Why Conservatives Lose, and Liberals Win

Consider the following scenario: A dozen 'Cultural Marxist' groups collude to stop the rally of a right-wing populist candidate by violently storming the arena and breaking up the event. They succeed. Not only do they succeed, but they also block peaceful supporters, start fist fights and assault police officers.

Now consider this: Presidential candidate #2 steps in and blames the disturbance not on the Marxists who colluded or on the criminals themselves, but on the candidate who used 'provocative language' and 'created an environment' where people do criminal acts. Candidate #2 does not hold the actual criminals responsible for their actions.

Candidate #2 sounds like a real liberal, doesn't he? What with making excuses, blaming the 'environment' and societal factors. That candidate must be a Democrat.

Well, it's not. Candidate #2, in fact, bills himself as the "True Conservative." Candidate #2 is Ted Cruz, and this illustrates exactly why Liberals win and Conservatives lose.

When the liberal establishment attacks Donald Trump, many Republican candidates join in with the liberal establishment, and often pile on by using the exact same language and talking points as the liberal media does. Yet, on the off instance that the media actually digs into Hillary's unethical (and possibly illegal) behavior, the other Democratic candidates close ranks to protect their own.

That's why Liberals win and Conservatives lose.

The Republican establishment is more than happy to comb through Donald Trump's past and bring up any tiny thing. They are more than eager to join the media in piling on Trump for 'not denouncing' a former Klansman whose endorsement he was not familiar with. Center-left Democrats, however, frequently associate with Marxists, radical Feminists and flat-out Communists in order to achieve their ends. They NEVER worry about "guilt by association," and they never "punch to the left."

That's why they win. And that's also why America has continually slid to the left over the last few decades. Conservatives would be wise to learn that lesson, and learn it soon.

Otto von Bismarck and the only way to beat Donald Trump

"Trump is Hitler! Trump is Hitler! Blah blah blah!"

Comparing so-and-so to Hitler has been part of American political discourse for decades: Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, George W Bush, Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin, Osama bin Laden, and now Donald Trump. On and on and on and ad nauseum. Everything is Literally Hitler, and the comparison is never good.

I'd like to make a better comparison regarding events of these days to different German leader; Otto von Bismarck. The very first chancellor of the German Empire. Von Bismarck entered office as Germany was rapidly industrializing and joining the modern world at a breathtaking speed. The aristocratic Prussian did everything he could to keep the Junker class on top and Socialist workers locked out of power. Bismarck forbade the circulation of socialist literature. He gave police the power to stop, search and arrest socialist party members at will. And despite that, the Socialist movement steadily gained supporters because Socialists represented the interests of a growing number of people frustrated by the massive social changes of the day.

Sound familiar? It should.

If Bismarck were like Mitt Romney, he'd have dug in his heels and refuse to give up power, and refuse to even throw a few bread crumbs to the growing movement of frustrated people. He'd have used all the Kaiser's horses and all the Kaiser's men to suppress those upstart workers. And Germany would have fallen into a revolution much like France had some eighty years previously.

But Bismarck was no Mitt Romney. He was ten times the leader Romney, Rubio and all the other establishment fools are. Bismarck came to understand that in the rapidly-industrializing world the Junkers could not hold onto power AND keep their absolute privilege. One of the two had to give, and it was obvious which one.

In 1880 Bismarck relented, and created the world's first modern welfare state. He worked with industry, but also looked to stimulate growth by giving workers greater security by enacting labor laws and implementing a social safety net, something unheard of in the rest of the industrializing world. 

Bismark's plan worked very well. Through the late 1800s and beyond, violent class warfare exploded across France and the United States. The abysmal working conditions in Britain were enshrined by Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist. For the masses, industrialization represented a new kind of misery and exploitation. This led to violent social upheaval.

But not in Germany. The Junker class remained firmly in power, and did so because instead of oppressing the growing Socialist movements, they simply took away the Socialists' legitimate reasons to be angry. Bismarck called this, "stealing their thunder." 

There's a lesson in this for the Republican establishment of today. The Republican base is angry. They've been ignored, exploited, taken for granted and even derided by the Republican establishment and the pathetic Pundit class in their employ. Even today I don't think these people realize just how much they are hated, and looking at the latest primary results, it couldn't be more clear that they are well outnumbered by the 'insurgent' forces in their party.

If the Republican establishment does not want to share power, then they would be wise to 'steal Trump's thunder,' and do so very soon. What would that look like? Trump's appeal comes from two places: Immigration and trade.

First and foremost, the establishment will have to get behind building a wall by Mexico, period. This is what the clear majority of Republican voters want. Most Americans as a whole are sick and tired of illegal immigration, so this will not be a difficult position to take. Implement eVerify, which will make it very difficult for illegal immigrants to find work. Cut welfare aid for illegal immigrants and bring net migration down to 200,000 per year or so. 

With trade, the Republicans will have to put a 'dumping penalty' in China, as well as a reciprocal tariff on imports. China already has multiple tariffs on US goods. The least America can do is reciprocate. It's probably also time to seriously review NAFTA, as Mexico is clearly not holding up its end of the bargain with enforcement of labor and environmental regulation, and it has lead to a nightmarish 'race to the bottom' which has hurt both countries. It's time to look seriously at that.

While the Republican donors and establishment may really not like these positions, not taking them will ultimately result in control of their party being wrestled from them. Perhaps violently. 

Achtung!

Autopsy of Trump's victory in Kentucky

Here are observations from Trump's solid victory in Kentucky: 

 1) if you layover a map of Virginia, Trump takes a wide swath of the most 'Southern' counties in Kentucky.

2) Trump dominates in Coal Country. No surprise there.
3) Cruz does well in the more Bible-Belty west near southern Illinois.
4) Cruz takes Lexington and suburban Cincinnati.
5) Surprisingly, Trump wins in Louisville and is strong in many counties along the Ohio river. 
6) Trump does very well in rural areas.

In Ohio, Trump and Kasich will fight for Toledo to Cleveland. Trump will really pick up votes around Youngstown and Akron in the east. The 'rust belt.' Hardly anyone there will vote for Cruz. Trump will rule rural Ohio.

Cruz will do well in Columbus, maybe Cincinnati but that's about it. This thing is going to get a lot harder for Ted Cruz. 

Last Night's Horrible Republican Debate

"Hi I'm the new face of your party!"

Now that the Republican field is down to five candidates, I was hoping these debates would be more about substance and less about sound bytes. Instead, we got probably the worst presidential debate I think I've ever seen, filled with personal attacks, endless back-and-fourths, and the drudging up of old stuff nobody cares about.

Yeah, the last debate in South Carolina was filled with the same back-and-fourths, but at least it was about policy and the something meaningful; the Iraq War. The Houston debate, however, represents a new low in sleeze and juvinility in the Republican Party.

Trump was the big target, unsurprisingly. Does anybody really care about Trump hiring Polish workers from a contractor 35 years ago? What was Rubio trying to prove with that? Those workers were contract construction workers hired to demolish an old building in Manhattan, they weren't hired directly by Trump. It's unclear exactly how much Trump settled for on that. They sued for a million, but we don't know how much it settled for. Under oath, Trump said he didn't know the Polish workers were illegal and blamed the contractors. Is this shit really worth five minutes of precious airtime at a presidential debate?

Trump University, does anyone really care about that either? "Trump University" was really a series of self-help ballroom workshops that were common in the early 90s. Misunderstandings about it being a real university are understandable, but again, is this kind of crap really worth anyone's time? I would hope nobody cares about this.

Rubio also said that "if it weren't for Trump's $200 million inheritance, he'd be selling watches in Manhattan."

Well, that's just sad and vicious and comes across, to me at least, as totally phony. Granted, I'm a Trump supporter, but I'm being as objective as I can here. Who says that kind of thing during a presidential debate? I know Trump says some ridiculous stuff too, but it's Rubio himself who said "the time for games is over," "it's time to get serious," etc. Apparently not.

"The Rubio shriek brigade" - Ann Coulter

Does the RNC not understand that these choreographed applause lines and stacked audiences don't fool anyone anymore? The fourth wall has already been broken on that.

I found myself agreeing with Chris Matthews of all people when he said the back-and-fourths were "embarrassing in any presidential election." The endless crosstalk is getting ridiculous, and at this point everyone is guilty of it, including Trump. The difference is that when a New Yorker does it, it feels perfectly natural. When Marco did it, he looked like an annoying little shit.

Unsurprisingly, Ted Cruz's attacks on Trump were a little more substantive, but equally petty and misleading. Yes, Trump donated to various Democrats, as he did Republicans, when he was a businessman. Been over this so many times in previous debates. Is it possible to just move on and talk about other things?

"Trump may appoint liberal judges." OK, based on what? And don't say his record of donations to Democrats. Those were lobbying efforts to "get along with everyone." Trump has been a registered Republican since the 80's. Me, personally, I just don't buy it because there's no real evidence of it.

Ted Cruz's attacks on Trump for not being electable are kind of like throwing stones out of a glass house. First, Trump's general election poll numbers are improving quickly, and he will bring other states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania into play. Second, Ted Cruz's general election numbers aren't much better than Trump's! If that's the new criteria, we'd better just nominate the RINOs Marco or John Kasich. I thought the purpose of the Ted Cruz campaign was to STOP doing that.

Ugh, and finally, the taxes. They should have just moved to another topic after Trump said he would release them after being audited. That's a fair promise. I'm repeating myself now, but dwelling on this is just a waste of precious time that could be spent on policy arguments. That would be a welcome change of pace. 

As for "who won," I don't think anybody won. It was the worst presidential debate I've ever seen. Who's to blame for it? All three of them are to blame, but Rubio more than anyone. "Miami Sleaze" should be his nickname. Trump needs to learn how properly deal with attacks as a front runner does; simply move in the same direction of the attack, remain cordial (hard to do, but hey), factually rebut when needed and direct attacks to the Democratic frontrunner. Ted Cruz just sucked. Get some better talking points.