Lion of the Blogosphere

Democrats becoming the new stupid party?

Reported in the Chicago Tribune, Rahm Emanuel’s advice to Democrats:

[A]t an event in Washington, D.C., the mayor expanded on what he believes is the road map back to power for his party — putting moderate candidates such as veterans, football players, sheriffs and business people up in Republican districts, picking battles with Republicans, exploiting wedges within the GOP and fighting attempts to redistrict Congress on partisan grounds.

But this time he didn’t hold back on his frustration with some of his fellow Democrats.

“Winning’s everything,” he said. “If you don’t win, you can’t make the public policy. I say that because it is hard for people in our party to accept that principle. Sometimes, you’ve just got to win, OK? Our party likes to be right, even if they lose.”

Can the Democrats really run veterans, football players and sheriffs (in other words, the type of people who appeal to blue-collar whites) when the SJW-types who are in charge hate those types of people?

Conservative traitor David Frum advises liberal protestors:

Carry the flag. Open with the Pledge of Allegiance. Close by singing the Star Spangled Banner… Trump’s presidency is itself one long flag-burning, an attack on the principles and institutions of the American republic. That republic’s symbols are your symbols. You should cherish them and brandish them.

It’s not likely to happen because the SJW types hate nationalistic patriotic stuff. SJW types hate the slogan “Make America great again” because they don’t think that America was ever great. Rudy Giuliani was right when he said that Obama, the SJW-in-chief, doesn’t love America.

I’ve been saying for a long time that the Republican Party is the stupid party, they put principles (dumb principles at that) and squabbling over trivia ahead of winning, they allowed liberals to take over the mainstream media.

But the Trump-led Republican Party is becoming smarter. Trump went after the blue-collar white voters who were up for grabs. Trump attacks the mainstream media instead of cucking to them, the previous strategy employed by Republicans which failed and failed.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

February 7, 2017 at 10:04 am

Posted in Politics

59 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Well the Republican mainstream is still all about repealing Obamacare, abortion and open borders so I’d say they are still pretty stupid.

    Obama was all about appealing to middle of the road whites but the other Dems just want to go out of their way to alienate them. Obama could get away with his heresies because he was such a smooth operator and had the cult of personality around him.

    It will be interesting to see if the Dems are stupid enough to again run on BLM and open borders in 2020. I think that they will.

    Otis the Sweaty

    February 7, 2017 at 10:29 am

    • The Dems buy their own propaganda. They don’t understand why Obama was able to get away with things.

      It’s kind of how Trump can get away with saying things way out of the mainstream but when your average republican says it they get scarlet lettered.

      Likewise democrats are now showing their true colors, which is great for us because it peeps away 5-10% of normies that are now forced to pick a side (since both sides are now real choices as opposed to being the uniparty).

      As the great Circse Lanister once said… Power is power.

      Paul Ryan's Sickly Old Lapdog

      February 7, 2017 at 12:15 pm

    • smooth operator??

      anonymous

      February 7, 2017 at 6:08 pm

  2. Emanuel is pulling a bit of rhetorical two-step there. We’re talking about a party that nominated Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, and has guys like Rahm Emanuel, Terry McAuliffe, Chuck Schumer and Cory Booker in high office. They’re not being sabotaged by SJWs rigidly installing their ideologues in primaries.

    The Democratic Party’s problem is that it is dominated by corporate urban liberals, men and women much like Emanuel actually, and the policy goals of these people inherently have little appeal to the blue-collar whites whom Trump scooped up. Note that Emanuel isn’t suggesting that the Democrats change their platform to win those voters back, instead it’s a Cosplay strategy of running a candidate who superficially looks like one of their guys (a football player!).

    Richard

    February 7, 2017 at 10:32 am

  3. I really think the Dem primaries are going to come down to Gillibrand and Booker. The other candidates just offer nothing.

    The nomination is Biden’s if he wants it, but I no longer think he does. He has been totally silent since Trump took over which is not what he would be doing were he interested in running.

    Gillibrand is basically Hillary without the baggage. I think that Booker is the strongest D candidate but I can’t see the Dems nominating a black guy.

    Booker will probably end up being Gillibrand’s running mate.

    Otis the Sweaty

    February 7, 2017 at 10:38 am

    • If Biden had run in 2016 he would have won.

      ScarletNumber

      February 7, 2017 at 9:28 pm

  4. I’ve become convinced that Frum is mentally unwell. How does a guy go from eulogizing Peter Brimelow’s wife on the pages of VDARE.com to this?

    IHTG

    February 7, 2017 at 10:46 am

    • I admit that’s bizarre. Frum has written some very good stuff on immigration in the past, and seemed to recognize years ago that if Republicans didn’t get serious about immigration, they would get a Trump. So now that we have a Trump, he can’t stand it. He’s like Charles Murray. I would have thought that Murray would have been the first one on the Trump train based on his previous work, but like Frum, he would rather serve a thousand Hillaries than be associated with Trump.

      Mike Street Station

      February 7, 2017 at 1:46 pm

      • Sure, there are lots of anti-Trump immigration restrictionists in the TAC paleocon crowd, but none of them have gone as loopy as he has.

        IHTG

        February 7, 2017 at 3:11 pm

    • Frum has gone completely mad. He was always an immigration restrictionist (to a large extent). He has written extensively on how mass immigration is a huge scam for America and the West in general. I think being part of the Bush administration actually kept him somewhat separated from the Liberal intelligentsia. However, he has become a full-fledged “globalist” over the last few years after taking over the Atlantic.

      The idea that the Left would ever worship the American flag or say the pledge of allegiance before every meeting is laughable. Forget about SJWs. Even your typical Upper West Side, Northwest Washington or Silicon Valley upper middle class liberal looks down at that type of patriotic stuff.

      I’ll keep writing here but I think Trump is really up against a wall here. The Cathedral is not going to let up on him. We’ll see what happens but it’s tough.

      JerseyGuy

      February 7, 2017 at 1:53 pm

    • David Frum spoke out against the banning of Richard Spencer from Twitter and opposed the attacks against Spencer’s mom. He did this even though Spencer had heckled him relentlessly on Twitter for years. David Frum opposed to the Tea Party. He fawned with praise for George W. Bush. Frum’s criticism of immigration was always rather lukewarm, but the fact that he raised the issue at all was almost radical for a mainstream conservative in the 00s.

      All of this looks rather erratic. Either Frum just tries to find any angle possible for a comeback to his level of influence he enjoyed during the Bush era. Or he is ideologically a moderate, pragmatic Trumpian who wants Trumpism lite, without Trump and acceptable to his liberal peers. I think Charles Murray holds this view.

      The problem is that technocratic, compassionate, pragmatic Trumpism does not work. The media will gin up sob-stories about “families torn apart”, dreamers and cute immigrant kids. Ironically it was conservatives who did exactly this with Elián González in the 90ies.

      Contrarian

      February 7, 2017 at 11:58 pm

    • I think he’s being blackmailed. Caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy is only thing that makes sense with him, he’s so far over the edge.

      Portlander

      February 8, 2017 at 12:00 am

  5. Trump is going to lose the people who elected him if he doesn’t follow through on the populist promises he made, which as I see it were 1) replacing ACA with something better, 2) building the wall and removing SOME of the illegals already here, 3) stopping all immigration from Muslim countries indefinitely, 4) staying out of any new military conflicts but finishing up ISIS, 4) bringing back SOME industrial jobs via tariffs.

    If he doesn’t do those things it doesn’t matter what protesters do or what the Democrats do, they will resuming winning the presidency.

    CamelCaseRob

    February 7, 2017 at 10:51 am

    • If Trump fails to do many of these things because of obstruction from congress he won’t lose much if any of his supporters. If he shows at least a willingness to be our guy then there won’t be any point in replacing him with someone actively hostile to our interests.

      Ted Cruz might get a bump though because he is percieved as our guy but might run the argument that he can get things done.

      In any case the odds that Trump doesn’t fulfill at least 25-33% of his campaign promises is pretty low which is already a lot better than every other all words no action politician.

      Paul Ryan's Sickly Old Lapdog

      February 7, 2017 at 12:19 pm

    • “1) replacing ACA with something better,”

      No Republicans ever bought into the ACA. They’re happy to replace it with something else… Except if they do, they’ll be responsible for healthcare.

      Right now, the Democrats take all the blame for healthcare struggles and costs. The Republicans probably like this much more than they would like to enact any specific legislation.

      I dislike the ACA, but anyone who thinks there’s a nice, simple solution to healthcare is hopelessly naive. Any policy is going to harm someone. If the Republicans enact a healthcare law, the changes will hurt someone somewhere, and more broadly, Republicans will be associated with people’s frustrations and anxieties in health care. That’s why they’re procrastinating over what to do.

      “2) building the wall and removing SOME of the illegals already here,”

      I’m sure that will happen. All the signs suggest Trump is serious about this.

      “3) stopping all immigration from Muslim countries indefinitely,”

      Despite the ban being overturned, I expect Trump’s EO will be ruled constitutional once Gorsuch is on the Supreme Court.

      “4) staying out of any new military conflicts but finishing up ISIS,”

      Trump and Mattis are hitting ISIS hard and they don’t care about Assad. Unfortunately, I’m concerned about the US getting more involved in Yemen and colliding against Iran. Time will tell.

      “5) bringing back SOME industrial jobs via tariffs.”

      Trump has been able to draw a fair number of jobs back to the US. What remains to be seen is if he can create policies which will bring jobs back long-term, instead of just negotiating lots of ad hoc, one time deals.

      Sid

      February 7, 2017 at 12:28 pm

      • Sid,

        “No Republicans ever bought into the ACA. They’re happy to replace it with something else… Except if they do, they’ll be responsible for healthcare.”

        Healthcare this…healthcare that.

        Look, it’s important to realize that nobody in America is not getting healthcare. I can walk into any emergency room in the country, tell them that I have chest pains, and, under EMTALA, they are required to keep me over night. I can walk away from any medical bill by simply disputing the charges. Everybody, and I mean everybody, is getting healthcare, on one level or another.

        That is why the debate is focused on health insurance, which is really nothing more than taxation, especially the Obama tax known as ObamaCare. Once you understand this, it is is getting rid of the ObamaCare taxes.

        map

        February 7, 2017 at 3:38 pm

      • “I can walk away from any medical bill by simply disputing the charges.”

        That part is false. People often wind up in bankruptcy after the medical bills.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 7, 2017 at 3:56 pm

      • @Sid: “I can walk away from any medical bill by simply disputing the charges.”

        How does that make the medical bill disappear?

        @LotB: People often wind up in bankruptcy after the medical bills.

        I can understand how someone w/o health insurance can wind up in bankruptcy, but how can someone w/ health insurance wind up bankrupt due to medical bills? Every health insurance plan has a not-unreasonable max annual out-of-pocket of less than $10K. Under obamacare, low-income workers are heavily subsidized and pay neither monthly premiums, co-pays, or co-insurance, so the annual max out-of-pocket is a non-issue for them. Those earning too much for subsidized obamacare, while perhaps painful, should be able to cover (most) of the annual max out-of-pocket.

        E. Rekshun

        February 7, 2017 at 5:35 pm

      • “People often wind up in bankruptcy after the medical bills.”

        That’s true. But he’s right about the rest of it. Still, lots of people wind up bankrupt from large medical bills, Which is why I support a mandate that requires insurance to cover those high cost items. Not only does it ensure people can get treatment at a reasonable cost, it protects them from bankruptcy and ensures their bills are paid.

        The GOP could fix healthcare by simply keeping the mandate, ending the monopolies and reforming medicare/medicaid. The Dems didn’t have to create commiecare to do that.

        destructure

        February 7, 2017 at 5:36 pm

      • “Look, it’s important to realize that nobody in America is not getting healthcare.”

        To be honest, I’m not sure where to argue with you. Americans are getting healthcare, but holy hell are they anxious about it. They’re dissatisfied with Obamacare and its implementation. I would say Obamacare is the main reason why the Democrats have lost so many Congressional, state legislative, and gubernatorial seats. Clearly, Americans do care about healthcare, even if they’re getting it one way or another for the most part. Also, ditto Lion’s point that people often go bankrupt from medical expenses.

        The Republicans have benefitted greatly from their opposition to Obamacare. It’s the replacement that is the hard part. I’m sure they’d rather point the finger at Obamacare forever, but sooner or later they’re going to have to step up and do something.

        Sid

        February 7, 2017 at 6:10 pm

      • “I can understand how someone w/o health insurance can wind up in bankruptcy, but how can someone w/ health insurance wind up bankrupt due to medical bills? ”

        Elizabeth Warren became well known largely because she authored a study years ago showing medical bankruptcy was one of the leading causes of bankruptcy. The study was fraudulent of course, as demonstrated by Megan McArdle from Bloomberg News. If someone went bankrupt and they had any amount that was medical in arrears, like a copay for 50 bucks, it counted as a medical bankruptcy.

        Mike Street Station

        February 8, 2017 at 9:10 am

  6. I agree that the SJW wing of the Democratic Party will never allow this to happen, but three fingers Rahm is 100% correct. Democrats can win big in conservative areas if they run upstanding military/law enforcement types. Case in point is the Democratic governor of reddest of red Louisiana who is a former Army Ranger and West Point grad and who ran as a pro-life, pro-law enforcement Democrat. He demolished Republican Party regular David Vitter.

    Two in the Bush

    February 7, 2017 at 11:20 am

    • That’s not really bad then.. Sounds like the democrat candidate was legitimately better than the cuck chamber of commerce stooge the republicans ran.

      Paul Ryan's Sickly Old Lapdog

      February 7, 2017 at 12:20 pm

      • Only if he actually believes the things he campaigned on and is doing something to advance them.

        CamelCaseRob

        February 7, 2017 at 2:00 pm

  7. Is it possible to be both evil and stupid? The Democrats seem to be trying.

    Black Death

    February 7, 2017 at 11:25 am

  8. No comment on this one because you’re just dead right.

    peterike

    February 7, 2017 at 11:58 am

  9. It’s not likely to happen because the SJW types hate nationalistic patriotic stuff.

    True, but they’re not afraid to lie.

    the Republican Party is the stupid party… they allowed liberals to take over the mainstream media.

    And the universities and the public schools and the courts and much of the federal bureaucracy and corporate America and…

    E. Rekshun

    February 7, 2017 at 12:00 pm

  10. Emanuel is just taking a page from the old Bill Clinton playbook. Act like a regular guy, sell them down the river. The Dem version of cucking.

    It won’t work anymore, unless the Republicans are stupid enough to go Jeb again, which they are, and might.

    Never underestimate the stupidity of the Republicans.

    gothamette

    February 7, 2017 at 12:07 pm

    • “Emanuel is just taking a page from the old Bill Clinton playbook. Act like a regular guy, sell them down the river. ”

      Bill was a moderate and I think he did have conservative tendencies. He reformed welfare in a conservative way, balanced the budget and got tough on crime.

      Hillary had none of this. If Bill never gotten into politics I think he would have been a Trump supporter. If Hillary never met Bill, she would have been a childless, shrieking feminist cat lady.

      Dan

      February 7, 2017 at 2:19 pm

      • You know, until recently, I thought it was all silly hysteria on the part of the Left. However, upon reflection, if you were a leftist you’re right to be worried. This is really the first time since FDR that you have outsiders running the show — or insiders running an outside game.

        One would expect the Left to know their enemies after all.

        In Der Speigel, one of the pundits is calling for “resistance” by Germany against Trump.

        They are going down.

        darkreformation101

        February 7, 2017 at 2:36 pm

      • “Bill was a moderate and I think he did have conservative tendencies. He reformed welfare in a conservative way, balanced the budget and got tough on crime.”

        It’s debatable whether he was a moderate or not. But he did have the political acumen to promote some moderate policies because he knew they would help him improve his popularity and win elections.

        Lewis Medlock

        February 7, 2017 at 3:32 pm

      • According to Wikipedia, long before Hillary met Bill, she was a Republican and a “Goldwater Girl.”

        [Hillary Rodham] volunteered to campaign for Republican candidate Barry Goldwater in the U.S. presidential election of 1964…In 1965, Rodham enrolled at Wellesley College, where she majored in political science. During her freshman year, she served as president of the Wellesley Young Republicans…

        E. Rekshun

        February 7, 2017 at 5:46 pm

      • He only did that stuff because he was under the thumb of a Republican Congress, and we were still under the influence, to a degree, of Reaganism.

        They radicalized each other. She was already on the road to ruin due to Wellesley, but he became left as a result of Vietnam. He was a full fledged lefty by the time he went to Oxford.

        You’re just saying this because you’re a typical alt-right woman hater. It’s always blame the woman, the Jew, the black.

        gothamette

        February 7, 2017 at 6:46 pm

  11. Frum doesn’t get it. No matter how smart it seems tactically, you can’t move the course of events toward what you want by counter-signalling yourself. It’s pointless in the long run. Your side will find is demoralising and others will find it confusing.

    It reminds me of the advice to Tibetan protesters (who ostensibly want reform and autonomy within China per the Dalai Lama’s Middle Way Approach) that they should fly People’s Republic of China flags. No doubt that would change the impression they make on mainstream Chinese people. But, at the end of the day, the Tibetan nationalists’ main motivation is ressentiment against the PRC, regardless of their willingness to make some kind of compromise, so flying the other side’s flag can’t accomplish anything.

    Greg Pandatshang

    February 7, 2017 at 12:49 pm

  12. And will the Academics and Campus Leftists who dominate the party’s messaging really step aside to let these “sheriffs and truck drivers” have any say?

    Camlost

    February 7, 2017 at 12:54 pm

  13. They’re both “stupid parties” in the sense that they take actions that seem diametrically opposed to those that would result in their stated goals. But neither is really run by stupid people; they just have personal goals and personal greed that sometimes take precedence over doing what’s “right” for the party or the country.

    In this case, Lion is right. Democrats might benefit from running sheriffs and businessmen, from carrying the flag and saying the pledge of allegiance, but those things are actively and hostilely opposed by their base. Someone walking through a left-wing campus protest with an American flag saying the pledge of allegiance might well be attacked and beaten before even having a chance to explain (laughing as I type this) “I’m on your side, David Frum says we should do this!”

    They have the wolf by the ears. And they can neither subdue him, nor safely let him go.

    MKP

    February 7, 2017 at 1:14 pm

  14. I still think the GOP is the stupid party. The problem for he Democrats is that they’re becoming the insane party.

    Mike Street Station

    February 7, 2017 at 1:48 pm

  15. OT: 9th circuit panel is 2 lunatic far-left Carter and Obama appointees, 1 Bush appointee.

    snorlaxwp

    February 7, 2017 at 2:00 pm

    • I read in an article recently that from 2000 to 2009, 81% of 9th Circuit rulings that went to the SCOTUS, were struck down. To me that suggests their rulings are often political.

      We can hope they are afraid of the consequences in this instance, if they make politically motivated ruling. The best outcome for us is that they begrudgingly strike down Robert’s order.

      Lowe

      February 7, 2017 at 3:14 pm

  16. If you want to see what the future of the Democrat Party will look like, one good piece is the following from Michael Totten:

    https://www.city-journal.org/html/children-revolution-14786.html

    On the subject of flags and foreign policy:

    “I asked them to tell me the biggest problem they had with Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment, to narrow it down to one or two things. I got a variety of answers.

    “Our biggest problem,” a young man said, “is her lack of integrity.” Everyone nodded. They had other complaints, though, that set them far apart from Clinton and the party’s establishment and placed them firmly in the camp of the alt-Left.

    “The Democratic Party hasn’t gotten rid of patriotism yet.” This was a complaint.

    “Chants of USA, USA were disturbing. I felt like I was in Germany in the 1930s.”

    “They brought out the flag and sang the national anthem.”

    “You have a problem with the national anthem?” I asked.

    “It makes me uncomfortable.”

    “Every country in the world has a national anthem,” I said. “It’s perfectly normal.”

    “Just because something is normal doesn’t mean it’s a good thing.”

    Some surprised me again by agreeing with Trump’s lambasting of NATO. “These entangling alliances are going to get us into World War III.” At least two of these Sanders delegates said that the United States should completely disarm and have no military at all, like Costa Rica.

    These kinds of ideas, if they’re ever championed from the stage at a Democratic National Convention in the future, would overturn the long-standing bipartisan foreign-policy consensus and severely strain the alliance holding the West together. Even if isolationism undergirds a new foreign-policy consensus in America, a party espousing these ideas would find it extraordinarily difficult to win a general election. The alt-Left is no more palatable to moderate swing voters than the alt-Right. That, I suspect, is one of the unspoken reasons that the Democratic establishment wanted to muzzle these people, why it wanted to push them so hard that they do not come back, why it wanted Bernie Sanders beaten.”

    The Democrat Party, like the Labour Party in England, will likely go the same way: a return to 70’s style socialism — but with new left po-mo nonsense.

    The reason, really, is that progressive structure is complete. There is nothing left to do; and these malcontents have no real reforms to make. The malcontents want the sixties, but the sixties are over. All they can do now is become a teacher, or a diversity officer — and that’s boring.

    So, they will try to destroy whatever is left of America.

    However, I don’t think they will be able to do so.

    The military, the police, some of the corporates, the churches and the small c conservatives will not put up with this nonsense forever.

    If they persist in rubbishing the military and the police, not to mention importing Muslims, then there will be a reaction more reactionary than Trump.

    I am often find of quoting Lenin so: “the worse it gets the better it will be.”

    darkreformation101

    February 7, 2017 at 2:07 pm

    • “The reason, really, is that progressive structure is complete. There is nothing left to do; and these malcontents have no real reforms to make.”

      This is very true. Yet even the tinniest reversal of their 100 year string of victories sends them into fits.

      But then on the other hand, they haven’t officially designated white people as non-citizens or something like that, or put them into camps. So maybe not all the work is quite done yet.

      peterike

      February 7, 2017 at 2:28 pm

    • There is no difference between the hardcore campus left and the ordinary Democrat Party. There is no difference between them and a Rahm Emmanuel. They are joint and severally liable for the state of the Democrat Party and I don’t believe there is any difference between these different left-wing groups.

      After all, hardcore leftism has been cultivated from the top down at the institutional level. Are you really going to let the Democrat leadership try to triangulate against its own base to protect itself, a base that they actively created.

      Remember, that shrieking, blue-haired cat lady is simply Rahm’s ID in action.

      map

      February 7, 2017 at 4:01 pm

    • Some of the churches might I’m afraid.

      anonymous

      February 7, 2017 at 6:28 pm

    • @ Darkreformation — So your blog has a picture of 9-11.

      Plenty of American elites have gotten wealthier ever since that infamous day. I’m not so sure if Muslims are the main culprits.

      JS

      February 7, 2017 at 9:58 pm

  17. Sorry. My above reply was meant for Peterike.

    darkreformation101

    February 7, 2017 at 2:38 pm

  18. The Democrats are the Bimodal Party, with plenty of college professors at one end and high school dropouts at the other. The Republicans are the Party of the Middle.

    So, yes. The Democrats are the Stupid Party, in addition to being the Smart Party.

    Joe

    February 7, 2017 at 2:49 pm

    • The link between the college professors and the high school drop outs is that they all prey on the taxpayers. The whole academic / educational structure relies on government money, and the poor get welfare or turn to crime. They are all parasites, some with prestige, some without.

      Gozo

      February 7, 2017 at 3:16 pm

  19. The basic problem for both parties is that the world is changing. Automation is slowly replacing manual labor. Fewer and fewer workers are required to produce the same goods. In past when this happened workers wages rose as their productivity improved, but that stopped in the early 70s. Manufacturing wages have been flat while productivity zoomed up. If manufacturing wages had kept up with productivity, those workers would have a lot more money to spend and that would have created new jobs.

    Instead we have the current winner take all economy, where the wealth created by productivity gains has flowed to Wall Street and the very rich.

    Competition from foreign manufactures with much lower wage costs was the main factor in the 1970s and 80s, well before NAFTA (1994) and other free trade deals.

    Trump blames trade deals and immigration for the state of US manufacturing, but automation is the big culprit today. My guess is in the next 10-20 years we are going to see whole classes of jobs disappear. Things like long haul truck drivers being replaced by self driving trucks.

    Neither political party is talking about this, though Lion has written about it. Most leader seem to think that new classes of jobs will be created in the new economy. That will be true to an extent, but as long as the wealth generated by automation flows to Wall Street and the super rich, the situation will get worse.

    The Republicans in Congress are not going to do anything about this.

    Although Trump ran a populist, anti-Wall Street campaign, he has filled his administration with Wall Street bankers and is talking about relaxing regulations to give Wall Street another chance to blow up the US economy.

    The Democrats don’t talk about this issue, although they tried to reign in Wall Street a little after they blew up the economy in 2008. Bernie Sanders was closest to running a populist campaign on this issue, but he did not have a focused message to address the issue of automation, although he did want to use government police to reduce the wealth gap.

    I think whichever party can come up with a message to address automation and the US economy will have the advantage.

    mikeca

    February 7, 2017 at 5:08 pm

    • Society has to figure out a means, other than free-market employment, by which people can obtain the bounty produced by technology.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      February 7, 2017 at 6:08 pm

      • One possabilty is to make use of sports and virtual games in order to provide leisure, training, employment, wealth, status and social connection.

        darkreformation101

        February 7, 2017 at 6:18 pm

    • Question for @Lion – does the Lion agree Stalin and the old Marxist leaders were Prole Socialists?

      These Proletarian Socialists fit the ideal “conception of a Socialist” in the minds of English proles. Proletarian Socialism was led either by proles, those who were a generation or two from proledom, or former aristocrats who joined the proletarian cause.

      They were proles who looked like Josef Stalin, Leon Trotsky, Vladimir Lenin, Alexander Schliapnakov, Pyotr Kropotkin, Viktor Nogin, “The Iron Felix” Dzerzhinsky, Nestor Makhno, Alexei Rykov, Nikolai Krylenko, Lazar Kaganovich, Leon Kamenev, Nikolai Gorbunov, Mikhail Bakunin, Pavel Dybenko, Nikolai Bukharin, Ivan Teodorovich, Georgy Chicherin, and Lavrenti Beria.

      These Proletarian radicals were ferocious in appearance and action, meat eating, often bearded, cis-gendered, white male, tobacco using, vodka drinking, and heavily armed proles or prole sympathizers; robust proles as capable of chopping down trees to build a hideout cabin as they were breaking rocks in Siberian labor camps.

      By itself the physical difference between the Technocrats and Proletarian Socialists is so striking that one may also phrase their difference as – Eastern Bloc Communists were Proletarians who would inspire fear in a bar fight; Progressive Bureaucrats are “Communists” who would inspire laughter in a bar fight at their expense.

      Comrades, Stalin was a prole.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      February 7, 2017 at 6:35 pm

    • Stalin, prole or not prole?

      Your thoughts…

      The Undiscovered Jew

      February 7, 2017 at 6:36 pm

      • “Stalin, prole or not prole?

        Your thoughts…”

        Stalin was exceptionally well-read and enjoyed classical music. His father may have been a cobbler, but he owned the means of production for a little while before descending into alcoholism. Once the Revolution happened, Stalin stopped moving around and avoiding danger, and worked in an office. Stalin was involved in essay writing and pamphleteering throughout his life.

        Those are just about the only parts of Stalin that weren’t prole. Even among Bolsheviks, he was considered extremely rough and hard in his personality, as well as crass and vulgar in his speech and humor.

        Sid

        February 7, 2017 at 10:48 pm

    • Again, the cuckolds and libertards are both anti-darwinian and anti-supremacist.

      College professors vote democratic, the same way Wall St. money pimps vote republican, essentially, promoting a form of status signaling-association and not much else. Prestigious parasites vote like charity and social pariah parasites vote for charity.

      What does a multi-million Wall $$t parasite who lives on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, share in common with a working class dodo in the Midwest?

      JS

      February 7, 2017 at 6:43 pm

  20. I am really tired of foreigners like David Frum coming here and telling us what to do. i really hate these American wannabees from Canada and England, who have to get involved with American politics because I guess their own countries are boring.

    David Frum shows how bad the conservatives are when as soon as someone half-decent gets elected, they have to go against them.

    ttgy

    February 7, 2017 at 6:10 pm

  21. So Ram is telling the apparatchiks that they have to do a better job conning the people? Despicable! Where, oh where is our Pinochet when we need him so much?

    Yakov

    February 7, 2017 at 8:23 pm

  22. “they allowed liberals to take over the mainstream media.”

    How can they reverse this?

    chris

    February 11, 2017 at 7:48 am


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: