Who’s To Blame For The GOP Debacle?
BY Herschel Smith
8 years, 9 months ago
WRSA has this up where it is implicitly suggested that Paul Ryan (weasel that he is), is actually going to make a move for candidacy. It also appears to be suggested that this behavior is somehow controlled by the GOP machine.
Bhah! The establishment controls little to nothing, Paul Ryan has as much chance at being the candidate as my dog, and the second example is a bunch of goobers in over their head trying to run things they shouldn’t. Nothing more.
I’ve heard it until I’m sick and fed up. The establishment. They are to blame for Trump. The establishment. THE ESTABLISHMENT! Screw the establishment! They are responsible for all of the nation’s ills. Except, not really.
The establishment is mostly filled with gargoyles, demons and pit vipers, except for a few like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Louie Gohmert (TX), Dave Brat and Jeff Duncan (who as I discussed before, all met in Ted’s office on a regular basis and strategized to kill the gang of eight bill, for which they all give him credit). But the bad ones, and they are numerous, were put there by voters.
Let’s cover that point again. Voters put the bastards in office. Every Senator and member of the House (with the sole exception of which I am aware, Tim Scott) was voted into office, not appointed. The voters have all the power. The voters put the bastards in office. Sure, the voters’ ranks is mostly filled ignoramuses, goobers, idiots who would rather spend time playing fantasy football, and couch potatoes who would rather watch mind-numbing nighttime sitcoms than learn anything about government, human nature, theology, philosophy or anything that requires heavy thought.
But that’s the point. If voters are too stupid or disconnected to vote honorable men into office, then it’s to be expected that dishonorable men will behave dishonorably. And by the way, I simply don’t buy Ann Barnhardt’s axiom that “The culture has degraded such that seeking and/or holding office, especially national-level office, is, in and of itself, proof that a given person is psychologically and morally unfit to hold public office.” It has absolutely nothing to do with the culture, and everything to do with the state of man both redeemed and unredeemed. There is nowhere in the Holy Writ that Ann can turn that explains that merely seeking leadership marks a man out as being more sinful than any other man (Ann should read more John Calvin on the state of mankind), and she can’t demonstrate that there is. Screaming it louder and louder doesn’t make it so, and Ann just made that up because she’s so pissed off, like she always is.
As for the GOPe, “the establishment,” they are easily dealt with. The voters are doing it now. A single election cycle can throw them all out on their ears. The establishment has no power not given to it by the idiot voters. Finally, most of the chattering class is woefully ignorant of most of the things I’m telling you, so you’re now smarter than most of the pundits inside the beltway (you probably were anyway).
Except that they may be beginning to catch on (and I’ll cite with caveats and stipulations). Enter Jonah Goldberg.
Nominating Donald Trump will wreck the Republican party as we know it. Not nominating Trump will wreck the Republican party as we know it. The sooner everyone recognizes this fact, the better.
[ … ]
Trump’s response to this floor-fight talk was to vomit up the usual word salad. “All I can say is this, I don’t know what’s going to happen,” Trump told ABC’s This Week. “But I will say this, you’re going to have a lot of very unhappy people [if I’m denied the nomination]. And I think, frankly, for the Republicans to disenfranchise all those people because if that happens, they’re not voting and the Republicans lose.”
Even through the syntactical fog, Trump’s point is clear: If he can’t reach 1,237, he should get the nomination anyway. Because he is Trump. If that doesn’t happen, his supporters will stay home, defect from the party, riot, or all three.
And he’s right. Not about deserving the nomination even if he doesn’t have the delegates. That’s typical Trumpian whining. But he’s right that if he’s denied the nomination, many — not all, but many — of his supporters will bolt from the convention and the party. Left out of Trump’s unsubtle threat: Many anti-Trump Republicans will desert the convention and the party if he’s not denied the nomination.
[ … ]
Trump represents just the most pronounced of a spiderweb of ideological and demographic fault lines that are increasingly difficult to paper over. As Joel Kotkin put it in a column for the Orange County Register, the Republican party now “consists of interest groups that so broadly dislike each other that they share little common ground.”
For whatever reason, Trump’s supporters have concluded that (a) they don’t care about issues of life and will vote for candidates who support abortion, and (b) they don’t care about having a single payer socialist health care system for the rest of their lives and the lives of the children’s children.
I’ve told you before and I’ll say it again. This election cycle is the last chance … the … last … chance … you have to turn back a single payer health care system. If Trump dumps Obamacare and substitutes his own version of a single payer system (which is no different except that it opens state lines), it will never be reversed in American history without bloody revolution. It will take weapons to turn it back. Maybe that’s what you want.
And yet there are those Ted Cruz voters, who have said that they will bolt the party if Trump is nominated. I’ve outlined my four non-negotiables, and Trump misses on two of them, and is weak on a third (he misses on pro-life, misses on a single payer health care system, and he’s weak on gun rights). I won’t vote for Trump, so I’m in the category I mentioned above. On election night, I’ll sit back and laugh, but I won’t whore my vote out to the least bad candidate.
But that’s the point of this whole thing, yes? The fault of the GOP debacle lies not with the GOPe, not with Trump, and not with Cruz. The responsibility for the debacle lies in fault lines developed years ago, irreconcilable differences, voters who have fundamentally different world views on very important matters.
The GOP is not finished if Trump is the candidate (future tense). The GOP is not finished if Cruz is the candidate (future tense). The GOP is not finished because of the GOPe. The GOP is finished – past tense – because of fault lines in the voters. It is irreversible, having to do with things theological and philosophical and things related to incorrigible values and world and life view.
Prepare yourself now for the fallout.
|
|
On March 24, 2016 at 11:17 am, Ammono Cruose said:
I have said it before, I will say it yet again. I do not support Trump (I caucused for Cruz and he won my home state) but if Trump gets the nomination, your dam right that I will vote for him. I wont even second guess it. I just can’t get passed all these people that want to Romney this years election. Obama is president because you all stayed home instead of holding your nose and voting Romney and if you do it again, then Hillary WILL be President. I don’t care how much you hate Trump, he is 1,000,000 times better than Clinton, PERIOD. At least with The Donald we have a chance that Conservative values will survive the next 4 or 8 years. If Hillary is elected, rampant, PC, ultra-Liberalism will rule this country for decades to come. Do you REALLY want Clinton over Trump? Really?!!? Ask yourself that every time you think about staying home on election day….
Not voting for Trump (if he gets the nomination) is like leaving your EDC at home because the bad guys MIGHT be wearing body armor. In the mean time, get out and Campaign for Ted!! His getting the nod instead of Trump will make all this bickering moot.
On March 24, 2016 at 11:46 am, Archer said:
if Trump gets the nomination, your dam right that I will vote for him. I wont even second guess it. […] Do you REALLY want Clinton over Trump? Really?!!? Ask yourself that
every time you think about staying home on election day….
Mark 8:36 (KJV) reads, “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”
The ideological differences between myself and Trump are such that it may not be worth it to me to vote for him. That is my decision (which I’m still up-in-the-air about), my personal calculus, based on moral principles I hold dear. (Besides which, where I live, my state is going blue regardless, so what would I gain by violating my principles?)
On March 24, 2016 at 1:04 pm, Blake said:
I can put up somewhat of a defense of Trump. There was a statement made by Trump several months ago regarding his purchase of a golf course and that it was a marvelous deal, beautiful course, etc., etc. However, Trump also went on to point out the ocean, the lovely view, etc., and talked briefly about how nothing is greater than GOD, because HE created the beautiful view they were enjoying.
Donald has a lot of flaws and doesn’t understand his need for a redeemer, but, he’s closer than a lot of people.
Anyway, no matter who is elected, it is incumbent on us, as Christians, to pray for those who rule. (I say that as someone who loathes Hillary. Talk about praying for ones enemies!)
1 Timothy 2 (NASB)
1. First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 2. for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. 3. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4. who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
On March 24, 2016 at 10:58 pm, Herschel Smith said:
A man never gains anything by violating his principles and conscience. He loses everything.
On March 25, 2016 at 8:21 am, Ammono Cruose said:
That’s great, stick to your beliefs, all the way to Hell, because that is where this country is headed if we don’t stop Hillary. Violate your principles by trying to stop Clinton? Really? At least you tried to do something besides cowering in your home crying that nothing you can do would matter. Your argument is quite akin to the gun grabber’s arguments that a dead, raped woman is morally superior to a woman who shot said rapist.
On March 25, 2016 at 10:58 am, Archer said:
I’m not sure you grok what I wrote. Trolls gotta troll. Oh, well, here’s a response:
You’re speaking as if “stop Clinton” is the be-all and end-all goal of this election. It’s not, not for me. At this point, it’s a false dichotomy anyway; Trump hasn’t clinched the nomination, and neither has Hillary. We could, in theory, still see a Cruz vs. Sanders match-up in November.
But either way, as much bad news as Empress Hillary would be, I don’t believe President Trump would be any better. He has not said or done anything to convince me otherwise.
Demanding I support Trump over Hillary is, to me, akin to demanding I support the Anti-Christ over the Devil.
Or, since you don’t appear to be a religious person, try this one: Demanding I support Trump over Hillary is akin to demanding I support (North Korean President) Kim Jong Un over (Iranian Prime MInister) Ali Khamenei, on the grounds that Kim wants to end America and all it stands for slightly less than Khamenei.
The lesser of two evils, is still evil. How do I not violate my principles with that choice?
On March 24, 2016 at 9:59 pm, Haywood Jablome said:
“Do you REALLY want Clinton over Trump? Really?!!? Ask yourself that every time you think about staying home on election day….”
I don’t see a difference. You do. Goodie for you. I will be staying at home if it is Trump v. Clinton. And no matter how many sniveling mushes try to guilt me (and many MANY others) into it, we are not pulling the lever for Captain Hairpiece.
And, yes, I will sleep just fine.
On March 24, 2016 at 11:15 pm, Herschel Smith said:
You think that’s a hair piece, or is that just a dyed or bleached comb-over? Hey, if I have readers who have hair pieces, I don’t begrudge that in the least. But as for me, I crop mine short (and may one day shave my head), because it isn’t worth it to me to try to do anything different, not when I can go down to Gander mountain and buy ammunition with the money I save by looking like crap.
On March 25, 2016 at 3:52 pm, Haywood Jablome said:
You need to talk me off the cliff…
This crap with the National Fishwrap has me so passed that I am actually sitting here thinking of voting for the “D” just to keep the windbag child, who I am starting to think has some mental problems, from the nuke codes. (I know this assumes he gets the nomination, but seeing the comments about this piece of crappie article has made me completely lose faith in my fellow Americans to wake the hell up) I honest to God think he is worse than Clinton and his supporters are dumber and more radical than Obummers!
HELP!
On March 25, 2016 at 7:15 pm, Haywood Jablome said:
Whew…all better now. Just read another story about Hilary. A good cold slap of reality across the face was all I needed to get back to my roots…I’m not sacrificing my principles for the lesser of two evils.
Now I know why you never make decisions when you are angry!
On March 25, 2016 at 8:18 am, Ammono Cruose said:
And when Clinton destroys the second and does everything she can to limit your religious rights, will you still sleep so well? No, you will whine and complain because she won. Sleep well knowing the guaranteed destruction of America rests squarely on your shoulders.
On March 25, 2016 at 3:10 pm, Haywood Jablome said:
Oh my! I see the error in my ways. Thank you soon much. Trump is the best and will Make America Great Again!
Brwaaahaaaa. Ha ha! Nice try. You aren’t very bright though. You won’t pull me into your little game of false choices. I will try to type this slow, because obviously you didn’t get it the first time. I see absolutely no difference between the two big government progressives Trump and Clinton. You do. Trump has no principles and has waffles on every single issue. Every. Single. One. The fact that you think you have any clue what he is going to do if elected shows me you are either unbelievably naive, or just plain ignorant. Either way, you’re “don’t come crying to me” crappie says you will fit right in with the other 12 year old girl Trumpbots!
On March 25, 2016 at 3:59 pm, Ammono Cruose said:
I’m the dumb one? Ha! That’s rich. You can’t see what is right before your face, but I am stupid. There is no such thing as a false choice. A choice is a choice, even when you don’t like it. But, That’s fine, take your ball and go home because you don’t like the game. It’s ok, the rest of us will continue to work to protect your rights, even if you won’t.
On March 25, 2016 at 5:00 pm, Haywood Jablome said:
You are such a hero! Thank you for saving me from me!
On March 26, 2016 at 8:02 am, Ammono Cruose said:
My apologies, I have been informed that I can no longer participate in this conversation as I do not meet the qualifications for the Special Olympics. Please feel free to continue without me.
On March 27, 2016 at 11:37 am, Haywood Jablome said:
Buh bye!
On March 24, 2016 at 11:32 am, Archer said:
I (and others) have long pointed out that the Democrats’ biggest strength is that their voters cooperate as a single, massive voting bloc. They’ll bicker amongst themselves over little things, but when it counts they are ALL in lock-step. They agree about what they want, and they agree on how it might be accomplished (which is to say, they agree to not care how, or even if it’s reasonable or possible).
The GOP’s biggest weakness, on the other hand, is that it’s easily divided into factions over everything. We don’t agree on what we want, and even those who want the same things bicker and argue over the “hows”, to the point many Republicans won’t support each other in the same end goal if the path to get there is different.
Look at healthcare, for example. We can agree that Obamacare is awful and single-payer would be worse. But what to do? Some support repealing the PPACA entirely. Some would merely defund it. Others would amend it in an attempt to “improve” it. And still others resign themselves to “settled law” and refuse to do anything about it (perhaps based on the fear the Democrats will push for full single-payer if the PPACA goes away, or perhaps because Obama is still President; a veto is certain, so why bother?). But these factions argue so hard over “how” to end Obamacare that the end goal falls to the wayside, and they get steamrolled and intimidated by the Democrats, WHO ARE THE F—ING MINORITY PARTY.
The GOP is dead and has been for some time, and I agree it’s not because of Trump, or because of Mitch McConnell, or John Boehner, or G.W. Bush. It’s because the voters keep sending spineless wimps and squishes to Washington.
On March 24, 2016 at 12:51 pm, Blake said:
When it comes to the GOP, it isn’t a matter of everyone agreeing. Rather, it is having a leader with vision that injects some spine into those who are reluctant and instills fear into those who oppose. See: Reagan.
On March 24, 2016 at 2:37 pm, Herschel Smith said:
I agree that there’s been no leadership Blake. But I guess I’m pointing in a different direction. Leaders emerge from among men who believe things. They don’t force people to do things against their will, or persuade men to believe things they otherwise would not. That’s a tyrant, a Fascist.
The important thing to me is that the American people have turned from God, they no longer study history, they don’t know philosophy, they don’t read, they don’t think, they don’t school themselves, they don’t school each other, they have jettisoned their moral compass. They listen to rap music, watch TV and bitch about their employers (if they have one).
The problem isn’t leaders. The problem is that there is no longer a majority of honorable, educated, Godly men from which leaders can emerge and who are a powerful enough voting bloc to vote those men into office. The problem is the people.
On March 24, 2016 at 10:39 pm, malachai said:
I heard all of these same arguments in 1980; the Republicans are self-destructing, Reagan can’t win, etc. If you think it doesn’t matter, I have two words for you: SUPREME COURT.
On March 24, 2016 at 10:54 pm, Herschel Smith said:
You most certainly, absolutely DID NOT hear all those same arguments in 1980. You did not hear that Reagan was in favor of socialized medicine (Reagan had already fought the good fight when the communists tried to take over the screen actors guild), or that he was pro-abortion. As for the Supreme Court, Donald said he favors someone like Maryanne Trump Barry. There is no difference between her and the liberals already on the Supreme Court. You’re just imagining things.
On March 25, 2016 at 11:05 am, Archer said:
As for the Supreme Court, Donald said he favors someone like Maryanne
Trump Barry. There is no difference between her and the liberals
already on the Supreme Court.
As soon as he said that, I figured there were two possibilities (and they’re not mutually exclusive; it could be both): 1. Trump knows his sister’s politics and agrees with them, regardless of what he’s spouting on the campaign trail; or 2. Trump is more interested in building a Trump Dynasty, concentrating power within his family (and no doubt leveraging it for future profit), than acting in the best interests of the American People.
And as soon as he said it, I knew he couldn’t be trusted.
On March 25, 2016 at 11:22 am, malachai said:
Those were not the arguments to which I referred; maybe you meant to reply to someone else’s post…
On March 25, 2016 at 10:26 am, Josh said:
The idea that Ted Cruz is somehow different, somehow unique, in some way more pure than anyone else in elected office is, I think, wrongheaded. Ted Cruz is saying what he thinks needs saying to clinch the nomination. He happens to share – partially – a value set with the evangelical Christian voting bloc. But partially is key here.
Ted Cruz is not like you. He is not. His brand of Christianity is not even like yours (or even most evangelicals). He thinks gays are horrible, abortion is horrible, and so on. That’s where the alignment ends, unless you’re a Seven Mountains Dominionist, and I know at least that the author is not. I do not want Ted Cruz’s brand of Christianity in the Whitehouse, and I will not vote for it, but that is beside the point.
Ted Cruz is bought and paid for just like every other politician. He carries along the special baggage of his own gaggle of donors. Many of his supporters are doing with him thee very same they bemoan Trump’s supporters for: projecting. Cruz has become, as every politician must, a canvas for projecting the voter’s value set, world view, wishes, hopes, and dreams upon. A candidate cannot be elected without doing this, and Cruz is in no way an exception.
Ted Cruz is not like you. Ted Cruz is dishonest and underhanded. Ted Cruz is not the answer.
To the main point, though. The GOP is not dead, has not died, and is not dying, past, present, or future. And let’s dispense with the GOP for a moment, and discuss the conservative right instead.
The right is changing, and has been for several decades. In fact, it has been in a state of flux since the founding of our country. The relative stability of the conservative right since the 1950s was unique, but it’s over. The right is succumbing to new, alt-right conservatism, and it is indeed swelling in ranks in the process. There are far less evangelical Christian voters in the base than many think, and their numbers continue to dwindle. The young, alt-right find as much in common with the establishment and evangelical voters (who propped that establishment up for six decades) as they do with the left.
Any further discussion of the alt-right would be broad, and I’ll avoid it for now. But I think it’s important to understand, and without that understanding, I don’t think one can properly frame the current political flux of conservatism.
The vapidity and stupidity of the masses is not some new phenomenon. There exists no novel, special degradation of intellect (or the pursuit thereof); it has always been this way. The GOP is not dead, it just looks very, very different than it did forty or fifty or sixty years ago.
And its members? They don’t care if evangelical Christians join in with them. This is the rise of secularism.
So, in a sense, yes, your GOP has died. The new GOP is being constructed to beat back the advances of socialism, tyranny, and wealth transfer to the state (among many other things). The dead GOP and its staunchest supporters have been tossed aside in this endeavor.