who put their lives on the line, were some of the ones that held on longer.
                My nickname around this house is “Sit down, John.” If we were alone in the world and not in danger of external enemies. If I thought more of the people were awake. I’d be the first to say “let’s duke it out. Let’s chance the second American revolution.” But I see the dangers all too clearly. IF we can reform; return to the words in the constitution and the declaration we have a better chance than tossing it all out and duking it out.

    3. Actually, that was the majority view in 1775, even after the shooting started. And it wouldn’t have done to have approached these peoples and called them Tories. They were aligned with the Whigs thank you very much. To find the Tories, you’d have to ride over to the camp where they Loyalists thought George III and North were doing the right thing, or at least the best thing possible.

  34. Sarah, you speak (or rather write) words that should fan the flames of optimism and engender a renewed sense of purpose among true Americans.

    My problem — and I freely admit it is MY problem — is that I have no flame of optimism left to fan, nor any belief that fighting the system from within the system will do any good at all. Slavery to a thoroughly corrupt aristocracy is the normal state of humankind, and America is reverting to it at an ever-increasing rate. The grand experiment that was the United States is over, and it failed. A new Revolution would probably not help, but neither could it make things any worse.

    I do, however, have one comment/thought that may or may not be useful. You wrote:

    “Third party. What do you expect to get by this?
    “It will split a party that at its best has about 50% of the vote.”

    Perhaps. Perhaps not. Remember that no more than about 55% of voters vote in presidential elections, and fewer than 50% vote in midterm elections. That’s why Republicans now have (theoretical) majorities in Congress while a lackwitted Democrat thug squats in the White House. Also remember what Ariel Sharon did in Israel ten years ago: he organized a third party that curb-stomped both Labor and Likud in the next election, and made him Prime Minister. A third party that could tap that huge mass of “who cares” nonvoters could succeed in becoming a powerful faction, perhaps even a majority. I admit this outcome would require an amount of luck that borders on the miraculous, but would you agree that it is at least possible?

      1. They tend to give disproportionate power to minority voices / fringe groups, and whether that is a feature or a bug likely depends on whether you’re Israeli or Italian. The last vote needed to make a majority wields far greater power than do the first 40%. Certes they make for less stable governments.

  35. I’m not burned out,I’m just getting started. Other Americans have other ideas on how to get their nation back. Republics are messy, and many ideas from the many will get into the mix, just as it did when it began.

    Before you extrapolate that others are “burned out, or lack guts, or understand revolutions, or don’t see the facts on the ground”, you might consider that you may not be correct. Or that others are perfectly fine to come to their own conclusions as Americans within their own experience.

    But this is all to the good, these columns, as they stir up ideas, discussion, passion, and resolve to those that they are not alone, much as the early Continental broadsides did.

    You are generating antibodies of all sorts here to tyranny, along with millions of others on the net.

    This is good.

    1. What I mean is I don’t hold it against anyone coming to their own conclusions. I only hope you consider mine, given my own background.
      And oh, my heavens, yes.

  36. I have nowhere else to go. I stand here. It’s my last stand.

    Some people look at the American Revolution and say “we need to do that again.” What they miss is that the situation here in the US at the time of the Revolution were unique in history, they haven’t been recreated since, and don’t hold now. By the time of the US break with Britain, we had a nation of immigrants “self selected” to a large extent for desiring freedom. Oh, it may have been the freedom to create their own highly insular and regulated communities but the key words there are “their own”. Even the “loyalists” were more “we can work something out to keep our freedoms” than “we should just kowtow to being ruled” (at least that’s my impression from my readings over the years).

    The American revolution is, therefore, unique. Looking at other revolutions in other times and places does not lead to happy making feelings “Liberte, Fraternite, Egalite” and The Terror. That’s a more common model, especially “The Terror.”

    If it does come to actual revolution, I expect that to be the most likely outcome, not “a new birth of freedom, kumbaya”. The odds are so very long against getting anything like a free society out of an armed insurrection that, well, things have to be pretty far gone indeed for that forlorn hope to look like the better option.

    As for the actual conduct of such a revolution itself, that will get ugly. Incredibly ugly. I’ve discussed that a bit elsewhere:

    In 2008 a movie was made about Jewish resistance fighters in Nazi occupied Bellarus. One of the things I noted was the partisans execution of an informer. That’s exactly how things will have to be. Doesn’t matter how intimidated you are, doesn’t matter if they beat it out of you or threatened your family, or what. You inform; you die. And if (more like when) that doesn’t succeed in stopping informers (or keeping the level low enough that the insurrection can proceed) the next step is to escalate: you inform; your entire family dies.

    Immoral? Downright evil? Yep. But that’s where it will be. That’s what it will be. That’s what an armed “Second* American Revolution” will come to.

    Better be damned sure it’s justified before pulling that trigger.

    *Yes, I am aware that with things like the Whiskey Rebellion, the American Civil War, the Battle of Athens, and other things “Second” is subject to challenge, but that’s the term I have heard most from people agitating for such a thing.

    1. I just read the transcript of that Reagan speech. It is from just over a half century again, and yet it still rings true in its description of the problems we face. If anything, the problems may be even worse now, for the Democratic Party has become even more a tool of leftist would-be totalitarians, and their supporters hold even more of the positions of power: media, education, academia, etc.

    2. That’s the terrible thing- a second American revolution will not be ultimately against a king far away, but your family, friends, and neighbors close by.
      Much of what is terrible in the American government today was request, lobbied for, voted for, and approved by voters. Hell, even Nixon’s statism was approved by the Right, who wanted to see those dam hippies put in their place!

  37. Now as for this “third party” vs. “working within the existing parties” argument. I note that the Libertarian Party to use one example for which I have numbers) was founded in 1971. It has run candidates in every Presidential election since 1972. So far, it has only once been able to capture even 1% of the vote. If you plot its results out as a trend it ‘s several thousand years before they reach a level high enough to actually win the Presidency.

    That should put paid to the “third party” idea.

    “But, but, that compromise approach is what got us into this mess.” Yes, because the other side has been willing to go for a little bit here, a little bit there, “compromise” so long as they can get some net gain. taking any setbacks and redoubling efforts for the next round.

    The exact same “long game, make small gains where you can, minimize losses where you must” approach that I advocate, has been extremely successful. It’s just the other side that’s been doing it. But it takes discipline, patience, and perseverance. Strange that these are the traits that supposed “conservatives” seem to be lacking in politics.

    I wasn’t particularly surprised by the House and Senate continuing to roll over after the last election. That’s not a sign that “voting for new people does no good”. If you look at the way the new folk vote vs. how the old folk vote you do see a change. But there aren’t enough Cruzes and Gowdy’s and such yet. It’ll take a few more iterations before the balance shifts enough to really be felt–that is if people have the discipline to keep the pressure on.

  38. Sarah is right, but she could take one point quite a bit further. If the non-squishes become a larger and larger part of the Party, the Establishment will start to play ball with them. These people are primarily careerists, and if allying with movement conservatives looks like a better career move than playing footsie with Democrats then allying it will be. As far as policy goes, they basically agree on foreign policy, macroeconomics, energy and deregulation. In a Walker/Rubio world they will vote right on most things, and cut reasonable deals on the rest. (If Hillary wins, we can re-think the whole question.)

    Also, don’t rule out this whole “false flag” business. Comments pushing actions that would objectively help the Democrats may well be posted by Democrats.

  39. During the Reagan years did anybody ask this question:
    Is Liberalism dying. I think so. At least the leadership looks like an old age geriatric clinic. Young liberals these days are either mindless idiots or obvious phonies. Certainly they are not producing any great ideas like we had back in the 1960’s. Of course the failures of those ideas is a big part of the problem.

    1. Most of the young liberals view liberalism as a positional good. They too are careerists. Obama might be the last (youngest) communist true believer in the US.

    2. Actually, they did. There were articles about whether the Democrats were a party on the way out, as well as political cartoons to that effect, especially after Mondale.

  40. I’ll add one more thing to this discussion: Incrementalism (totally a word) does work. Look at the NRA and gun control. They’ve tried for six years to get some sort of gun control passed. The result is now every state has concealed carry laws and there is legislation for reciprocity in the works. It wasn’t done all at once. Slow and steady wins the race.

    1. I was here, in school, in 1980. I remember the general atmosphere on gun control. If they’d elected an Obama then. Instead, we got Reagan. Maybe G-d really looks after drunkards, fools and the united states of America.
      Or maybe not. If net neutrality sticks… as the professor says, the laptops close, the guns come out. If they shoot on us. We came damn close over that ranch in Montana. And over the shut down. There are times I’d switch to “bring out the guns” or “let it burn” so fast your head would spin.
      Over a vote in congress? In between elections? When there’s really nothing we can do but scare our already wobbly “representatives” into joining the other side? … I don’t think so.

      1. *cough* It was in Nevada. Harry Reid’s back yard.

        The point is that many of these things have been creeping up on us for years and they cannot be undone overnight.

        I also notice that single issue advocacy groups tend to be more effective. Part of the issue with the Left is that so many of their groups that should be single issue seem to have creeped into areas they have no business being in. This has alienated some of their base.

    2. And so they’ve stopped implementing through laws on the Fed level, and are going the regulatory redefining things like .223 green tip from legal to illegal (One of my consistent themes is that until we manage a purge of the bureaucracy, at every level, elections are somewhat hollow victories.)

      However, there is an actual law on the books, the Congressional Review Act, that allows Congress to pass a bill to disapprove any regulation the bureaucrats come up with. Boner and Vichy Mitchy should have had a never ending stream of those headed to Obama’s desk. Force the Democrats to say they’re in favor of gun control (and every other piece of nonsense the bureaucrats have come up with), and force Obama to veto it.

      My frustration can be summed up in one sentence: These bastards won’t use the weapons they’ve got to fight this nonsense, apparently because they believe in it and there are no consequences Phone calls, letters, showing up, they ignore because, as many of them and their handlers have said, “who else they gonna vote for, the Democrats?”

      1. Oh, if you’re frustrated? So are we. And yeah, that’s a fault of the two party system.
        What I’m asking you to consider is who we’re dealing with. You’re my age, I think. Maybe a little older. You should remember the time when top down was ‘just smart’ and the whole of the GOP was statist. These guys are remnants. That it aligns with their interests in keeping power is only marginally relevant in this case. They’re old. it’s the system of seniority. And some are older than their years. They still think that “top down” is inevitable. Their whole position is that of the GOP in the seventies “Socialism, yes, but slower.”
        What I beg you to consider is that it is no longer ALL of the GOP and that replacing them from within HAS worked and that my generation, by and large, is a different animal. And the one after us more so.
        Now, am I suggesting sit on your hands? Steve, when have I suggested sit on your hands?
        I’m a fairly useless person. I have this writing handicap. So I’m working where I’m more suited: words and culture. Those better at people and at organizing are or should be working in the wards, the precincts, whatever, and stopping the idiots before they get on the ballot. Some will get through. It is what it is short of paradise.
        Now, is there a possibility before we get this turned around (And I DO think ten more years will do it) we have to get to the real fight? Or we hit american definitions of “bottom”? Or someone nukes us and Obama says we had it coming?
        Oh, please, I’m not blind. Nor, believe it or not, am I an optimist. No depressive is an optimist.
        And any of the above will have me at the front lines faster than anyone else.
        But until then? Delay the evil hour as much as we can. AND DO NOT stamped the idiots in Washington. If it comes to us going after them, we don’t want them to have any warning, for one.

              1. 7th grade Music Appreciation teacher was right put out I refuse to even try to learn Disco Dancing. As they canceled my study hall and forced me into the “voluntary class”, I just sat in the back reading. I really wish I had the mp3 players and earbuds of today to drown out that carp

      2. And so they’ve stopped implementing through laws on the Fed level, and are going the regulatory redefining things like .223 green tip from legal to illegal

        So, we’re winning in one area and they switch to another area? That doesn’t mean we’re losing. That means that the battle is still ongoing. They switch ground? Then we switch ground right along with them.

        The battle is still ongoing. We still have to fight (metaphorically, please. I’ve already given my thoughts on a physical fight).

        But then, we will always have to fight. There will always be those trying to take our liberty. They want to win too. The mistake people make is thinking it will ever be a fight that’s over. “We won, we can go home now.” That’s why the “Gingrich Revolution” evaporated in remarkably short order.

        Keep the faith. Keep fighting. And don’t give the other side an even break.

        1. And when we get tired? Well, then SWITCHU!

          Which gets a lot harder when a sizable portion are constantly either actively attacking you for not doing EXACTLY what they want against a greater threat, or randomly don’t show up.

  41. my 2 cents worth into this subject… to those who wish to burn it down, start the 2nd American revolution, civil war, ect. unless this conflict was over quickly, one side or the other coming out on top, then the fact that usa does not live in a vacuum. and we have a lot of resources that are untapped (or under tapped) in this country. oil natural gas coal iron etc. and if we are shooting at each other, cities burning, and on and on. I do believe we may attract the attention of other countries of the world. Chinese landing in the left coast. eu landing in new England, Russian troops in south America. perhaps Mexico retaking parts of the southwest. possible even Canada would show up to the party (politely). not saying this would happen. but it could. look at history, even in our own revolution and civil war other countries were involved.

  42. The key is not reforming the Republicans. The key is shifting the point of balance by introducing some ideological diversity to the Democrats. We have to deal with RINOs. Let them deal with a few DINOs.

    The Democratic Party is far to the left of the Democrat primary voter. A center/right insurgency can steal a few primaries, here and there, especially if we take them by surprise. We should be running young conservative firebrands in Democrat primaries against occified lefty wack-jobs, every chance we get.

  43. I have a different idea of burn it down. I want to wreck the GOP enough to cause the RINOs to see that the only place they can wield power is in the Democratic party. That way the Democratic party moves somewhat right by virtue of the crony capitalist interests making a new home there and showing themselves as the part time socialists they are. To do that we have been sending the party into the minority ever so often and keeping it away from the presidency. IOW the Obama era is school for establishment Republicans. Taking Hoyt’s incrimentalism to work has been doing it just like that.
    Burning it down would also include a rejuvination of the jury system, both grand and petit. WE need to know that the jury is where bad laws and bad government employees go to die, sometimes figuratively, sometimes literally. WE don’t fully comprehend that and so believe it, yet. But it once was and still is if only juries would flex their muscles.
    The juries were actually a permanent revolution, in a manner of speaking; always able to pull down government overreach if only a case at a time.
    I’m all for ” Burn the bastard Down” but I know what the framers and history left for posterity to get it done whilst keeping the real powder dry.

      1. Actually, Sarah, if that were true, their donor class wouldn’t be worried about Warren. The current level of tribute is an accounting entry; they’re afraid that either buying her off would be too expensive, or, worse yet, that she’s unbuyable because she believes the nonsense.

        1. Okay, there are a few true believers. And a few too dumb to know which side of their bread is buttered. Warren is probably just too dumb to live. I’ve heard her talk.

          1. she does give the impression that she is barely above the level of needing a Hob to whisper “Breath in, breath out.” Basically just above Sheila Jackson Lee levels

        2. I think the biggest obstacle to a Warren candidacy is Warren knowing how ruthless Clinton would be in the primaries. Many of the others Clinton could just brush aside. Warren would have to be crushed. If Warren were to win the primary she’d still be too damaged to be elected President. If she lost she probably wouldn’t even be electable a Dog Catcher, much less a Senator. And Republicans look at both and say “What difference would it make?”

    1. You’re right about the juries; that’s why prosecutors hate anyone who brings up jury nullification. They haven’t been able to do as much at the Federal level as they have at the state.

  44. The problem as I see it is you are working from a false premise. You assume that the institutions still burn with the flame of what brought them into being and can in fact be resurrected. What is in fact true is that the flame is dead not to be rekindled. Look at the landscape. The universities are nothing but indoctrination centers with speech codes that destroy first Amendment privilege. In many places the law enforcers are now little more than profiteers, using military weapons to literally extract their pounds of flesh. The courts generally exempt from the will of the people contort law to the pleasure of the pay masters. You opine not to burn it all down. Madam, it IS already burnt to the ground. Done so by 60 years of leftist leaning policies to reach that effect.

    To expect the GOP, to reverse course is foolish. The GOP may not willingly cause the destruction wrought by the Democrats but WILL be very happy to manage it and have done so since 1996. That’s the equivalent of attempting to change the overseer when its the plantation owner who is running the show.

    Name a policy/law/organization that the GOP has eliminated/modified/defunded? Just one.

    I will close with two observations, not of my own making, but true none the less —
    “Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy”:
    In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.
    and —
    Robert Conquest’s Second Law of Politics:
    Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.

    We are living in the nexus of both these laws to our ill. The only way to break the cycle is to deny totally the entity our support in all things. And in this case it is the GOP. Which by extension means third party. Yes it means the Democrats win. But they have already won Sarah. They had won before you laid down your first post and will be doing so at your last if one persists in believing that the GOP can be salvaged.

    The battle of the forces of the Left are lost with the GOP but as Napoleon had quipped “There is still time to start a new battle”.

    Let us start anew.

      1. Make the Tea Party a REAL party. Tell those representatives in the tea party caucus they have a choice. Us or the GOP. You might get a 100 to switch. Use the coalition to stop legislation. Grow the coalition. Give the voters an alternative.

        1. Or, keep electing Tea Party style candidates to office in the GOP and take over the GOP, which can be accomplished.

          A third party isn’t going to happen. It just is not. No matter how much people want it to, it is not going to happen. We are going to have to take over the GOP and push out the dinosaurs.

          It won’t be accomplished stomping your feet and saying how you won’t vote Republican because REASONS!

        2. Yes. That will totally work. The civil service is not all eaten up, and there isn’t anyone crazy in the tea party. Also, the tea party will win because… magic sprinkles!
          Head>desk. You are not a serious person, and this is not thought. And you still haven’t answered my question. When has any country burned itself to the ground and emerged better? JUST once.

          1. “When has any country burned itself to the ground and emerged better? JUST once.”

            Bearing in mind that you asked for better, which is a very low bar (almost anything is better than total social/economic collapse) — I could argue that France emerged from its Revolution better off than when it started – yes, even taking the Terror into account. More recently, Algeria came out of its recent civil war much better off than before it. If you’ll allow peaceful revolts against authoritarian governments, then the Philippines and Tanzania both qualify, and I’m sure there are others.

            I might also point out that those who envision a “second American Revolution” as being made up of major military campaigns and/or large-scale unorganized violence are barking up the wrong tree. America will never have its own version of quatorze Julliet on which the people marched on Washington and put every government building to the torch, and every politician and bureaucrat to the sword. The new revolutionaries would find other, far more effective ways to fight… and on the other side of the line, I have enough respect left for the American military and police to sincerely doubt that either one would open fire on their own countrymen.

            1. Not unless you include Napoleon as part of the revolution, and it really wasn’t. Sorry, I’ve been studying that time. It could also be argued France has never recovered from the revolution, though.

        3. So, basically, split the non-democrat vote insuring that the Dems get everything they want for the next 50 years?

          The last time a 3rd party has been able to take over was more than 150 years ago. There. is. a. reason. for. that. (Actually a bunch of reasons.)

    1. I assume what? I assume nothing, but that our constitution and declaration are good and that a lot of the people are good.
      IF I thought our institutions and culture were good, why would I advocate working to take them over?
      Please. I work in one of the most taken-over fields. Stop. You’re making a cake of yourself.

    2. Regarding hostile and corrupt institutions, the universities are hotbeds of sophomoric rhetoric masquerading as genuine thought. More and more, people are noticing this. Not just our people, but the general mass of humanity who pay the vast majority of the tuition bills (or at least apply for the mass of financial aid). Take a brief spin through Instapundit. They’re turning away from the traditional model in droves. See increasing respect for new models such as YouTube celebrities (the gaudy, often overwrought tip of the spear, but the body of whom are generally people doing what they want in an innovative way), and Mike Rowe’s clarion call for revitalizing the American skilled labor pool. The universities will collapse of their own melodramatic bulk, especially as they continue to shrill along to the progressive wails instead of providing the service for which they’re paid. After all, why in the world should I pay them for the information I can find on my own with a decent internet connection? When Khan Academy provides the basics, when MIT and Standford have free online access to their information, when more and more teachers are resigning thier positions (or retiring) and hanging out a virtual shingle. And often as much because they’re sick of dealing with the increasingly overreaching bureaucracy.

      Regarding history: it rhymes. There are plenty of reasons many ancient mythoi tend toward the cyclic, beyond the circular nature of much of … nature. Human history trends back and forth in the similar ways. See Machiavelli’s comments on changes in human government. Then read Plato and Aristotle on the same. One generation sets up a system (shorthand only: no single generation creates a system or civilization ex nihilo), the next modifies it, and so on. The modifications tend to be in ways that are reactions to and against the ways of their parents, and sometimes their grandparents. Consequently, they tend follow reciprocating paths. It’s reasonable to expect the next couple of generations to become more conservative than the past couple. And then swing back the other way.

      Provided, of course, that nobody takes a metaphorical sledgehammer to the works in an attempt to do something requiring the relatively more delicate touch of a rotary tool. We don’t need to play cultural arsonist with already corrupt and flammable institutions when all we need to do is avoid getting burned when they go up on their own. The conflagration metaphor is less and less useful. Patience and a firm touch are going to go much farther. As the father of an infant son, I’m … concerned, say, about the direction things are headed. As a naturally cautious person, I tend toward what might appear as inaction. Still and all, why should we rush toward fiery chaos? We have plenty of the more normal kind, and we should – perhaps – consider that chaos is as often creative as it is destructive. New and interesting things are arising to replace the old, usually fastier and more subtly than we can observe. Now is not the time to lose heart.

      1. Dave kudos.

        But I have to tell you, there is a long road ahead. You won’t surpass the educational institutions till you remove the power of accreditation from them. Who chair the accreditation bodies? The schools. See the problem. For individuals who wish to forgo all that, credentials are their best hope.

        1. OMFG. Yeah. No, there really isn’t. I watched this in publishing. When an institution really ISN”T working at all the way people want, the collapse is fast.
          You’re basing this on…? “reasons” again?

        2. Well, see, that’s the thing, isn’t it? More and more (again and again?) it’s less about what you have a paper saying you know, and more about what results you can show. I have a buddy who has become a respected online quasi-celebrity simply by showing up and developing a (admittedly formidable) set of skills. All of us in the indie publishing scene are working toward the same thing. My brothers are working toward setting up a video game commentary side-business, and you can’t get credientials in that. And with the ongoing furor in the video game journalism, who you might know could very well break your attempt. The point being, the attitudes toward credentialism are swinging the other way. You can even see this in corporate America (though, admittedly, in smaller doses). Let the schools cling to their outmoded models. Me and mine have the future to create.

    3. Let us start anew.

      Can’t get there from here. Burn it down and you’ve still got to much toxic material in the ashes. … Assuming the fires don’t rage out of control and scorch us all, by far the most likely result.

  45. Answer the question Ms.Hoyt. Name an piece of legislation that the GOP has undone. Just one.

    If you can’t do that then your position is not supportable. You recommend an incremental approach, fine. But show me where in the past 40 years that has worked. Example please.

    Has the GOP eliminated Obamacare? Has the GOP stood up for Officer Wilson? No they are silent. At one point the GOP was against Roe v Wade. Where are they now? Silent. Has the GOP stood up and said speech codes are a 1st Amendment violation? Only a few, the leadership is moot.

    Show me where incrementalism has worked in defeating the Left.

    1. Look, bucko, if you don’t understand the legislative process and how much of a headway you must have, you’re the one who has to answer questions. We’re not there yet. We will be. And did I say “incrementalism?” Make it as fast as you wish. Just work with what you have.
      ANSWER THE QUESTION, you strange little man/woman/critter: when has burning it to the ground created something better? If you can’t show it, then you are telling me you got nothing.

      1. You are young enough to be my daughter. So don’t lay the bucko/man/woman/critter label on me. I didn’t attack you, I asked a very simple question. Give me an example where your intended approach has worked.

    2. Ah, so you are one of those that want everything RIGHT NOW! You don’t understand the process. You don’t understand that this is a long game being played and it will take years to get done what must be done.

      There are those in GOP that are standing up, but I guess you choose to ignore them. The ones like Ted Cruz, Trey Gowdy, Mike Lee, and so on who are making waves and who have made enemies of their fellow Republicans because they don’t go along.

      You are not going to get everything you want overnight. You are not going to get your ideologically pure candidate who will go into office and just change everything with the stroke of a pen.

      One question I often asked Ron Paul zombies:

      “If by some miracle Ron Paul were to be elected President, how would he change anything? Is he going to just ignore Congress and write executive order after executive order eliminating those agencies and laws he disagrees with, or is he going to have to work with Congress and maybe get a few small things accomplished, setting the way for the next President to either follow along or undo it?”

      1. No. See my answer to Wayne below. I would hazard a guess I have been waiting longer than you have to see a change.

        1. Waiting?

          So what, you expect others to do the work? Do you not pay attention to what is happening?

          I guess getting someone like Ted Cruz elected isn’t progress? He didn’t go in and start tearing everything down, so obviously it wasn’t progress.

        2. I have been waiting longer

          That’s your problem right there. “Waiting.”

          How about get off your ass and make it happen.

          You’re older than me, but not that much older so don’t try to play those “I’m old enough to be your father” games with me that you tried with Sarah.

          In fact, your age works against you. “I want it now” is generally a flaw of the young. Nobody on the right has been playing the long game (kind of ironic for folk who style themselves as “conservative”). That’s all been the Left. They didn’t get what they wanted in an instant, or even in a single election cycle. It’s been the process of literally decades. Reversing it is going to require the same.

          So, going to roll up your sleeves and get to work or just going to jump up and down with “I want it now! I want it now! I want it now!”

      2. To be honest, I want everything right now, also. The difference between me and the dog doctor is that I have faced reality and know I’m not going to get it. I could throw a temper tantrum and throw all my Tinker Toys (do they still make them?) on the floor and flop on my belly while screaming and kicking my feet, or I could pick them up and go about building what I want. Which doesn’t preclude me from whacking my bratty little brother over the head with my hammer when he tries to knock down what I am building. But if I spend all my time whacking him over the head, I won’t have time to actually build anything.

    3. How about answering the question I posed on the previous post? When, in the last 100 years, has a sustained effort of even twenty years been attempted? People such as yourself keep saying, “We didn’t get the miracle we were (not) promised, therefore there’s no way to change things from within,” if nothing significant happens within a mere FOUR years.

      1. Not to sound like a troll, but I am 63 years old and I have been waiting for the last 40 years to see something change. The closest we ever got was Reagan and its been down hill ever since. And remember Reagan was not the GOP’s choice to run for the presidency even though he ended up the greatest success they ever had in the 20th century.

        1. If you’ve been waiting that long you haven’t been looking at the hopeful signs. It’s possible you’re suffering from the end of the world syndrome that people get at a certain age.

          1. Yes one can fall into that trap but I don’t think I have. I don’t believe the world is going to end tomorrow, not at least by man’s hands, we are a feeble race. Even if we were to nuke ourselves into oblivion something else would become the predominate species on this planet. Life if tough to kill.

            My point is this one. Incrementalism always favors the State, never the forces of liberty. In order for Liberty to break the chains of the State it must force the chains to be broken. Had this country followed the incremental approach to slavery it might still exist in some forms, say indenture. No, it could not be resolved that way, and we ended up with a civil war conflict to resolve it.

        2. So, the fact that the problems haven’t been fixed, when a sustained approach has never been tried yet, is somehow a proof that such an approach can’t work?

          The base is still energized. The media has gone from trying to demonize the activists on our side to simply ignoring them in the hopes that they will go away. If we don’t let that happen, then we can keep gaining ground.

          1. How long is long enough Wayne? Our Founders tried an incremental approach to parity with the Crown for 22 years. In the end they said ENOUGH, and fought a war. By their yard stick we are overdue.

            1. So, what twenty-year period are you referring to, that the GOP BASE has been actively attempting to change the party from within?

              And your analogy sucks balls. England was NOT a Representative Republic.

              1. Go read the history of how Reagan ended up winning the nomination for POTUS. Its not pretty. I stomped door to door for the man. That is how long I have been trying to change the GOP. But I stopped a decade ago and went independent.

                As to the analogy if fits. Yes Britian was not a Republic. Its was a Parliamentary government. Ole King George did not levy the taxes, Parliament did. Colonialists fought a war because where were not afforded the rights an Englishman had.

                1. So now you’re saying you’re the GOP Base? Not merely a single tiny portion of it, but the entirety? Because that’s the only way that your response could be an answer to my question.

                  I’m sure there are people who have tried to effect change for as long, or longer, but there was never a sustained push from the majority of the Base to change the party. Using your example of Reagan, what essentially happened was that the Base declared that we had finally won, and now we could coast. Now, we have learned better, and realize that it will take concerted effort in the long term. But not by a single person; it will have to be at least hundreds of thousands pushing to keep the electorate in line.

                  1. ” Now, we have learned better”

                    No, he is proof that we have not.

                    And yes I’m as guilty of that as anyone. Funny thing about people on the right, they tend to fight for freedom to do the things they want, and when they win a battle they actually go off to do those things they want to. The left on the other hand wants to stop other people from doing anything, so they never wander off, since what they Want to do is actually fight the battles, not whatever the battles are over.

                    This is why they tend to be better at incrementalism and the long game.

        3. How many of those years did you spend asleep? I was a GOP state delegate in 1976. If you think the GOP hasn’t changed in that time, you must have been asleep most of it.

        4. Fairness Doctrine down, welfare reform that even after decades of chipping away isn’t back to as bad as it was before, even the mainstream media isn’t monolithicly left, the Crazy Left is being mocked for it, advances in pro-life activities, advances in returning and protecting gun rights, people actually hearing about the dumb junk that gets pulled….

          What sort of thing are you waiting around for as “change”?

    4. How about you start with where in the last 40 years the GOP has had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, a similar majority in the House, the Presidency, AND the support of the Federal bureaucracy?

      Since the Federal bureaucracy has been firmly Democrat for a lot longer than 40 years, you’re going to find that a little difficult. What’s more, trimming that mess down involves contractual issues with unions – not that it’s impossible but it would take a seriously strong-minded individual to even suggest it in the current political climate.

      If you want an example where incrementalism has worked, try looking at the Second Amendment and personal carry rights.

      If you want an example of the GOP trying to eliminate Obamacare, there are any number of failed Congress bills that have been dismissed as pointless grandstanding. Any such bill that was passed now would still fail because the GOP majority is not veto-proof – so would again be subject to dismissal as pointless grandstanding.

      The GOP is likely wise not to speak up about Officer Wilson, particularly in the light of Democrat politicization of various killings and the likely demonization that would result. The same applies to Roe vs Wade – even if the discussion was in the context of Supreme Court overreach, it would be portrayed in the mass media as the GOP being out of touch with the modern world and “hating women”.

      There is a balance between sticking up for one’s principles, and doing so in a way that invites others to throw stones so you can scream martyr. Some of us are smart enough to prefer the former if at all possible.

      1. So your principles shall only stand when you know they have a chance of success? That is what you are advocating. If so, that is not the definition of principles. Sorry.

        Its `proper` to not speak up about injustice for Wilson because you will be vilified? Then injustice shall prevail. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

        I fully understand that in many cases politics is the art of the possible. But behind that there must be underlying standards that cannot be violated. You propose to not even meet that minimal standard.

        1. No, but if you want to win a long campaign, you have to conduct a long campaign — not say “Oh hell, that election didn’t do it, screw’em”.

        2. Your reading comprehension could use a little work.

          Of course, I’m disagreeing with you, so you’re seeing what you want to see and not what I actually said.

          It is not proper or principled for any political representative to comment on a criminal law case as highly charged as the Wilson situation. The facts aren’t all in the public eye, so there’s no way a political statement can possibly be anything but grandstanding. So, no, there’s no lack of principle for the GOP not to comment.

          I may not like the lack of principle or backbone a lot of politicians show, but I can understand why they do it. They have careers too, and a large part of the entire concept of “freedom” is that nobody has the right to demand that anyone torpedo their career for your principles (or even for their own principles. We get to choose whether we’ll nuke our careers or keep quiet and accept the tarnish on our souls.)

          The possibility also exists that at least some of these people are keeping quiet and wincing to themselves because they can do more to clean the mess if they’re in the middle of it than if they get themselves kicked out of the system.

          Every time one of your employers committed to a contract that violated your principles, you resigned, didn’t you?

        3. William F. Buckley, Jr., “Nominate the most conservative candidate who is electable.”

          Effin’ squish.

      1. Actually they didn’t undo it, it expired and they refused to re-instate it. I had hoped they’d do the same with the ‘patriot act’, but sadly they did not.

        1. John, why the death-lust? Why the “You must agree with me they’re exactly the same?” Ask yourself that. Then let me tell you a secret: IF they were exactly one as rotten as the other, the Republicans would still be safer. Why? Because the press hates them. Everything they do everything they say is hounded to death. The dems? Free hand.
          As for your “they both hate us” — argumentum ad tantrum is not something I can discus or particularly persuasive. When have the republicans insulted our friends, feted our enemies and freed those who try to kill us in exchange for a deserter?
          Facts, sir. I raised toddlers. Screaming fails to impress me.

          1. Death lust?
            I am unhappy with the way the current GOP leadership is acting, and the path they are allowing us to follow.
            I’ve said what I think is the best way to deal with it, that which will do they least damage.
            Maybe ‘hate’ is too strong a word, but they certainly do not ‘love’ us, their actions make that pretty clear.

            And I am not talking republicans in general, I’m talking about the leadership, and I believe I have pointed out several times that I was talking about the leadership. Boehner, McConnell, et al. Those people, who are clearly in this for themselves and not for the country.

            1. Death lust. Or death wish. You pick.

              I’ve been reading Liu Ci Xin’s Three Body Problem. It opens with a beautiful young girl, fueled by revolutionary fervor during the Cultural Revolution, climbing to the ramparts with the revolutionary flag — only to discover that her revolutionary fervor didn’t make her bulletproof.

              There’s an old saying that amateurs study tactics, while professionals study logistics.

              You know who studies ideological purity?

              Cannon fodder.

              1. Umm, not sure what your point is here.
                I am not preaching or asking for any sort of purity.

                I find it strange that rather than people saying ‘your idea won’t work, and here’s why’, I get called crazy and similar things. I have been making my arguments as unemotional as I can, but the responses have been getting more and more emotional.

                Maybe things will work out, maybe four years from now, if we all just keep doing what we are doing, everything will be fine. I do keep hoping that Boehner and the rest have some great master plan, some wonderful strategy that they’re going unfold and surprise us all with, and be proven wrong. I’d actually be quite happy to be wrong on all of this.

                1. Give up. Boehner and the rest don’t have a master plan. It’s us or nothing. You are wrong in all of this. You’re looking at it the wrong way.

                  1. Then please enlighten me and tell me how I should be looking at it.
                    Seriously, not being snarky, I want to know why you think I’m looking at it wrong.

                    1. Stop looking at the GOP to save us. They will delay things, that’s all. That buys us four to six years to take over.
                      What you’re missing, John, is tech. We’ve made bigger inroads than I expected, frankly, because tech is on our side. We’re circumventing their poisoned institutions. And it’s massive, because to exist they rely on uniformity. You have to get the impression the dems are the ONLY sane ones, from everywhere. You’re not getting that. Think back. I have no idea how old you are. But think back. Democrat equaled respectable. No more. People, even people who are not on social media, are getting jokes.
                      Are you aware that politics follows culture? Are you aware that liberals shout loudest when they’re losing?

                    2. I am in my mid 50’s.
                      I am not looking at the GOP to save us, I think that the GOP leadership is in fact working for the otherside, whether intentionally or not, that can be debated.

                      Your faith in tech saving the day may be good, or it may be misplaced. As we have seen, the government is moving to take over the internet, to give them control over the flow of information and the opposition. We’ve already seen how well the IRS was able to influence the last election by removing opposition forces from the election. If they get away with this, they will move onto other tech quickly.

                      As for respect, I see the democrats getting about the same amount of respect now, as they did in the 60’s and the 70’s and the 80’s. People were saying much the same thing about the democrats being ‘over’ back when Newt Gingrich took over the Congress with his ‘contract with America’.

                      But coming back to your first point, if the GOP can only delay things (which to me it does not appear that they are trying very hard to do), then what are you planning to ‘take over’ while they delay things?

                      And do not think that the culture only moves slowly. On 9/11 we saw soldiers go from being despised to being appreciated once again. The Culture can move very quickly when it feels threatened.

                    3. Sigh, John, I’ve told you this before. Take it from someone who saw international communism up close and personal. You underestimate both the malevolence of the dems, and the rectitude of the Republicans. IF they were half as corrupt as the dems, the press would tell us.

                    4. The press never attacks a Republican that is working with a Democrat. That’s one of the reasons that some of them do it, to get favorable press.

                    5. I never said that they did. Just some of them do. And right now, several of those have used that to parley themselves into some important positions.

                    6. yes. The establishment is rotten. When have I said otherwise. BUT you’re ignoring people working from the grassroots. I know more than a dozen and I”M NOT INVOLVED. We’re coming for them.

                    7. Oh, almost forgot, I don’t underestimate the Dems, I have had a lot of too personal experience with them, and I have seen the depths that they will sink too.
                      Especially when they think they’re among like minded people.

        2. And — this is not “undoing” how?

          I realize they didn’t take action to undo it, but in the instance inaction was all that was necessary.

          Such will not always hold to be true, but only one example was called for.

    5. “Show me where incrementalism has worked in defeating the Left.”

      Gun rights.

      1. Yeah, I was just reading an article in the latest American Rifleman about the careful, thoughtfully incremental course the ILA (The legal arm of the NRA) has been running for the last 25 years or so. We went from 60% of the country supporting an outright handgun ban, to majority support for the 2nd A, Carry laws in every state, major cases carefully chosen and legal and historical research done that led directly to cases like Heller and McDonald that have firmly cemented second amendment progress and set the stage for more.

        Critics of the NRA claim they’re soft, and they impatiently want things that are an overreach that are destined to fail, but they don’t see the big, long-range picture.

        Maybe we need Wayne LaPierre as the head of the RNC….

  46. Sarah,
    I respect your tenacity and your deep abiding love of this country and of most of the commenters above.

    However, the collapsing welfare state is affecting most of the developed world at the same time, not just the U.S. I look at the economics at Europe and the hideous cost to the EU of keeping the Euro as currency in Southern European nations and wonder just how much longer will this can go on. Unemployment rates in many of these nations such as Spain, Greece, etc. already resemble rates during of the Great Depression. I see nations such as Japan sunk with so much debt that they are forced to monetize it which has caused an economic recession lasting over twenty years. China is in the endgame on debt because of state capitalism and Russia has enough currency reserves to last about one year before default again. Now, what does that mean for the US?

    It is possible that we will see a sudden market crash that envelops the world such the Great Depression which is where I suspect much of the “let it burn” or “it will burn” crowd believe. Believing in the coming apocalypse relieves people of worrying about what to do. That being said, the risk of blundering into a major international war cannot be said to be a small risk in the future. I am at least hopeful that a wholesale nuclear holocaust won’t happen nor a massive internal civil war in the U.S. between haves and have nots in my remaining time on Earth. I also cannot discount that the being the world’s reserve currency and also the current part-time world’s policeman makes the U.S. at risk for a sudden collapse in international markets or to being sucked into an international war. Worst case scenarios exist and at least a prudent person will take up some thought to dealing with such on an indivudal level. Nevertheless, it is not a productive strategy for a society and relegates those believing it to be at the mercy of events.

    I believe that instead, at least in the U.S., we are more likely to see something like what has happened to Argentina. During one century, Argentina has descended from being one of the wealthiest countries to certainly a much poorer one. Impoverishment of a previously wealthy society that lasts for generations and results in much of the middle class descending to genteel poverty. Think of the South during Reconstruction where all of the societal wealth was squandered in a futile attempt to maintain slavery and Southern society based on it. The wealthy, especially financiers and crony capitalists, will of course have other options as they have had since time immemorial (think Rhett Butler in this case). In such a society, government benefits such as Medicaid and Medicare will still exist in name, but their value will be virtually nil as no provider will take it except for incompetent bunglers, crooks, and a few altruists. Taxes on everything will be raised for a government desperate of revenue so that private off the books transactions such as bartering will become prevalent to avoid the taxman. Food stamps and like of EBT cards will still exist, but virtually nothing to buy on the shelves. Black markets along with strict rationing will be implemented along with wage price controls. Currency restrictions on taking capital out of the country will also be implemented. Shortages of toilet paper, medicines, and other semi-necessities such as auto parts to keep your old cars running, will exist throughout the economy. Government will then become seen is primarily something to be avoided and mollified rather than of the people. As a result, crooks will steal the country of much of the remaining wealth through either the “honest graft” of government connections or outright theft from the till. Society in such countries descends to I’ve got mine Jack and infinite cynicism.

    Currently, the crisis of too much sovereign debt throughout the world forcibly valued incorrectly by markets through the machinations of central banks will be resolved either through monetarization of the debt or through explosive outright repudiation. I hope for the former as the more likely but fear the latter as like being in an airplane when the engine quits. The aging of the population in developed countries makes this process of resolution much more difficult as most believe that the economy will become less productive as a society ages. Economic growth makes resolving this debt much easier. But, in the end, sovereign debt and obligations such as pensions and benefits that cannot be repaid, won’t be. Using the metaphor of fire and ice, fire acts to destroy existing society rapidly such as in a revolution but ice and cold, as in a great sovereign debt stagnation, is merely a slower descent into the abyss. A phoenix can rise from the ashes and spring will come to thaw the ice, but when such things will occur are beyond my ken. It is, as Vernor Vinge put it, a singularity.

    I know that the thrust of your points during the last two postings deals with the Republican party and viewing that as a means of avoiding a civil war. However, to me, in light of the world situation, whether the Republicans are in power nor not, matters at the margins. It is somewhat possible that a signficant reform might happen in the U.S. and others before it is too late. The Grand Old Republic might generate a Marcus Aurelius or a Margaret Thatcher to stave off the wolf at the door. Abba Eban, apparently said, “nations do (I would say can) behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives.” Sweden, Finland, and Canada have reformed their welfare state to some extent as well as some Eastern European nations who were helped because no one expected them to pay Soviet-era debts. However, I am afraid things will have to get a lot worse before we change–it will take a revolution in the way we think as a society to resolve this. Hopefully, it will not take a revolution in the normal sense.

    I do not come to my suppositions lightly. I have been in the trenches working in congressional and local politics for nearly a decade. My training is in economics and political science with an emphasis on public law where I teach undergraduates about things such as the rule of law, the Framing, etc. What I do every class day is emphasize how the system was designed to work and current shortcomings of it. I talk about the incipient threats to society and have the students themselves resolve these issues through simulations such as mock constitutional conventions, court simulations, and government spending simulations. I have published research in my field. I have written my representatives, donated money and time to campaigns, maintained memberships in organizations designed to protect rights, and lobbied as necessary. In my free time, I read history and biographies. Right now, I am playing hooky because I should be finishing writing study guides for De Tocqueville and Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution which I use in my classes. Like anyone, I can be wrong, but my conclusion is that in order to reform the system—people must be virtuous in the public sense.

    This means that everyone must take a hit for the system to prevail—the Export Import bank needs to be kicked to the curb so that welfare benefits can be trimmed. Those on Social Security will have to have their COLA reduced and those working will have to wait longer to retire. Those receiving EBT cards will have to face more restrictions on who can receive them and how they behave when receiving them. Taxes will have to be simplified and broadened with such things as the mortgage interest deduction and the like being eliminated. Taxes must be for revenue purposes and not social engineering. Great corporations such as Intel and GE who currently pay no taxes must be brought to heel. If we as a society choose to tax corporations (which I think is unwise policy), then we should treat all as the same without preferential treatment. Likewise with individuals. Jobs in government and what we expect government to do will have to be pruned along with civil servant’s pensions and healthcare for retirees. Even things regarded as sacrosanct such as defense spending must be cut to the core mission which is protecting the U.S. and not democracy in the World as such. This also means that if you as an American go freely to such places as North Korea or Somalia as a private individual, for whatever reason, you are on your own. We must institute border security and illegal immigration stemmed. Immigrants from terror supporting countries must be excluded. Cheap labor is not a policy that the U.S. should pursue and allowing massive illegal immigration subsidizes businesses employing such while punishing the general taxpayer. It cannot continue. Laws and punishments must be pruned and reformed to avoid putting so many people in jails and prisons. Education should focus on just that rather than indoctrination in current societal fancies—it is not a vehicle to redress grievances through collective punishment and vilification. We must have sound money and prudent government expenditures coupled with effective regulation of things that governments must do. Most conservatives and libertarians know what needs to be done, even some liberals do, but we temporize just like Saint Augustine–Oh Lord, give me chastity, but do not give it yet. Recovery can happen in one generation, e.g. witness Germany’s rise from WWII in roughly twenty years. We do know how to accomplish these things and how they have been accomplished in the past—but do we have the will?

    1. Good heavens. Wall of text? TLDR — you are making so many effing assumptions, on a quick look through. Germany? WE PAID FOR THAT. Europe? I grew up there. If you think we’re anywhere there, bucko, you’re smoking the GOOD stuff.


      2. I don’t disagree with a lot of what he said, although it all could have been said in one short paragraph. Or maybe one sentence; “what can’t go on, won’t.”

        The Germany thing though, or really any comparison between any European state/country and the US is fairly ridiculous.

          1. I agree, and I don’t think he was advocating burning it all down. I’M not advocating burning it all down, I think it probably will go up in flames, but it doesn’t have to, that is only what I think is the most likely possibility out of many; and I’m certainly not advocating dousing it all in diesel and lighting a match.

            I guess I’m advocating to be careful with your fires, and make sure your cigarettes are dead out, try to prevent any fires. But go ahead and plow a fire break around your property, and keep the brush cleared back from your house, because chances are some other idiot is going to flick a butt out the window while driving down the highway, and you can’t prevent that, the best you can do is be prepared to mitigate the damage. And try and teach the idiots ahead of time to use their ashtrays.*

            *pet peeve alert: The anti-smoking gestapo who decided that new rigs shouldn’t have ash trays are raving idiots. Do they really think if they quit putting ash trays in cars, this is going to cause people to quit smoking when they are driving?
            No, I don’t smoke, but I use ash trays to through my spare change, spare fuses, etc. in, and watch people driving nice new cars flick their ashes butts out the window when driving down the road. Because they have nowhere else to put them, they certainly aren’t going to flick them on the carpeted floorboards of their new $35,000 rig.

    2. Where’s the deep-pocket outsider who’s going to come along and sweep up the debris and dead bodies and finance the rebuild — at the point of a gun? If they exist, you think they’ll be benevolent, why?

  47. Every club I’ve ever been in has to work to stay true to its founding principles. The more successful it is, the harder it is to start up and, especially, the more resources built up, the more the group needs to work to keep itself on course. Always. A new party would have the same issue (well, if the wreckage left by the decades of ruling Dems allowed the new party to form).
    The GOP must learn to keep pulling itself back to its core principles as a continuing process. It’s that simple. All groups do or they are nibbled away by those who want to remake or take over the group.

  48. I was supposed to have gotten to this yesterday, but yesterday snatched me out of the dirvers seat and tossed me into the back seat. before stuffing me in the trunk. And then there was gin!

    All political power is derived from the people; even in totalitarian dictatorships. Ever notice how hard they work to control the people? That’s because they fear the masses. Our system was set up to be dependent on the citizens exerciseing civic authority. The vast majority have forgotten the art and science of exercising their civic authority, which goes ‘way beyond turning out to vote every few years. The exercise of civic authority is a learned skill. The only people I know that are teaching it today are at the Center for Self Governance.

    I’ve taken levels 1 and 2 (of five) and I can attest that it is different than anything else I’ve seen because it actually works. Theses are the people who trained the operatives behind David Brat who with less than $180k ousted incumbent Eric Cantor and his $5,200k. It works if you work it, and it does take work.

    Sarah’s right: we win they lose. The sooner we start winning the less damage will be done. To win we need the right weapon, and this is not the only but a necessary weapon. Without it victory becomes problematical and will not be sustained. Running at the government goons with nerf bats may be momentarily exhlirating, but will prove both futile and fatal. Good weapons and good tactics win battles and wars.

    It is a pleasant fantasy to think that this war can be won by peacefully replacing the higher command at the ballot box. This war, like all wars, will be won by individual grunts sweating it out taking and returning fire where the joint chiefs never go. Take and hold the local ground. Consolidate at the local level. Then move on to the county level. Then the State. Then the national. Every higher level rests upon the support of the lower levels. Take and hold the local levels.

    What’s that I hear, Snowflake? It’ll take too long and it ‘s too much work? No it won’t. There is always enough time to do it right the second time. So do it right the first time and stop wasting time. And stop whining. The prupose of training to learn to do it right the first time, and then do it over and over. So quit yer bitchin’ and move out. – or bust.

  49. I’m just going to leave this here.
    Frankly, I hate the progressives with a heat that only somebody who has sat in a room with Soviet escapees for years can. On the other hand, burning it down is going to be ineffective because there is no groundwork for liberty. Why do you think the Progressives have been working for so long? They’ve had to edit every bit of liberty badthink out of the culture. But they haven’t managed nor will they manage to do that. The good thing right now is that they don’t have control of the information flow. And to look for the good stuff all anybody has to do is read the people they have been smearing all these years because they were certain that nobody would be able to access the stuff. Well that’s changed and we can use that to the advantage to win the war on ideas.

    1. The fallacy of the “Burn it down” crowd is the failure to recognize that, if we had sufficient numbers to ensure maintaining control of the rebuilding there would be no need to burn it down.

      Burning it down ensures democratic republicanism is even more discredited that is direct democracy. California, Oregon, Washington and parts of Nevada would form their own separate nation of Ecotopia; the Northeast above Virginia will declare itself sovereign, the South will secede successfully this time and the rest of the states will find their own accomodations.

  50. Point One: If you want to start a third party, pick one of the one party states, move there, and start it there. I don’t know that it would work, but if you want to, it would have to be easier in a state with no functional second party.

    Point Two: Some of us mostly rural state types are more-or-less happy with our elected officials, of either party. I mean, I come from a state where our Democrat Party Representative voted AGAINST the Patriot Act. Where if the Republicans run an absolute moron who should ought to be facing criminal charges the Democrats are probably running a decent human being against him.

    But. But our states are still beholden to the federal teat. We need to start convincing our friends and families that we could do better without federal subsidies. When federal subsidies are not a winning platform, then our elected officials, who are smart enough to see which way the winds are blowing, will start being against them. Even if the rest of their parties haven’t figured it out yet. That’s not going to be easy, but that’s what we need to start talking about.

    Education is a good place to talk about this at, if you’re talking to people who like their information in sound-bite sizes. One of the local private schools (the one with the easiest rates to find online) costs $4760 LESS per student than the public schools. The feds only contribute $1067 per student to the public school budget here.

    1. “Education is a good place to talk about this at, if you’re talking to people who like their information in sound-bite sizes. One of the local private schools (the one with the easiest rates to find online) costs $4760 LESS per student than the public schools. The feds only contribute $1067 per student to the public school budget here.”

      But don’t worry, it is only all those evil rich people that own property who have to pay for the rest of that budget. Regardless of whether they even have kids, or if they do, whether they go to public school or not.
      The fact that if parents want to send their children to a school of their choosing (private) they are forced to pay twice for their kids schooling, is the only thing that is keeping public schools going. It certainly isn’t the superior quality of their teaching.