(Originally published 02-21-2020.)
This vindicates everything I've ever said about the modern GOP and politics in general. I have long maintained, that elected officials who compromise their principles in office, are the product of voters who compromise their principles in the voting booth. Under the Trump administration in particular, Republicans have been falling over themselves to defend every flagrant compromise, and even abject betrayal under the sun. I have tried, utterly in vain, to explain the problem with this approach. Compromising on principle to gain new members, while it may attract new members (and therefore yield more votes), ultimately comes at the cost of diluting your platform and eroding your base. Worse, it requires perpetual compromise to retain these new members. If they actually supported you they'd have been members in the first place. But since you had to compromise to get them, you can never revert to your original platform, or you'll lose them. So you must continue in a compromised state forever. And subsequent compromises are bound to occur, as the party looks increasingly to such, as the solution for the perceived diminishing viability of the original platform. (Which itself only contributes to said diminishing viability.)
Stephen is only following the example of Trump, who ostentatiously did the same exact thing as a presidential candidate.
Trump's strategy was the same as Stephen's. And while flooding the party with Socialists may help you win elections, it comes at the cost of increasingly becoming a Socialist party. And this is what's occurring under Trump. He's doing to the Republican party what the Democrats have been doing to the country through illegal immigration; clandestine demographic restructuring. He is changing the ideological composition of the party, by creating an ideologically open borders party, which admits anyone and everyone regardless of beliefs or conduct. Transvestite? No problem. The Trump GOP welcomes you. Because the only principle it has is "winning" at any cost. Any principle that's an obstacle to that is jettisoned. I mean, Trump shills were literally marketing the GOP as the truly liberal party during Trump's campaign.
What Gina was really saying is that the GOP is more "liberal" than the Democrats. Of course Trump supporters (being lemmings) remember none of this, and even they did wouldn't care, because they're stupid. Trump's GOP isn't your bigoted, "cisgendered," Grandfather's GOP folks.
Trump's GOP is the workers' party.
The name Republicans have adopted to explain and defend Trump's incessant duplicity and compromise is "populist;" something which Trump shills routinely admitted him to be during his campaign. Well, I'm here to tell you that "populist" is just the name for demagogue among the benighted. And this country, despite what the supporters of these snakes will tell you, was not Founded by such men.
"To those great men, who thus framed the Constitution, and secured the adoption of it, we owe a debt of gratitude, which can scarcely be repaid. [...] Many of those pure and disinterested patriots, who stood forth, the firm advocates of its principles, did so at the expense of their existing popularity. They felt, that they had a higher duty to perform, than to flatter the prejudices of the people, or to subserve selfish, sectional, or local interests. Many of them went to their graves, without the soothing consolation, that their services and their sacrifices were duly appreciated. They scorned every attempt to rise to power and influence by the common arts of demagogues." - Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of The Constitution of The United States, 1840.I said it during Trump's campaign and say it again now. We are witnessing the complete subversion of the GOP under Trump, facilitated at every opportunity by the oblivious partisan shills that call themselves "Republicans." And now on to that issue.
Most "Republicans," aren't even Republicans, much less "Conservatives." But you'll constantly see people claiming they are, because the average American's understanding of polity is predicated upon misleading misnomers. I was recently arguing with a guy (a "Libertarian," naturally) literally claiming there are "Conservatives" that support Socialist medicine. How is support of Socialist medicine "Conservative" even under the modern meaning of the term, i.e., one who seeks to "restore traditional conditions?" What "traditional" basis is there, even for federally funded, much less federally controlled health care? The answer is none. The subsumption of medicine by the national government is a Marxist endeavor, and has no basis in "traditional" (Conservative) American principles. So why does a "libertarian" think someone who supports Socialist medicine is a Conservative? Because, like any Democrat, or Republican, his perception is based upon the labels people use for themselves as opposed to what they really are. The Republican party has been subverted by Socialists. Consequently, there is no "Conservative" party in this country any longer. Again, I really want to make it clear. There is no "Conservative" party in this country any longer. There are only the Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian parties, all of which have been subverted by Socialists to varying degrees and in various ways.
Stephen's a Democrat but he's too stupid to know it. How do I know Stephen's a Democrat? Because he's openly stating the party's position (and the law) should be determined by polling. You constantly see this from Democrats. They'll cite a poll showing (insert % here) of people support universal health care, for example, as the basis for establishing or continuing it. Stephen here, in the same vein, is citing that "almost a third" of the people he encounters want more gun regulation. Here's the thing. It wouldn't matter if 100% of the population of the country wanted more federal gun regulation. Because a poll is not a constitutional amendment. A million, billion, trillion, zillion door to door canvasses and Pew Research poles could be taken, and it would mean nothing. Because a constitutional amendment is the only poll that matters. And if these policies truly had the pervasive support their proponents claim, they'd have no problem procuring those Amendments. But they never do, because they don't. Amendments take super majorities. Not 51%. And certainly not the 30% or less that this moron believes constitutes a political and legal exigency.
I feel like it needs to be emphasized, in case anyone isn't discerning the obvious, that Stephen is arguing the party should compromise on its principles (i.e., shift to the left) to accommodate people who aren't even in the party, and by his own admission are less than 30% of the people he meets. And because 30% of RINOs allegedly want it according to a poll. (Remember what I just said about polls.) He's literally arguing the party shouldn't represent the majority of its members, i.e., its base, but rather a minority of its members and even non-members. Stephen doesn't want to preserve your liberties. He certainly doesn't want to fight for them. He wants to just surrender now because he believes doing so will help the party win elections. Never mind that there's no point in your party winning elections, if you end up with the same policies that would result from the other party winning those elections. By Stephen's rationale, if 29% of the people he canvasses convey acceptance of pedophilia, the GOP should terminate its opposition to it and start openly recruiting pedophiles under the pretext of being "more open and inclusive." I mean, we wouldn't want to miss out on all those potential votes! Right? Of course, Stephen would immediately reject his own logic in that scenario, and argue that there's some kind of transcendent ethical boundary to doing so. You know, kind of like that inherent right to self-defense and resisting tyrannical government, he has no problem discarding for partisan political benefit.
Stephen is a leftist. He might not know it but he is. And one of the most conspicuous indications one is a leftist is intellectual and moral inversion. They put their penises in rectums instead of vaginas. They call men women and women men. They deny babies have a right to life and protest the execution of murderers. And rather than amending the Constitution because the majority wants it, they impose laws illegitimately (often through the judiciary) and then create majority approval after the fact through social engineering.
Virtually no aspect of the leftist agenda has been advanced honestly or legitimately; because it can't be. Despite their incessant appeals to "democracy" they rarely, if ever, have majority support for their policies (at least initially). Obamacare, for example, was implemented illegitimately (without an amendment), without majority support, and unilaterally (they literally expelled the opposition party from the chamber). Majority support, as always, came after it was implemented and after protracted propagandizing through a complicit media apparatus. And they'll keep doing that until they can alter (or abolish) the traditional (Conservative) amendment process altogether. As two Socialists from The Jacobin stated, they want "a simpler way to amend the Constitution through national referendum."
Why do they want to be able to amend the Constitution purely by referendum ("democratically")? Because they control the media, entertainment, and education apparatuses in this country; i.e., all the things that influence public opinion. The current amendment criteria is an obstacle, that prevents them from achieving the rapid, fundamental restructuring of our government and society they want. Through the media, entertainment, and education apparatuses they will be able to mold public opinion regarding changes to the Constitution, in the same manner they did the acceptance of infanticide, sodomy, and are currently engineering mass acceptance of anthropogenic climate change and "transgenderism." As I've said for years, if you own the means of information dissemination in a society, you own that society. And to our collective peril, most on the ostensible right don't even discern this, much less have any plan for correcting it.
So, in closing, no the Republican Party should not be more open to gun regulation to procure the votes of effete millennials. There's already a party doing that. It's called the Democrat Party. How long are Republicans going to tolerate subversives like Stephen, who plainly believe that the best strategy for defeating Democrats is to become Democrats, and stand ready to betray your heritage, your values, and your rights at a moments notice if they believe it politically expedient? Stephen is the cancer born of "populism," and the solution was articulated succinctly by Reagan years ago.
"A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers. [....] It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way." - Ronald Reagan, 2nd Annual CPAC Convention, March 1, 1975.If you want more gun control, Stephen, then go your own way. Go to the bosom of the Socialists where perfidious bastards like you belong.
No comments:
Post a Comment