Tag: politics

Fighting rhetoric with rhetoric

An author who appears to be in transition one way or the other (it’s hard to tell) provides a salutory lesson in how NOT to do it:

As Movement Conservatives consolidated their power in the Republican Party their appeal became more and more emotional and less and less rational. By the time of the George W. Bush administration, it no longer reflected, as one of Bush’s advisers put it, the “reality based community.” But, like any other myth, its lack of reality made it more emotionally powerful than ever. The good guys are pure and virtuous, and they are under attack: Christianity is under siege in a country that is 70 percent Christian, for example, and those who occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge are fighting to kill the big government that gives “subsidies” to lazy black people despite the fact that they themselves have received subsides — and one of the occupiers an outright loan. And the bad guys are really bad. Donald Trump has famously asserted that Mexican immigrants are rapists, and his attacks on black Americans are so inflammatory that the Ku Klux Klan uses them as a recruiting tool. Indeed, all Democrats are demons: Republican presidential candidates Carly Fiorina has asserted—all evidence to the contrary—that Democrats support Planned Parenthood because they want to kill babies and sell their body parts. The emotional punch of these allegations stays with supporters despite the fact they are false.

The national triumph of this Movement Conservative narrative explains the present political moment. Republican leaders who were previously focused on consolidating voting blocs now face two very real voter insurgencies. On one hand, those like Ted Cruz argue that rank-and-file voters feel betrayed because Republicans have not actually shrunk the government. Cruz promises to see that destruction through. On the other, Trump voters have absorbed the racism and sexism in his candidacy and are following it in pure rage. Cruz and Trump have a clear narrative. Republican Party leaders do not.

But, like Republican insiders, establishment Democrats have also suffered for lack of a narrative. The Movement Conservative story has made America a hostile place for minorities, women and those falling behind economically. Democratic voters are angry at leaders who have stayed largely quiet as the government has befriended Wall Street, gutted the middle class, slashed social programs, and endangered their health. While Clinton still works to line up narrow voting blocs, Sanders offers an alternative: a narrative of America that gives Democrats a national vision to counter that of Movement Conservatives.

Voters on both sides are angry, and neither cares much what the political establishment says, especially an establishment that on both sides is notably white, elitist and male—aside from Clinton’s refreshing candidacy– and clearly has no idea what life looks like for those outside its bubble. If establishment figures want to regain leadership, they should try articulating a narrative for their vision of America, a narrative that lets voters choose a direction for their country.

Until then, they are preaching to a choir that has lost its audience.

 The Rhetorical Test:

  1. Is this rhetoric, dialectic, or pseudo-dialectic?
  2. What is the most effective way to refute it? 
  3. Why is this likely to be ineffective?

Two down, five to go

Christie and Carly are out of the running for the Republican nomination:

Chris Christie dropped out of the race for president on Wednesday afternoon, two hours after a rival candidate quit. Carly Fiorina, one of only two women in the U.S. presidential race, left her quixotic pursuit of the White House on Wednesday after a seventh-place New Hampshire primary finish in a field of eight candidates.

And Christie, the governor of New Jersey, soon followed suit after rumors of his campaign’s demise swirled all day.

Spokeswoman Samantha Smith confirmed the news to the Associated Press, saying that Christie broke the news of his decision to staff at his campaign headquarters in Morristown, New Jersey, late in the afternoon.

Interesting that neither of them endorsed anyone. That either indicates that they think Trump has a chance or the GOPe hasn’t settled on its anti-Trump replacement for Jeb Bush.

Trump is the Great Nationalist

This is why Europeans across the continent are hoping to see Donald Trump win the US presidency:

 “What’s happening in Europe can lead to its collapse. It’s dramatic what Merkel has allowed to happen, this flood,” he said, adding that the “consequences” were being felt around the continent.

“If we don’t deal with the situation competently and firmly, then yes, it’s the end of Europe,” he predicted.

Stopping short of predicting civil war, he said the continent had “real revolutions ahead of you”, adding that Europe “won’t be spared” a 9/11-style disaster.

“My German friends no longer know where they are. They can’t believe their eyes about what is happening…they’re desperate,” he claimed.

He also warned that if immigration could not be dealt with “in an intelligent, rapid and energetic manner,” then Europe was headed for “more than just upheaval, on a scale you can’t even imagine.”

As for France, Mr Trump warned: “Unfortunately, France isn’t what it was, nor Paris”. The pro-gun candidate claimed that the Paris terrorist attack of November 13 that killed 130 could have been thwarted if the French had been allowed to bear arms to defend themselves, saying he would have done so.

At the Bataclan (concert hall where 90 died), he said: “The only people who had weapons were the killers…it was ‘open bar’ for a massacre.”

He added: “I always carry a weapon on me. If I’d been at the Bataclan or one of those bars, I would have opened fire. I would have perhaps died, but at least I would have taken a shot. The worst thing is the powerlessness to respond to those who want to kill you,” he said.

They don’t get a vote, but I think Trump just won over the French and German people. And remember, Trump is married to a European, so he understands the continent much better than most American politicians.

And as for the Americans, notice that he didn’t say his bodyguards carried a gun. He does. Not only that, but he is advocating for carry laws in Europe. I expect he is considerably more trustworthy on the 2nd Amendment than any of the Republican establishment candidates.

Sanders upsets Clinton

When thinking about the way in which Bernie Sanders trounced Hillary Clinton, it’s worth noting that as recently as January, Clinton was leading Sanders in the New Hampshire polls:

Sanders didn’t just win in New Hampshire. He undermined Clinton’s campaign so badly, she may never recover.

CONCORD, New Hampshire — Hundreds of Bernie Sanders’s supporters packed into a high school gym here—after waiting outside in frigid temperatures to file through metal detectors one-by-one—to celebrate his big win. Meanwhile, about 20 miles away, a loyal crowd tried to keep its collective chin up as Hillary Clinton conceded defeat in the first Democratic primary contest.

The contrast highlights just how much damage Sanders is doing to Clinton’s campaign. Even though he’s still a longshot to snag the nomination, his candidacy is persuading young voters, women, and progressives that Clinton is in the pocket of big banks and corrupt corporations—and it’s persuading Clinton’s own supporters that they’re on the sadder side of this contest.

It remains to be seen, of course, if Sanders will actually be able to pick up any more wins. Current polls indicate that Sanders’s campaign in the other early states will be much trickier than his efforts in New Hampshire. Clinton’s double-digit leads in South Carolina and Nevada might have given a few of his supporters pause.

But those supporters weren’t in Concord tonight.

The gym his supporters packed into brimmed with unmitigated glee. An eclectic crowd danced, chanted, foot-stomped, and overall whooped it up for the democratic-socialist turned Democratic primary champion.

And the crowd’s devotion to their candidate highlighted just how much damage his candidacy is doing to Clinton’s—even if she’s the party’s ultimate nominee, which still seems all but guaranteed.

Considering that Sanders gained 25 points on Clinton in New Hampshire in just a single month, it seems insane to put any weight at all on Clinton’s 29.5 percent advantage in South Carolina that dates back to the week of January 17th.

I suspect that Sanders has dealt Hillary her death blow, everyone just hasn’t realized it yet. It’s not as if Hillary is particularly popular in the South, after all. And let’s face it, there wouldn’t be all this talk about Biden getting into the race if anyone had any confidence in Hillary, who appears to be the least competent establishment favorite since Bob Dole.

I mean, she managed to lose 83 percent of the young female vote to a 74-year-old gamma male… while running on her vagina. She is spectacularly unlikable; young women openly hate her. And remember, despite all the revised expectations in the new narrative, she was the favorite in New Hampshire until her Iowa debacle.

New Hampshire: Trump, Sanders win

This is your open thread to discuss the New Hampshire results. If Hillary was anyone but Hillary, the media would be pronouncing her dead. I suppose we’ll have to wait for Super Tuesday before they can make the definitive case.

UPDATE: Bernie Sanders wins!

Senator Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton among nearly every demographic group in the Democratic New Hampshire primary, according to exit polls.

He carried majorities of both men and women. He won among those with and without college degrees. He won among gun owners and non-gun owners. He beat Mrs. Clinton among previous primary voters and those participating for the first time. And he ran ahead among both moderates and liberals.

Donald Trump also did better than expected.

  • Donald Trump 35.1%
  • John Kasich 15.9%
  • Ted Cruz 11.7%
  • Jeb Bush 11.1%
  • Marco Rubio 10.7%
  • Chris Christie 7.5%
  • Carly Fiorina 4.1%
  • Ben Carson 2.3 

Interesting to see that Carson is apparently willing to throw his support to Trump. As I mentioned previously, Carson could help Trump seal the deal. I expect that will not have escaped Trump’s attention and that The Art of the Deal author will be in touch with him sooner rather than later. He won’t offer him VP, though, but a Cabinet seat.

Mailvox: a woman’s take on female suffrage

It’s nice to see a woman actually reflect upon the issue rather than reacting emotionally to it. Ironically, only women who could most likely be trusted with the vote are able to do so. I’ve yet to run into a woman who is able to even try to defend female suffrage on any basis beyond a) personal feelings, b) “fairness”, and c) an appeal to the Unicorn of Equality.

I read “Mailvox: Stampeding the Sheep” with great interest.  The first time I ever heard someone suggest that women should not vote was my mother when I was a child.  I am 47 years old so it was some years ago.  The second time I heard this was from you.  I use to think my mom was just nuts, but her words left me wondering.  Here’s why:

  • Invincible:  I believed I could do everything a man could.  I graduated from the United States Air Force Academy, served as an intel and targeting officer for 7 years before realizing my true vocation was wife and mother.  Although my mom despised women in general, she hated the idea that I married (right after graduating) and started to have kids.  She was terrified I would be completely dependent on a man like she was.  Why is this important?  Simply because the feminists have ingrained in my generation a complete (and unreasonable) fear of male dominance.
  • Vote:  Why should women not vote?  I thought about this for years.  I consider myself more intelligent, more politically astute, and more educated/well-read than most men.  However, that does not outweigh one important limitation:  emotion.  This is what you brought up in your post.  Unlike men, women must be TAUGHT not to act on their emotions.  For us, this is an immediate response to whatever happens around us (perhaps this is one of the reasons we immediately bond with our babies so it’s not a bad thing if used correctly).  Men, on the other hand, hold back their emotions, but if they do not eventually act, they explode.  My experience tells me women explode immediately without thought and men explode later with thought.  Most women vote because of how they FEEL.  Bad move.  It has destroyed our societies and made us completely dependent on government.
  • Need: Women also have an innate need to be cared for, protected, and loved.  This is why the male European inaction regarding the Muslim invasion is so appalling.  The problem is the Baby Boomers are responsible for two generations (Gen X and the Millennials) that are incapable of doing anything (Yes, I blame the Baby Boomers, but I also blame the so called Greatest Generation who coddled, spoiled, and raised them).  Women just replaced their men with a colder, harsher, less faithful spouse, the government.  Unfortunately, while men are neutered, women think they are Black Widow.
  • Black Widow:  I really believed I could be as strong, as fast, and as fierce as any man.  I just had to work hard.  Why?  Because the feminists who indoctrinated me said so.  I’m ex military, dabbled in martial arts, love cross-fit, and keep a personal trainer.  No matter what I try to do physically, I CANNOT compete with a man (OK, I can compete with the young teenage boys).  The only thing that evens out this playing field is a gun (arm up feminists because men aren’t going to help you).  The feminists set their little darling daughters up for complete failure.  We could not compete in this way, but our mom’s insisted our self-worth must be measured against a man’s.  What did that mean?  ALL women are failures by this standard.  That reality hit me hard because it meant women are useless (this kind of supports the Muslim teachings doesn’t it?  Thanks, feminists.  No wonder you are silent with Islamic FGM)
  • Baby Making:  Yep.  This is what completes a woman.  It is not to say that some women cannot succeed in careers.  Many have exceptional skills and should pursue their God given talent.  However, the feminists told us making babies is for stupid women (you know, the surrogates they pay to have their babies for them).  That’s NOT true.  The first time I felt that I actually accomplished something, was the day I first held my daughter. 
  • Men:  My fear of only men having the vote was unfounded.  My man would NEVER vote against his family’s best interest.  Neither would any man I know.  There is a trade off, however.  Men, you need to man up and demand your rights.  That means putting women in their place which, according to my Catholic teaching, is above you. This is what distinguishes the Christian West from the rest of the world.  As life-bearers, women continue life, nurture it, and sustain it.  We pass on culture, tradition, and history.  This is why Islam cannot coincide with Christians:  they hate, despise, and denigrate women.  I believe the primary reason the Islamic world is such a hellhole is because the proper role of women was annihilated.  Well, the West has also harmed the proper role of women, just not to the same degree as Islam (Islam also has the benefit of more than 1000 years to make their brain damage permanent).  Men must reassert their proper place and women need to climb back onto their pedestal. 

I have so much more to say, but I am grateful if you read this.  Mr. Day, you are right and if more men stand up, women will be much happier.  Most of my generation don’t even know what happened because we never saw what the Baby Boomers had (their moms in their proper and much happier roles in the home).  I’ve seen both sides of this issue.  The feminists built a very dark place for their daughters.  Will we recognize what they did before it comes crashing down?  I doubt it.  Perhaps Islam will open women’s eyes to what they have and thank God everyday for Christianity.  If we want men to protect us, we cannot vote against them.  They alone must have this power.

The reality is that female suffrage can only be eliminated through despotism, most likely of the sort that comes about through societal collapse. The one possible non-catastrophic solution, which is probably already too late now that Obama and Mutti Merkel have combined to unleash a Muslim invasion of the West, is direct democracy.

And that is why I am an advocate of direct democracy with full female suffrage: it is both possible as well as an improvement on a system that is clearly incompatible with societal survival and Western civilization.

Rand Paul drops out

Showing more sense than Jeb Bush and the other no-hopers, Sen. Rand Paul ends his presidential campaign:

Rand Paul on Wednesday dropped out of the race for president, saying he will now focus on his reelection to the U.S. Senate.

“It’s been an incredible honor to run a principled campaign for the White House. Today, I will end where I began, ready and willing to fight for the cause of Liberty,” Paul said in a statement.

It’s a pity, as his father’s supporters were more than ready to support him, but Paul shot his presidential aspirations in the foot by moving to the center even as the center was moving to the nationalist right.

Despite being good on foreign policy, he got it hopelessly wrong on immigration and that rendered him moot in 2016. He’s not bad, as politicians go, but he’s simply not worthy of carrying his father’s torch nor is he capable of doing so.

Iowa: Cruz 28, Trump 24, Rubio 23

First, congratulations to Farmer Tom, who got the order correct. Second, and unexpectedly, the big news isn’t on the Republican side, but on the Democratic one, as Bernie Sanders shocked the Clinton campaign by effectively fighting Hillary to a draw.

Third, the real score is this: Cruz 8, Trump 7, Rubio 7, Carson 3. That’s how many delegates were awarded.

The only real surprise on the Republican side is that Rubio did much better than anyone expected, including the pollsters. While the media narrative is that Trump is done and dusted, they’ve been saying the exact same thing since last August, so that’s entirely irrelevant. Given that the headline two days ago was “Donald Trump reclaims lead in latest Iowa Poll”, it should be obvious that he was never the favorite in Iowa, and indeed, it looks rather like the GOP and the media colluded to try to make a result that would have been considered beyond Trump’s reach six months ago appear like a disappointing, campaign-destroying failure. As for the record turnout on the Republican side, I suspect it happened for much the same reason it did in the Hugos last year; to stop the interloper.

The only serious candidate who is done now is Jeb, and it appears the establishment will be lining up behind Rubio in his place. Jeb himself will probably follow suit after New Hampshire. I think Cruz will ultimately be the real GOPe candidate as he is the more formidable of the two Cubans. It’s now a three-man race; what would throw a real twist into it is if Trump can win Ben Carson’s support. Forget Trump-Cruz, the most politically effective combination would be Trump-Carson.

Think about it. Trump’s two main weaknesses with Republicans is religion and character. Besides being black, Carson’s two greatest strengths are religion and character. And Trump is already popular among blacks due to his big-man swagger, so if I’m Trump, I’m getting together with Carson and working out a deal to be announced after New Hampshire, but before South Carolina.

And if I can see it, I expect Trump can see it too.

Now onto New Hampshire, where it’s going to be interesting to see how the Iowa results affect the Democratic primary. Sanders is going to win, but how will it affect the race if he crushes Hillary there?

One last thing: say what you will about Trump, but he makes the campaign about 200 percent more interesting. I met him back in 1988 at the Republican convention in New Orleans and he’s very likable. What seems blustery and over-the-top on camera comes off as more expansive and charming in person. Wherever he is, there is a lot of laughter, and not all of it is obsequious. The man is genuinely funny. I mean, who else would end a concession speech like this?

“I don’t know who’s going to win between Bernie and Hillary. I don’t know what’s going to happen with Hillary, she’s got other problems, maybe bigger than the problems she’s got, in terms of nominations, but we’ve had so many different indications, and polls that we beat her, and we beat her easily. And we will go on to get the Republican nomination, and we will go on to easily beat Hillary, or Bernie, or whoever the hell they throw up there. Iowa, we love you. We thank you. You’re special. We will be back many, many times. In fact, I think I might come here and buy a farm, I love it.”

And that’s why the American public loves Trump and the establishment fears him. You just can’t be entirely sure he won’t actually go and do it.

A man ahead of his time

20 years ago, Sam Francis foresaw something akin to The Trumpening in America’s political future:

What if you dropped all this leftover 19th-century piety about the free market and promised to fight the elites who were selling out American jobs? What if you just stopped talking about reforming Medicare and Social Security and instead said that the elites were failing to deliver better health care at a reasonable price? What if, instead of vainly talking about restoring the place of religion in society — something that appeals only to a narrow slice of Middle America — you simply promised to restore the Middle American core — the economic and cultural losers of globalization — to their rightful place in America? What if you said you would restore them as the chief clients of the American state under your watch, being mindful of their interests when regulating the economy or negotiating trade deals?

That’s pretty much the advice that columnist Samuel Francis gave to Pat Buchanan in a 1996 essay, “From Household to Nation,” in Chronicles magazine. Samuel Francis was a paleo-conservative intellectual who died in 2005. Earlier in his career he helped Senator East of North Carolina oppose the Martin Luther King holiday. He wrote a white paper recommending the Reagan White House use its law enforcement powers to break up and harass left-wing groups. He was an intellectual disciple of James Burnham’s political realism, and Francis’ political analysis always had a residue of Burnham’s Marxist sociology about it. He argued that the political right needed to stop playing defense — the globalist left won the political and cultural war a long time ago — and should instead adopt the insurgent strategy of communist intellectual Antonio Gramsci. Francis eventually turned into a something resembling an all-out white nationalist, penning his most racist material under a pen name. Buchanan didn’t take Francis’ advice in 1996, not entirely. But 20 years later, “From Household to Nation,” reads like a political manifesto from which the Trump campaign springs.

To simplify Francis’ theory: There are a number of Americans who are losers from a process of economic globalization that enriches a transnational global elite. These Middle Americans see jobs disappearing to Asia and increased competition from immigrants. Most of them feel threatened by cultural liberalism, at least the type that sees Middle Americans as loathsome white bigots. But they are also threatened by conservatives who would take away their Medicare, hand their Social Security earnings to fund-managers in Connecticut, and cut off their unemployment too.

I myself have been writing about America’s bi-factional ruling party for more than twelve years, but only recently has it seemed that people are beginning to wake up to the fact that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are genuinely on the side of the average white Americans who comprise the genuine American nation.

Sooner or later, all politics inevitably becomes tribal, because the only scenario in which so-called post-tribal politics is possible is in a formerly homogeneous nation that is in the early stages of becoming heterogeneous. In other words, there is no such thing as “post-tribal” politics, there is only pre-tribal politics.

And tribal politics is the larval form of war.