A Time For Unity - The Lost Decades - A Tale of a Potential Future

[Dan the Roman]

(Basically this time line is, beginning in 2012, go through to the 2050s outlining a scenario in which the US turns into a de facto one-party state in the early 2030s. I did my dissertation on the Nazi coordination of the Lander in the spring of 1933, and I want to do my own version of this with historical echoes, but eschewing any historical parallels. And include a lot of elections. The main character is fictional, and I created him for this role. )

Even more than six decades after the Progressive regime fell in the United States any effort to reach a historical judgment  on the two decades of Progressive rule is more likely to land one in controversy than fruitful discussion. Were the Progressives a group of opportunistic charlatans who took advantage of public frustrations and the chaos of the early 21st century to institute a fascist regime? Or were they a group of concerned citizens who sent the corrupt politicians home, and for two decades kept America aloft from the currents that were plunging the rest of the world to anarchy. The answer as with all things is a little both. Any real discussion of the Progressive Era must begin with the state of America ten years into the new century..........

Excerpt from Twilight of the Republic: A New History of America 2015-2101
Published University of Colorado Press Denver 2108

The widespread celebration with which Barrack Obama's victory had been initially met with soon turned to frustration as the Administration manifestly failed to advance any significant elements of its economic agenda. This failure, more so than the economic crisis, served to destroy democratic moral. The economic crisis could shift votes in the center, what few there were even this early, but the failures of 2009 should have come as a warning. The defeat of Jon Corzine of New Jersey was not unexpected, but the margin by which the GOP won the Governor's race in Virginia presaged disaster to come.

The loss in 2010 of 24 House Seats, and 2 Senate seats was nevertheless a blow, if a softer one than the loss of six governorships. Ironically, one bright spot was in the state of Massachusetts, where a 26 year old Republican, Michael Walton defeated Deval Patrick for reelection. Few suspected at the time that Massachusetts, which had been cut off from the national currents of politics by perceived liberalism had hosted the most important race in the country.

Walton's background was uniquely interesting. He had served as an Assistant to National Security Adviser under President George W. Bush, helping to save Iceland from financial bankruptcy as well as helping to negotiate the agreement ending the War in Georgia. He had subsequently quit in disputes in how the Tarp money was spent. He had entered the race after Charles Baker declined to run, and had mostly come up the middle while incumbent Deval Patrick and his independent challenger Tim Cahill savaged one another.

His behavior in office was decidedly low-key, and for most of his first two years in office deferred to the legislature. In fact he did so to such an extent that House Speaker Robert DeLeo remarked to one of his aides that he was easiest person to get along with in the country. The aide, who had known Mr. Walton for some time responded that "he is the most dangerous man in the country." Who knows how history would have occurred had he taken that advice.

Most attention was not on Boston at this point or its new Governor. It was at the national level where an embattled President Obama dealt with one problem after another. A minor economic recovery was more than counteracted by a coup in Iran in which Mojitiba Khamenei was selected to succeed his father by an Assembly of Experts a third of whom's members were under arrest. The decision by the Netanyahu government, trapped in a difficult reelection campaign to launch an ineffective missile strike on Iran raised international tensions.

Obama looked doomed for reelection entering 2012, but he was saved by the Republicans. The GOP, after divisive primaries picked an uninspiring Mitt Romney, who was forced to select Jim Demint of South Carolina as his running mate. Even this 2nd-tier ticket led Obama for a time, but in August revelations came out about links between senior Romney aides and a Boot Camp in Utah where four teenagers died. Further revelations revealed that the candidate himself had intervened to help an old friend avoid prosecution. In the midst of these revelations Romney held on until leaked emails  turned up directly implicating him in the coverup. He was forced to drop out prior to the convention which selected Demint to replace him.

DeMint made an effort to move to the center, even offering to name Charlie Crist as his running-mate, but the ideological incoherence of the ticket made it borderline unelectable. In a close but decisive election Obama won a second term.

Obama 318 51%
DeMint  220 47%

Few would suspect that this was the worst thing that possibly could have happened to the Democrats, who had lost five senate seats along with Obama's win, along with a further 9 House seats.

Senate 2013
Democrats 52
Republicans 47
Independents 1

House
Democrats 225
Republicans 211

[Dan the Roman]

No one noticed that in Massachusetts, where the Governor had quietly been recruiting candidates, the Republicans picked up 5 House Seats and One Senate seat. Nor did they notice that Governor, having unlocked vast amounts of money by abolishing educational mandates such as technology funding and giving out the money in direct grants to schools, had basically managed to unlock a massive source of revenue in the midst of a downturn. The inoffensive governor, whose major achievement had been to solve the secondary school funding crisis(and to realize that no one cared about state universities) had a popularity rating of 86%.

Most observers were too wrapped up in the disasters that followed. In spring of 2013 the new Iranian regime assassinated former President Khatami, living in Bethesda Maryland under the noses of the CIA, while that summer civil unrest broke out in Kazakhstan against the decision of Nursultan Nazarbayev to run for an additional term. As disorder spread, Obama attempted to mediate the dispute to no end, partially because he ruled out intervention. But intervention was not ruled out by all factions. On September 21st, seven Chinese divisions totaling 128,000 men moved in and occupied the country. Russia with Chinese acquiescence also occupied a border zone in the Russian inhabited area in the north.

The failure to do anything to protest, was met when shocks hit the oil market, killing the economic recovery in its tracks, with effects being exacerbated by civil war in Venezuela.

This led into a disastrous 2014. Politicians were in many cases terrified to hold townhalls, protests were rampant, and when a Vice President of Goldman Sachs was beaten to death walking to his car, internet groups sprung up to sing the assailants praises.

The Democrats in the 2014 elections suffered some of their greatest losses since 1893. They lost 54 House seats and eleven senate seats, losing control of both chambers, the House by a lopsided margin.

The most interesting result was in Massachusetts, where Governor Walton had left the GOP to form an Independent Progressive Party, founded around denouncing Governmental bureaucracy, and accusing both Republicans and Democrats of selling out the country. He won reelection with 67% of the vote, while his Lt. Governor, Ralph Martin in an upset defeated Senator John Kerry 50-49. In a shocking turnaround it won 46 seats in the state House and 11 in the senate.

State House
Democrats 107
Progressives 46
Republicans  9

Senate
Democrats 27
Progressives 11
Republicans  2

The greatest shock came after the election when Governor Walton called a leading liberal Democrat in and offered him the votes of the Progressives for the Speaker-ship in order to arrest it from the Democratic leadership. In the resulting coup, the House, while nominally still
under Democratic control, was for all practical purposes under the control of the Progressives. As local Democratic organizations retaliated against the "Rebels", the Progressive caucus grew by the the end of 2015 to 59.

At the same time the Progressives, increasingly began organizing outside of campaigns. What began as a tame campaign in 2014, by the beginning of 2016 had transformed into holding rallies where investment bankers as well as national politicians both Democratic and Republican were burned in effigy. A famous exultation of the the "Three Treasons" became a byword.

They were:

1. Democrats , who in their earnestness to prove broadmindedness were too broadminded to take their own side in a quarrel. In the process thy sold out their country and their culture.

2.That of Republicans who wasted money and lives on adventures of ego. All the while they looted the country for their financial masters.

3. The media, newsmen, and consultants who have gorged themselves on the national lifeblood and corrupted politics to a spectacle.

The Progressives promised to end partisan politics, politics as a spectacle, to punish the "bloodsuckers".

It remained to be seen whether they would consolidate power in Massachusetts or spread outside its borders.

[Dan the Roman]

Well things will tend to get worse. Never anywhere near as bad as in Germany mind you, but the Progressives are very upset people, and as is often the case when your political enemies are viewed as traitors, not particularly tolerant.

The next one should be up tomorrow which will give the Republicans a chance to try and make sense of the national situation, while we will get to see how the Progressives consolidate themselves at the state level.

[Dan the Roman]

Well things will tend to get worse. Never anywhere near as bad as in Germany mind you, but the Progressives are very upset people, and as is often the case when your political enemies are viewed as traitors, not particularly tolerant.

The next one should be up tomorrow which will give the Republicans a chance to try and make sense of the national situation, while we will get to see how the Progressives consolidate themselves at the state level.

What do the Progressives generally believe?

Left-wing Populist on Economics: Basically believe that international finance is a pyramid scheme, and that it was short term opportunism on the part of the national political leadership that led to most of the West including the US allowing manufacturing to be replaced with Goldman Sachs as the driver of the economy.

Basically they would favor not only bailing out the auto industry but massively subsidizing it as well as supporting protection. They accept that these are "inefficient" but feel that they are not economic but national issues and that the national interest is served from self-sufficiency. Those who focused on finance left the country exposed and at the mercy of the rest of the world, and created a system that lets a few profit.

This is not Marxist. More Bismarckian nationalism, with a touch of lynch-mob mentality thrown in as well.

Socially Far-Right - well sort of: They are starting out in Massachusetts so no direct attacks on Gay Rights as of yet, but there is attacks on the "culture of intellectualism" which they think caused intellectual fads which led to the above economic problems as well as their view that liberals care far too much about the rights of criminals, foreigners, not enough about Americans. They would find Kwanzaa celebrations in schools stupid, bans on school prayer PC running amok, and the closest they come to normal religious social conservatism, the view that a "cult of the individual" is corrupting society.

Also they view the media as parsital, not so much biased as encouraging the worst in people. politics as a sports game.

[Dan the Roman]

Well things will tend to get worse. Never anywhere near as bad as in Germany mind you, but the Progressives are very upset people, and as is often the case when your political enemies are viewed as traitors, not particularly tolerant.

The next one should be up tomorrow which will give the Republicans a chance to try and make sense of the national situation, while we will get to see how the Progressives consolidate themselves at the state level.

What do the Progressives generally believe?

Left-wing Populist on Economics: Basically believe that international finance is a pyramid scheme, and that it was short term opportunism on the part of the national political leadership that led to most of the West including the US allowing manufacturing to be replaced with Goldman Sachs as the driver of the economy.

Basically they would favor not only bailing out the auto industry but massively subsidizing it as well as supporting protection. They accept that these are "inefficient" but feel that they are not economic but national issues and that the national interest is served from self-sufficiency. Those who focused on finance left the country exposed and at the mercy of the rest of the world, and created a system that lets a few profit.

This is not Marxist. More Bismarckian nationalism, with a touch of lynch-mob mentality thrown in as well.

Socially Far-Right - well sort of: They are starting out in Massachusetts so no direct attacks on Gay Rights as of yet, but there is attacks on the "culture of intellectualism" which they think caused intellectual fads which led to the above economic problems as well as their view that liberals care far too much about the rights of criminals, foreigners, not enough about Americans. They would find Kwanzaa celebrations in schools stupid, bans on school prayer PC running amok, and the closest they come to normal religious social conservatism, the view that a "cult of the individual" is corrupting society.

Also they view the media as parsital, not so much biased as encouraging the worst in people. politics as a sports game.

So, they are, in a way, nationalist socialist?

Pretty much, and would probably use that name if not for the unfortunate connotations. Some of their positions(attacks on finance) can be seen as anti-Semitic and attract support, and as will be seen in the 2020 Presidential Race, they definitely benefit from it, but they are not racial. Its more cultural.

[Dan the Roman]

Most concerns however about the Progressives were limited to Democratic campaign staffers and officials in Massachusetts who were forced to increasingly confront them. Outside the state, the 'Popular Reformist" Governor was seen as a model of an effective leader, especially in contrast to the hapless administration. Talk was rampant that he might be a potentially strong candidate for President in 2020.

At the moment however, attention was mainly focused on the 2016 Presidential race. With Obama unpopular the Republican nomination seemed a guaranteed ticket to the White House. As such it attracted a large number of candidates, eager to take the battle to the unpopular Democrats.

Foremost among them was China Ambassador Jon Huntsman. Huntsman was an attractive candidate, but hobbled by an association with Obama as well as his policies of "appeasement" towards China. His moderate issue positions were not necessarily an asset either. While Huntsman argued that the lesson of the 2012 campaign was that no matter how unpopular the Democrats, the Republicans needed an electable candidate, there was a general feeling that any Republican with a pulse would win.

Challenging him on the Right therefore was Former Texas Governor Rick Perry, one of the runner-ups in the 2012 campaign, as well as House Speaker Mike Pence of Indiana.  Senator Pat Toomey of Pennslyvania also ran, as did another moderate, California Governor Tom Campbell. Campbell should have taken off, and he had the media backing to do so, but the lack of an issue, and poorly run campaign resulted in him largely fading in the early primaries.

On the Democratic side, Vice President Joe Biden did not wish particularly to run, nor did he expect to win. The Obama mantel was mainly taken up by Senator Alex Gianoulias of Illinois and Senator Amy Klobaucher of Minnesota. Secretary of State Clinton decided not to run, lending her support to Former Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio. Senator Feingold of Wisconsin ran primarily a liberal anti-establishment candidate.

Initial Polls were close but saw Campbell and Huntsman on top nationally, and Klobaucher in the lead for the Democrats.

National Poll September 2015
Huntsman 21%
Campbell  15%
Pence      11%
Perry         9%
Toomey    7%

When Iowa came however, Pence pulled off a surprise victory over Huntsman, momentum he carried into New Hampshire, where Perry, who had come third had no organization.  The result was that most of Toomey's and Perry's support went to Pence, allowing him to eek out a narrow win. This gave him sufficient momentum going into South Carolina to place narrowly ahead of Perry.

Campbell now dropped out as Super Tuesday as did Toomey, who chose to run for reelection instead. Super Tuesday took on a liberal v. Conservative showdown between the Pence and Huntsman in the north and Pence and Perry in the south. The odd question was what was going to happen in New England, where Michael Walton's new United Progressive Party was fielding candidates  outside of the region. Huntsman had suggested as part of his campaign that the Progressives were a sign of why the GOP needed to re-engage. Pence on the other hand said that it made sense for there to be regional diversity and in the interest of beating Democrats he was open to the GOP not fielding candidates in Massachusetts at all and perhaps in the rest of New England.

Huntsman would have been helped enormously by a Walton endorsement which was not forthcoming, thought the Governor spoke approvingly of some of his views. Without a party apparatus, and with the GOP a rump Conservative shell this put him at a huge disadvantage

The results on Super Tuesday were initially close in the popular vote, but Pence managed to beat Perry in Georgia, Missouri, and Tennessee while he managed to win in a shock upset Massachusetts, Minnesota and California. Huntsman won Nevada, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and the Western states. While this kept Huntsman alive, it also led to an organized stop Huntsman movement his which aided his losses over the next week in Virginia, Louisiana and Kansas and Wisconsin.

The end result was a situation in which Huntsman led narrowly in delegates but was far below the number needed for the nomination.

End of Primaries
Huntsman  712
Pence        598
Perry         399
Campbell     29
Unpledged   202

The result was that the almost certain victory for the Republicans was derailed by infighting. Huntsman, who declared himself the presumptive victor, found his campaign events disrupted by Perry supporters who scream, throw objects at the stage and on several occasions force the cancellation of events. Pence, on the other hand, found it next to impossible to raise money, and himself shunned. Perry, who began ranting against Washington establishment Republicans hit both, but concentrated on Huntsman.

[Dan the Roman]

In the meantime both Klobaucher and Alex Gianoulias failed to get off the ground. They found that their links to the administration were a weakness, both against Strickland who ran as an "old-line" democrat, and Feingold, who ran against the Administration labeling it a failure. in Iowa the race shifted to between the two of them when Feingold took first, only to win New Hampshire a week later. Strickland, who of the cuff suggested that it was hostility to a stereotype of a giveaway to black welfare queens that doomed any prospect of health reform, found his support in South Carolina evaporate giving a win to Feingold. Feingold then swept most of the South and New England on Super Tuesday, wrapping up the nomination, then as a warning sign he performed extremely badly among working class white voters. In an effort to counteract this he picked West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin as a running-mate.

At least the Democrats had a nominee. The Republican convention was a highly watched spectacle in which Huntsman was prevented from speaking, and the platform committee, controlled by Perry and Pence delegates put forward a far right platform declaring in economics that government had zero role in the economy, that they were in favor of a constitutional amendment banning both abortion and gay marriage, as well as stating that support for civil unions is incompatible with the principles of the party. The party leadership attempted to convince the candidates to withdraw, and after Huntsman won 811 votes on the first ballot, but only mustered 809 on the second, he agreed to withdraw. Before he could do so however, Perry threw his support to Pence, giving him 1011 votes on the third ballot and the nomination in exchange for the VP position.

Both parties had nominees, but at the price of massive damage to the prestige of the system. Optimism for a new Republican President was gone. Whereas generic polls had shown a massive Republican lead seven months earlier, they now showed a near dead heat. Worse, both candidates were deeply unpopular. The entry that summer of former Senator Jim Webb of Virginia on a populist platform demonstrated this and by the fall he was polling close to 20% in polls. He named former Florida Senator Ben Nelson, who had been unemployed since 2013 as his running mate.

Generic Ballot  November 2015
Republican      55%
Democrat        29%

Rassmussen September 9th 2016

Pence/Perry   43%
Feingold/Manchin 32%
Webb/Nelson        19%

Favorable
Pence  42/49
Feingold 39/45
Webb     29/31

The campaign was desultory, with Pence denouncing statism at home and weakness abroad, and promising to do, well nothing at home and far more abroad. Feingold promised to do more at home but was vague on how, and his promises of health care rang hollow after eight years of Obama. Webb promised a new deal to restore manufacturing, to build a country our children could be proud of. It was platitudes, but they were angry platitudes, and people liked hearing that.

Michael Walton, who had stayed out of the primaries, suggested he would probably vote for Webb, and the United Progressive Party put up a full slate of candidates for Congress in Massachusetts. In a way, the elections there were more interesting in the country at large as the first real battle for the legislature since the 1950s was fought fiercely, on occasion with more than words. State Attorney General Walker Berman, appointed by Governor Walton following Martha Coakley's election to the senate in 2011, seemed disturbingly zealousness in containing members of the Progressive "Patriots" volunteer corp. Officially a social group, one of its major social pastimes seemed to be disrupting Democratic events.

That said, most people in Massachusetts were pleased with the performance of their state government. The state had attempted to recover money from Betchel for the Big Dig, and when the company proved reluctant, Governor Walton had threatened to cancel their remaining state contracts and cease payments. While this led to outrage in the legislature, and to a State Supreme Court order demanding the Governor pay, it allowed Walton to defy the Supreme Judicial Court, declaring that "Justice Marshall has made her decision, now let her write a check." Standing to lose billions Betchel gave in, reaching a compromise under which it would pay the state 900 million.

The Governor also took advantage of Harvard's difficulties to move a bill to tax endowments for Universities that totaled over 3 billion at 7.5%, half the capital gains rate. Harvard's endowment had fallen below its historical value during the recession which prevented the school from withdrawing any money from it, and had appealed to the state for a bailout along with MIT and Northeastern. Even though Harvard was able to find outside donors,Governor Walton denounced Harvard elitism and the "refusal of those who have benefited most and will benefit most from the state to pay their fair share".

As a result, the state's fiscal problems largely seemed to have been solved. Therefore, even without any sort of intimidation it was likely that the Progressives would win a majority. In fact, the success even convinced the Party to field candidates in Maine, Rhode Island and Connecticut. The scope of their victory shocked however, and was partly explainable by the defection of many old-line machine Democrats. The legislative results were

State House
Progressives 97
Democrats     61
Republicans     2

State Senate
Progressives 22
Democrats   17
Republicans   1

Furthermore, 5 of the states' nine Democratic congressman lost their seats, aided by the decision of the GOP not to field candidates. In fact, for 200 seats in the legislature, the GOP fielded only 11 candidates total. In Connecticut, Progressives won 18 State house seats and three Senate seats. In Rhode Island they won 10 House Seats and 3 Senate seats.

At the national level this was met with pleasure rather than worry by most Republicans overjoyed to see the Democrats struggling in their home turf. Determined to build on this lucky break, they began to make plans on how they would aid the Progressives in wresting the rest of New England from the Democrats.

They perhaps should have been concerned that their own performance was nothing to brag about/ Mike Pence was elected in a boring election that drew the participation of only 119 million voters, a massive drop-off from the previous two elections. The Republicans stalled, losing 2 Senate seats and gaining three House Seats.

Pence/Perry 345 44%
Feingold/Manchin 34%
Webb/Nelson       21%

Webb failed to carry a single state, though he got 34% in Arkansas and surprisingly, or not given local politics, got 35% in Massachusetts.

The question now that was on the lips of most Americans was whether or not Mike Pence could save the country.  This however, was not universal. In an office in Boston five men met in a room make plans for two years hence, plans whereby they would complete their political domination of the State of Massachusetts and perhaps, if they were lucky, bring the same Progress they had brought to the state to the rest of the country.

Next: One Party State - Massachusetts' 2018 Elections and the Fate of New England.

[Dan the Roman]

As might be inferred, the Republicans are about to make a massive mistake over the next two cycles.

[Dan the Roman]

Working on it now? Can we have a resistance starting by the late 2020s?

Well they won't be in office nationally until around that time, and there will be opposition, though it takes a while to organize.

A note on Progressive organization. While at this point it still is a bit of a hybrid, by the early 2020s it is not a political party in the same sense the Democrats and Republicans are; there are no primaries, all candidate selection right down to the municipal level comes from the top. This is one of the selling points. Candidates are not obsessed with pandering to their districts or engaging in pork, or worried about challenges. On the other hand, if you vote against the party without permission anything, you will be deselected, and people will be very unhappy with you, which post-2019 tends to be bad for your health and career prospects in Massachusetts and increasingly else-ware. As a result, there is little "politics" going on, and they are able to claim that if you vote for them they will actually deliver, whereas both the Democrats and Republicans are incapable of governing. This becomes important later when they gain enough seats in Congress to hold the balance of power, and they follow orders from Boston as a block.

All of these things in better times would be warning signs. But where the political process is failing, a centralized, politician-less organization that's sole goal is to implement its agenda is mighty attractive.

Anyway, for a preview of the 2018 state elections in Massachusetts and the after party that follows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Shirts_%28Southern_United_States%29

[Dan the Roman]

In the background of their takeover of the state, Progressives had also infiltrated many of the other institutions where organization counted, prominent amongst them the teachers unions. Already popular with teachers for giving them control of education spending by abolishing mandates, Governor Walton promised that one of the spoils of victory would be proper recognition of their role.

Therefore, one of the first moves of the new legislature was to pass an education reform act. While the act had significant sections, the major ones were an extension of  the principle of card check to education, requiring every employee involved in a teaching position in the state to join a teachers union. The extension of this and curricula control to private schools led to cries of outrage, but it was the final push needed for the Massachusetts Teachers Association to elect and all-Progressive board in 2017.

Furthermore, it limited complaints from generally left-leaning teachers over the new curriculum, which in the field of history, was described as a "bitter old man's" history of the United States. McCarthy was held up as  man, who if excessive, targeted individuals who were not just intellectual Communists but Stalinists, and posited they were lucky to get off with only blacklisting given what they would have done had the sides been reversed. It focused on KGB funding of the counterculture, and suggested that the US had won the Vietnam war by 1972, only for congress to sell out. Lest Conservatives be too pleased, it defined Neo-Conservatism as growing out of the New Left, and suggested that the modern Conservative movement from the 1980s onwards was "Marxist", defining that word as belief in a dialectic and rejection of objective truth and went as far as to include Jeffrey Sachs and Arthur Laffer along with Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and Alfred Kinsey under the segment, "Ideas Kill".

Outrage over the curriculum was mostly muted due to concern over the segment requiring 200 hours with a community organization. The definition was coded, and required the organization to be "civically minded" "engaged in the public sphere" and left the definition up to the state. While theoretically anyone could apply for funding, only one non-charity was approved, which was the "Patriots" corp. Given a choice between rock climbing, camping, and going to shooting rangers(or disrupting Democratic meetings), or helping the elderly at hospitals, many made the obvious choice.

Democrats on the Joint Finance Committee protested that the Progressives were funding their own Youth program to the tune of 180 million. Protests that were swept aside, as were complaints that children of Democratic officeholders, or ones active in Democratic politics were facing a spate of violence at school. Governor Walton denounced violence, but said "Boys will be boys, and this government stands strongly opposed to bullying of any sort in schools. But bullying in schools is as old as the Universe". However in response to claims that high school aged "Patriots" had smashed the house and car windows of the editor of the Lowell Sun, and set his shed on fire, he urged the legislature to pass a special law on political offenses that set up a special prosecutorial authority under the Attorney General's office with sole jurisdiction. Critics complained that it generally released "Patriots" while cracking down hard on the Democratic clubs that were being formed for defense. After fighting broke out at Democratic rally for a November State Senate Special Election, resulting in 15 people being hospitalized. However, of the 23 arrested only 8 were charged, of whom all but one were Democrats. The one "Patriot" was sentenced to 80 hours community service in a civiclly minded organization.

At the same time, a bill requiring that ballot petitions be publicly displayed in town halls caused massive controversy. The campaign of low intimidation by the 'Patriots" combined with pressure from employers all but destroyed the Democratic party's infrastructure. It became increasingly difficult to get candidates to run or get those who were willing to on the ballot, and the party increasingly began running students, as more established individuals steered clear of politics.

At the national level, rather than worried by these developments, President Pence and Vice President Perry were pleased. With midterms which would determine redistricting coming up, and the GOP unpopular in the Midwest and New England, it was obvious who they preferred to have in power between the Democrats and a third party whose major pastime seemed to be beating them up. But there ambitions went further than that. Pence's own election had confirmed to him that even an unpopular Republican could win if the opposition was suitably split, and if the Progressives could be given a permanent hold on the Northeast and enough of the Midwest not just in local elections but in Presidential ones, it would become impossible for the Democrats to win the Presidency. The plan of the White House was therefore to do whatever it could to help the Progressives benefit from its own popularity instead of the Democrats. This was to find form in 2018, in the White House bullying strong candidates out of the Gubernatorial and Congressional races in New England, and eventually when a GOP victory appeared impossible, de facto backing Progressive candidates in the Midwest. If worst came to worst, the Federal government could intervene after the elections to save the people.

Of course domestic issues were farthest from the mind of the administration for much of 2017. America's world position had declined, not so much due to unpopularity, but of disengagement. The Chinese invasion of Kazakhstan had redirected anger in the Muslim world, and the Chinese rapidly began to face suicide attacks. In effort to locate opposition leaders, they stormed the Nur Mosque in Astana, where a crowd had gathered, and in a horribly mangled operation, ended up with 713 dead. Anger swept the Muslim world as thousands of volunteers poured in. The US, divided between hostility to Islamic Fundamentalists and hostility to China got dragged in to providing arms by way of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia whilst Israel was providing technical advise to the Chinese, who by the fall had lost more than 700 soldiers to attacks.

As for the Saudis, their country was an armed camp. To make matters worse, a mysterious blind preacher who his followers were referring to as the Mahdi was gaining wide popularity. He preached opposition to the occupation of Muslim lands, but also urged Muslims not to reject civilization, and reminded listeners that Democracy was part of Islam. After all the first four Caliphs were elected, and even most Sunnis should see the Ummayed's as usurpers who had plundered the treasure others had won. His humble manner won him vast numbers of followers despite Saudi efforts to locate him.

[Dan the Roman]

Some Updates on the Rest of the World:

Europe, meanwhile was also slipping into crisis. French elections were scheduled in the fall, and that summer a botched police raid on a radical Mosque, managed to kill the preacher as well as three bystanders including a 13 year old girl. Coming a mere two weeks after the Chinese raid, riots broke out. Nearly 600,000 angry protesters gathered in Paris, shutting down the City. This time however, they did not remain confined to the banlieue but spread to more affluent neighborhoods. Rapidly losing control, the government panicked as rioting spread. The outgoing UMP government declared martial law and sent in the army as the Parisians fled the city. Finding the army insufficient, reserve detachments were formed in various provinces and then joined with the Army to invade Paris, which they slowly reconquered in the bloodiest street fighting since the suppression of the Commune.

In the midst of this the Presidential election was held. The chaos caused a massive reversal of the 2002 results with the UMP and the traditional Right failing to make the run-off. Marine Le Pen came first with 25.9% followed by Benoit Hamon with 20.8%. Hamon had run on a platform supporting official recognition of Islam within a multicultural secular country, and had blamed the Right for mistreating immigrants. With the country in an angry mood, and with Marine having moved the National Front to the center on gay rights and other social issues, Le Pen won the runoff 54-46. That the Paris upper-class was able to vote in exile, and the lower class unable to vote due to being cut down in the streets, aided this outcome

This meant that France joined Austria and the Netherlands, which already had Far-Right governments led by the Freedom Alliance and the Freedom party respectively. Meanwhile, the British Conservative Government of William Hague was dependent on the support of the votes of the UKIP, a legacy of the alternative vote that was supposed to help the Liberal Democrats and Labour when introduced in 2010. As a result, when the EU moved to suspend France as it had the Netherlands, and Austria, Prime Minister Hague joined with President Le Pen in blocking the move, and walking out of the EU. While still maintaining the customs union, for all practical purposes, all four countries no longer recognized its authority.

The worst disaster from the perspective of the Administration was to happen in Pakistan in May of 2018. Concerned over the insurgent training camps that had sprung up over its border, the Pakistani government had been preparing for a crackdown. Fighting that broke out between the Afghan government and attempting to infiltrate China worsened the situation, as did the decision of the Chinese to occupy a 50 mile exclusion zone in Afghanistan. The US rushed the 6th Fleet and demanded a withdrawal, only to have the fleet arrive in time for a badly planned Pakistani raid to trigger a an uprising. With Islamabad in chaos, the national assembly was stormed by rioters as insurgents took control of the Northwest Frontier province.

President Pence now called a meeting of the National Security Council. The Pakistani Army Chief of Staff, General Kiyiunari had assured the President that there was "no cause for concern on the nuclear issue". Vice President Perry and National Security Adviser Danielle Pletka nevertheless favored a surgical strike to take out Pakistan's nuclear base, while Secretary of State Jon Huntsman favored taking the Pakistanis at their word. The President determined on a strike on the major Pakistani missile bases, and Huntsman begged the President one final time to wait for better intelligence. When the President stuck to his decision, Huntsman resigned.

The surgical strike was a success in a sense, in that the location was secured. It was however, only secured by the US shooting down 9 Pakistani aircraft while landing troops, and then killing 128 Pakistani soldiers. Furthermore, upon securing the site it was discovered that the weapons were of no threat to anyone as the Pakistani Army, fearful of them falling into the wrong hands, had already disarmed them.

Outrage spread, the Pakistani provisional government fell, and the new military regime broke off relations with the United States and gave all Americans 24 hours to leave the country. The outrage was also felt in Saudi Arabia, where in the midst of anti-American and anti-western sentiment, the Saudis attempted to break up a public speech by the 'Mahdi" only to have their security forces mutiny. As protests spread calling for a fall of the monarchy, the Royal Family's own Royal Guard arrested them and declared the fall of the monarchy.

[Dan the Roman]

Ah, looks like the 1930s. Fascinating. Positive events in Arabia, though.

The update tonight has a cliff hanger which really makes Pence look bad. Then the next segment is a slow motion trainwreck.

I actually feel a bit sympathetically to him. He makes bad decisions, but they were wrong in several cases for reasons beyond his control. Had the Nukes not been secured and had he done nothing, millions might have died. A few hundred died this way.

That said, it was a diplomatic and political disaster. Furthermore, it was not constructive to an international situation in which crisis are now feeding off one another. And he has the misfortune to have face someone at home who is a much smarter politician than he is.

[Dan the Roman]

Does the European Parliament still exist in any real form?

It does, but there is a split between Germany, which is still trying to maintain a sort of liberal interpretation of the Union, and states that feel that they need more freedom of action. Technically, Poland, France, the UK, the Netherlands, Austria, and Italy are in violation of one or more EU laws and under penalties. In practice the EU is not doing anything to them.

Germany itself had elections in 2017 that empowered extremists, but the political consensus there is a lot stronger than else-ware, and the center is holding. France and the Netherlands are basically implementing the Geert Wilders program, though France at the moment is doing it with bullets. President Le Pen is not interested in reconciliation, and has a majority behind her.

In the US it does create impression that the whole world is falling apart, which drives people to the only group that can make them feel empowered even if they don't agree with them. Which is why the events of the next section(the one tomorrow, not the one I am posting now) will be so important. if the Progressives can face down the US Army without resorting to bloodshed then there a whole lot of people looking for security and empowerment.

[Dan the Roman]

With international failures on all sides, and the economic recovery reversed by gas prices passing ten dollars a gallon, the Pence administration was beleaguered on all sides. But they nonetheless did not abandon their plans to destroy the Democrats. As the elections approached and the Progressives fielded over 120 Congressional candidates, the Administration all but urged Republicans to vote for Progressive candidates where Republicans could not win.

In Massachusetts, where a systematic takeover of the Unions, and campaign of intimidation was in progress, the Republicans, who knew better than anyone what was at stake, disobeyed national instructions and formed a joint statewide slate to oust Attorney General Berman if they could not deny Walton a third term,

They operated under a serious handicap however in terms of campaigning. If volunteers traveled alone they were apt to be harassed, whether that harassment was a strange vehicle following them, or something more physical, whereas if they traveled in groups they were apt to get involved in fights in which they, not the Progressives, would be charged for.

That said, it was Mike Pence, not Michael Walton, who destroyed their chances of success. It was hoped that Martha Coakley, one of the few Democrats remaining in Statewide office would lead the campaign, and there was a effort to convince her to run for Attorney General to "save democracy". In this, however, they were sabotaged by President Pence's determination to cripple the Democrats, and as a sign of reconciliation with the 57% who had voted against him, he offered her the now vacant position of Secretary of State. Faced with the potentially dangerous prospect of coming home, or a prominent national position, she took the latter.


The results were therefore decisive. Governor Walton was reelected with 64% of the vote. Berman won 59%. Every statewide office was won by the Progressives, as was Martha Coakley's vacant Senate seat. In fact, the Progessives had been so confident of victory that they dispatched thousands of volunteers out of state to assist campaigns elseware. In the legislature, the Democrats were reduced to a rump, looking forward with trepidation to what the Republicans had faced for so long.

State House
114 Progressives
44 Democrats
 2  Republicans

State Senate
28 Progressives
11 Democrats
  1 Republican

Outside of Massachusetts there was little comfort for the Republicans. They lost 10 Senate seats, and 49 House Seats. It was however, not a great result for the Democrats either. While they gained 3 Senate seats from the Republicans, they lost 4 to the Progressives, for a net loss of 1.

The real breakthrough was for the Progressives. They not only picked up the vacant Senate seat in Massachusetts, but also defeated Senators Sheldon Whitehouse in Rhode Island, Joseph Lieberman in Connecticut, Mary Taylor in Ohio, Terri Lyn Land in Michigan, and in two surprises, Denny Rehberg in Montana and Bob Menendez in New Jersey. They also won the Maine seat left vacant by Olympia Snowe's retirement. She had been begged to run again, but the moderate Senator had enjoyed being able to go to town halls and visit events, and now that she was unable to appear in public because of Progressive activists, she saw no point in continuing.

At the same time the Progressives also won Governorships in Connecticut, Michigan, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Maine, as well as control of the legislature in Connecticut and Rhode Island, and pluralities in Ohio and Michigan. In all of these states, and surprisingly Arkansas, Washington, and New York they won the Attorney Generals’ office. In the House they won a total of 36 seats.

The resulting breakdown of the Houses of Congress in January of 2019 was therefore:


Senate 2019
Democrats 43
Republicans 48
Progessives  9


House
Democrats 185
Republicans 214
Progressives 36

The Republicans lost their majorities in both houses, but they were saved when the Progressives paid them back for their support, and announced that they would refrain from voting in the organizational resolutions with the caveat that both be left open to revision if the sense of the chambers shifted. While the Progressives had no interest in being the Kingmakers, Governor Walton wanted to make sure he could be the King-breaker at will.


For he could all but read Mike Pence's mind, and had an idea of what was coming. All that was needed was a push. Hence the aftermath of the election found a massive uptick in violence in New Hampshire, the one New England state alongside Vertmont not under Progressive control. By January, the state had been faced with the resignations of 19 newly elected State Representatives, 12 Democrats and 6 Republicans. When the President himself, in a private event in Manchester had to be snuck out the backdoor while three members of his staff were hospitalized he was furious, and so when Governor Glenborough of New Hampshire asked for Federal Troops to restore order, the President took the bait. On the Sunday, the 27th of April 2019, the face of Mike Pence took to the TV screens of living rooms across America in a speech that would live in infamy.

My fellow Americans, our great country today faces great challenges, but the history of our land is one of overcoming adversity, of the triumph of the better angels of our nature. Central to that is a tradition of freedom that we promote abroad and at home. Our forefathers fought on the beaches of Normandy, on the plains of Gettysburg, in the deserts of Iraq for that freedom. Now it is threatened at home. Thugs and hooligans, in the guise of political campaigning, have waged a campaign of intimidation and terror against their fellow citizens, denying them the freedom we hold so dear. Their criminality has not been checked by state and local authorities and has in disturbing cases even been encouraged by them. We can not stand by while our fellow citizens have their rights stolen from them. As of two hours ago, I signed an executive order declaring Martial law in the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island New Hampshire, and Maine. As of this speech, federal forces are moving in. If Governor Walton will not maintain order I will. God bless you and good night.........

[Dan the Roman]

Fascinating. One question, though: if the Governor of New Hampshire asked for martial law, why was it only imposed in Progressive states?

Shoot, should have put that he was sending federal troops to New Hampshire as well. But the main thing is that President Pence has gotten it in his head that he can come as the savior and solve this problem militarily and be a hero.

Now that neither the military nor he has any idea what these troops are going to be doing, their relationship with the legal governments, or an exit strategy is beside the point. He is acting tough!! And in his view New England is the source.

He also seems to be assuming that after doing nothing about this for two years, and in fact doing everything in his power to assist the Progressives, that Democrats will somehow embrace his 180 degree turnaround. Well that and that it is blatantly unconstitutional. Let's just say that not even the cabinet was consulted on this, much less the congressional leadership.

[Dan the Roman]

So why haven't the Democrats been unsuccessful at forming some sort of defense against the Progressives in MA? I'd assume that the Progressives would be treated as Nazi pieces of shit among university students, some unions and yuppies. Are there any signs of Democratic violence towards Progressive supporters in colleges?

They have been trying to. But the legal apparatus is in the hands of the Progressives, and whenever there are fights, the Democrats get 30 days in jail and the Progressive 'Patriots" get community service. And I wouldn't say College students are liberal. They are anti-establishment, but there is a strong constituency there that is left-wing economically, that would like the opportunity to beat up the "teacher's pet" students with impunity, and feels empowered by being part of something bigger than themselves. the Universities were center of support for the Nazis in Germany for exactly those reasons.

I would say the Progressives have little support at Harvard or MIT. But Harvard or MIT students are not exactly popular at less prestigious schools. And there is a strong anti-Ivy league component. See the taxing of endowments.

[Dan the Roman]

What's the expectation among top military brass?

That will be dealt with in the next section, but I doubt they will be pleased being used as glorified bouncers. Especially given the likely effects on moral.

[Dan the Roman]

So why haven't the Democrats been unsuccessful at forming some sort of defense against the Progressives in MA? I'd assume that the Progressives would be treated as Nazi pieces of shit among university students, some unions and yuppies. Are there any signs of Democratic violence towards Progressive supporters in colleges?

They have been trying to. But the legal apparatus is in the hands of the Progressives, and whenever there are fights, the Democrats get 30 days in jail and the Progressive 'Patriots" get community service. And I wouldn't say College students are liberal. They are anti-establishment, but there is a strong constituency there that is left-wing economically, that would like the opportunity to beat up the "teacher's pet" students with impunity, and feels empowered by being part of something bigger than themselves. the Universities were center of support for the Nazis in Germany for exactly those reasons.

I would say the Progressives have little support at Harvard or MIT. But Harvard or MIT students are not exactly popular at less prestigious schools. And there is a strong anti-Ivy league component. See the taxing of endowments.

hmmmm I'd disagree with you on some of this. My experience with college students has led me to believe that the majority of them are somewhat intellectual and would have huge problems with the Progressives for some of their nutjob positions, fascism etc. I'm sure those in frats would join up with them in good large portions. I could see tons of bands activley campaigning against the Progressives in Massachussetts, and a huge anti-Progressive movement among people who could activley influence students.

Basically if my idea of what will be trendy in the future is right(hipster music blows up), then the youth could be mobilized pretty well against the Progressives. I'm going to assume though that because of the terrible economy lots of people's perceptions change and populist thought becomes reasonably popular again among the youth.  Like I said though I could definitley see huge schisms happening at major universities. Some of the worst fighters could be on the Democratic side too.

Not sure about that. The Progressives could pretty effectively position themselves as anti-establishment, especially with the military bearing down on them.

Yeah but anti-establishment does not equal popular among university students. Do you really think that a huge majority of the youth would be all for 150 hours of community service being mandated on them, a teaching that calls the counter-culture movement terrible(hippie throwback stuff is pretty popular), and the Vietnam War being glorified? I'd doubt it, this stuff would scream fascist and authoritarian to lots of kids in college.

Ah but an organization that tells students at Plymouth State they are as good as students at Harvard, that they are future leaders of the country if they join, and they will piss off the present elite? Part of the student counterculture at elite universities is the view that they could do it better, but that only applies to a minority of politically engaged students who feel they are part of the elite. On rare occasions you get a Barrack Obama who inspires people because they could believe real change might happen.

The entire Progressive attraction is:

1. We have implemented and will implement real change. Care about Universal Health-care? The political system will never allow it to be passed by the Democrats and Republicans, only we can. Care about Global Warming? The political system favors short-term gain over long-term planning, but we can change that. Care about Goldman Sachs controlling our politics? Well we can end that since our party is centrally run and elected officials can't be bribed.

2. We will punish those responsible for the Worlds problems and hold them accountable. Not just change policies, punish.

3. We will win, resistance is futile.

4. We don't care what elitists think of us. Their time is coming to an end.

Its more effective with some students than others. Also by this point the Progressives have overwhelming support from unions, the business community, minority groups(for using deadly force in the war on gangs, which I might go back to later). The other thing to consider is how involved students at Tufts or Harvard are in local politics. Mostly they care about national which is opposing President Pence, and who is about to become the number one enemy of the administration?

[Dan the Roman]

It sounds like a good program at this point....but it won't be soon, huh? I mean, a hawkish civic republican regime seems just what we would need. The common good would trump private and partial interests.

Thats its main appeal. What makes the Progressives attractive is not their issue positions; those while unique, are not anything out of the ordinary. What is different is the way they promise to implement them. Obama promised to try to pass healthcare. The Progressives will pass health care regardless of Congress, the Supreme Court, the phase of the moon. The very fascism that offends the political and social elite is what makes them appealing to people who have seen every promise broken.

The other thing is the extent to which the party itself offers more democracy. People can participate in the Democrats or Republicans and even get elected as delagates and pass a party platform, but the elected officials can still ignore it. The way the Progressive Party is set up is that the elected officials are instruments of the membership, so the argument is that policies are better discussed at party meetings than in congress.

As for timing, the next 18 months will be critical, but there will be light at the end of the tunnel, the only question is for who?

[Dan the Roman]

So why haven't the Democrats been unsuccessful at forming some sort of defense against the Progressives in MA? I'd assume that the Progressives would be treated as Nazi pieces of shit among university students, some unions and yuppies. Are there any signs of Democratic violence towards Progressive supporters in colleges?

They have been trying to. But the legal apparatus is in the hands of the Progressives, and whenever there are fights, the Democrats get 30 days in jail and the Progressive 'Patriots" get community service. And I wouldn't say College students are liberal. They are anti-establishment, but there is a strong constituency there that is left-wing economically, that would like the opportunity to beat up the "teacher's pet" students with impunity, and feels empowered by being part of something bigger than themselves. the Universities were center of support for the Nazis in Germany for exactly those reasons.

I would say the Progressives have little support at Harvard or MIT. But Harvard or MIT students are not exactly popular at less prestigious schools. And there is a strong anti-Ivy league component. See the taxing of endowments.

hmmmm I'd disagree with you on some of this. My experience with college students has led me to believe that the majority of them are somewhat intellectual and would have huge problems with the Progressives for some of their nutjob positions, fascism etc. I'm sure those in frats would join up with them in good large portions. I could see tons of bands activley campaigning against the Progressives in Massachussetts, and a huge anti-Progressive movement among people who could activley influence students.

Basically if my idea of what will be trendy in the future is right(hipster music blows up), then the youth could be mobilized pretty well against the Progressives. I'm going to assume though that because of the terrible economy lots of people's perceptions change and populist thought becomes reasonably popular again among the youth.  Like I said though I could definitley see huge schisms happening at major universities. Some of the worst fighters could be on the Democratic side too.

Not sure about that. The Progressives could pretty effectively position themselves as anti-establishment, especially with the military bearing down on them.

Yeah but anti-establishment does not equal popular among university students. Do you really think that a huge majority of the youth would be all for 150 hours of community service being mandated on them, a teaching that calls the counter-culture movement terrible(hippie throwback stuff is pretty popular), and the Vietnam War being glorified? I'd doubt it, this stuff would scream fascist and authoritarian to lots of kids in college.

Ah but an organization that tells students at Plymouth State they are as good as students at Harvard, that they are future leaders of the country if they join, and they will piss off the present elite? Part of the student counterculture at elite universities is the view that they could do it better, but that only applies to a minority of politically engaged students who feel they are part of the elite. On rare occasions you get a Barrack Obama who inspires people because they could believe real change might happen.

The entire Progressive attraction is:

1. We have implemented and will implement real change. Care about Universal Health-care? The political system will never allow it to be passed by the Democrats and Republicans, only we can. Care about Global Warming? The political system favors short-term gain over long-term planning, but we can change that. Care about Goldman Sachs controlling our politics? Well we can end that since our party is centrally run and elected officials can't be bribed.

2. We will punish those responsible for the Worlds problems and hold them accountable. Not just change policies, punish.

3. We will win, resistance is futile.

4. We don't care what elitists think of us. Their time is coming to an end.

Its more effective with some students than others. Also by this point the Progressives have overwhelming support from unions, the business community, minority groups(for using deadly force in the war on gangs, which I might go back to later). The other thing to consider is how involved students at Tufts or Harvard are in local politics. Mostly they care about national which is opposing President Pence, and who is about to become the number one enemy of the administration?

hmmm I think you have made me believe that students could be for the Progressives plausibly. Especially if the Blue Dogs in this TL have stopped Universal Healthcare and special interests managed to drive Democratic programs into the ground. I could definitely see the Progressives getting some significant support then. Oh and how do the Progressives treat Gays at this point? I think that could cause problems with them among college students if more and more homophobic stuff within the party comes to light.

Anyways this is a great timeline. I really love Weimar style political styles.

Thanks.

As for Gays, since it was in Massachusetts, Gay Marriage was initially treated as settled issue. The party had therefore nominally backed it in Massachusetts, without having to take an opinion on it nationwide. To the extent that they are working towards a position, it is government recognition for relationships, so some type of Civil Unions. They have nothing against Gays per se, but they are very suspicious of Gay activist groups, seeing them as social divisive, and the more culturally separatist ones are looked upon the same way they do, say Pagans. As joke people who couldn't actually believe what they mean and are therefore promoting it to cause to division. By the culturally separatist ones, I would be refering to the types of groups that complain about heteronormativity in society rather than not being discriminated against. Queer studies departments in Universities is a sign of the decline of Academy, though to be fair, so are Woman and Gender studies programs.


Most orginized Gay political activity tends to be in places(Cambridge, Brookline, Newton, Allston, Somerville) which still vote Democratic at the end of the decade so by extension of that a lot of are probably Democrats. But a 30-something Lesbian couple in a Boston suburb, or in Fairfield, Connecticut who are both attorneys and are raising two kids would have a very different attitude towards the Progressives than 22 year old student in Somerville, or  a Harvard Professor. And the Progressives would have a very different attitude towards them.

There is also split between younger Gays, mainly those who went to high school after 2004 or so, and older ones. Older ones tend to be very suspicious of the Progressives, whereas younger ones tend to support them in a similar proportion to the general population. This goes at least for Gays born in Massachusetts. Out-of-state ones tend to be much more hostile.

Oh the Progressives are also against non-discrimination laws, feeling that they are liberal social engineering. So basically, not hate crimes laws, no non-discrimination laws, here are your national civil unions, shut up and go away. Which could be worse.

[Dan the Roman]

Sorry, its Friday night and I am in the UK so there is a five hour time difference. Heading out, but will post the next section in a couple hours when I get back.

[Dan the Roman]

It has become common among revionist historians to revisit the tenure of Mike Pence as President of the United States. While conceding the catastrophic consequences of his tenure, they argue that many of his mistakes were unforeseeable, the product of chance and consequences of forces outside of his control. While there is undoubtedly truth to the claim that the Pakistani strike presented no positive options, the decision to intervene militarily against the Progressive forces in the Northeast presents challenges to this view.

There is assuredly enough blame to go around. The military command bears particular responsibility for not producing even the rudimentary basis of a plan for military intervention in the two years previous to the intervention, thus forcing them to rely on a contingency plan for a terrorist nuclear strike.

Nevertheless, the vast majority of blame must be placed on the shoulders of a President who committed military force without any political policy of what its objective should be. Was the military intervening to remove illegal local governments? Intervening to assist them in maintaining order? If the former, why were no arrests  of Progressive officials approved even senior members of the Patriots? If the latter the President badly misjudged the public mood……..

Excerpt from Twilight of the Republic: A New History of America 2015-2101
Published University of Colorado Press Denver 2108

We are at a critical moment, and as such it is important that the utmost discipline be maintained. Under no circumstances are there be unauthorized clashes with the federal troops. All local officials are to cooperate with them to the minimal legal level. We must show the rest of the country that there is no “security situation”. Coalitions with anti-federal Democrats and even local Republicans are to be encouraged. Protests should be peaceful, but confrontation is to be encouraged, provided it is nonviolent. And of course, Federal troops can not be everywhere…….

Email from Matthew O’Neil, Deputy Director of Political Affairs, Patriots

The decision to commit federal troops into seven states was met with shock, not least by a military command that had been informed of the decision only hours before. As a result, there were no actual units to be moved in for more than a day and a half. This was sufficiently long for leaders of Congress from all parties to express misgivings on the intervention, though publicly there was a united front among Republicans in favor of the President’s decisive actions, whilst Democrats expressed frustration that the President had done nothing before the elections.

There was much talk of what the consequences of armed resistance would be. The media speculated on what would happen if the armed units of the Patriots resisted, worrying over the prospect of house-to-house fighting. They need not have bothered. Governor Walton, in a joint Press Conference with Governors DiPalva of Rhode Island, Wells of Connecticut, and Miller of Maine declared the action unconstitutional, but announced that they would fully comply. Even the reaction of local Democrats was muted. While a number welcomed the Federal troops as liberators, some expressed concern about outsiders intervening in local affairs.

This was not helped by the fact that when Federal troops marched in, on the 23rd, they were operating from a modified version of a contingency plan for a terrorist attack which prioritized securing highways, with the result that major interstates were all but shut down for the better part of two days. On arrival they were greeted with protestors declaring their presence a violation of the constitution, many of whom went over and asked individual soldiers why they were there.

Furthermore, providing housing for the soldiers proved a logistical nightmare requiring them to rent out hotel rooms, and when that proved insufficient, camping them in makeshift bases on fields, and community buildings.

The soldiers soon found that “restoring order” was more difficult than they had planned. Expecting rioting and open violence, they found states where crime was lower than almost anywhere else in the country.

What violence there was proved disturbing hard to stamp out. While the military could prevent open attacks on individuals in the streets, efforts to police events found themselves trapped in the middle of confrontations between Progressive supporters, and supporters of the federal presence. In these instances soldiers could do no more than keep the various groups apart, and forcefully evict troublemakers, all the while suffering abuse. The only way to prevent clashes was to ban public meetings, which simply provoked the Progressives to stage illegal rallies. The military could not break these up without the use of force which they were reluctant to use beyond firing over the heads of protestors.

The efforts to suppress these revealed one of the great weaknesses of the military. They could arrest individuals but had no legal authority to detain or charge them. Turning them over to state authorities simply resulted in their release. When a frustrated President Pence authorized indefinite detentions without charge, it served little purpose as those detained proved to be generally low-level operatives, not worth holding on to.

While the Progressives staged illegal rallies of thousands which the military was powerless to break up without force, President Pence grew increasingly frustrated. While there had been strong national support for intervention when launched, public opinion was turning against it as the violent thugs they had been warned about failed to materialize, and things like indefinite detention were introduced.

[Dan the Roman]

To make matters worse, the Progressives were launching a full-throated press operation in the national media demonizing the campaign. Governor Walton appeared on CNN where he denied there were any problems.

Anderson Cooper: So do you deny the President’s charges that there is a climate of intimidation.

Governor Walton: Absolutely. The charges are absurd. Have there been incidents? Of course, but this has been a tragic constant in American politics for the last decade. And of the ones we’ve had, most have been provoked by outsiders who the Democrats have brought in to intimidate voters.

Cooper: They claim that they have been trying to protect themselves, that they are the victims of the overwhelming majority of offenses.

Governor Walton: That is not what the crime statistics say. I believe, now I don’t have this on me, but I believe that Democrats make up close to 70% of those convicted of political violence in Massachusetts. That sounds like the intimidation is clearly one-sided.

Cooper: Some would say that’s a consequence of a politically biased judiciary, and your Attorney General has been accused of partisanship.

Walton: Nonsense, our Judges are appointed from a committee of the MBA, and as for the Attorney General, he is an excellent public servant, something the voters agree with.

[Dan the Roman]

To make matters worse for the President, the military was not even being effective at restraining violence. While they found it difficult to police public rallies, it was impossible to protect all Democratic activists all the time. Individuals who were loud in support of a federal presence would disappear only to be found by the side of the road 36 hours later with a number of broken bones. It was said that while the US Army battled to win the day, the ‘Patriots” ruled the night.

They also ruled the schools once they reconvened in September, where children of proponents of a federal presence found themselves harassed physically and socially. Stationing soldiers in schools was impossible, and Progressive superintendents    and School Committees proved reluctant to punish perpetrators with more than a slap on the wrist.

By October, fully convinced that the soldiers would not open fire, the Progressives became more assertive, and on October 7th, 13,000 “Patriots” armed with automatic weapons marched through Cambridge, one of the centers of Democratic support. The sight, broadcast on television to the whole nation of armed paramilitaries marching nearly half a year after the army was sent in had a crushing political impact. People became concerned that the President’s policy was ineffective, either because it was not applied toughly enough, or was turning tyrannical.

Polls at the Beginning of the Intervention and at the November Election

April 12th 2019
Strongly Approve 38%
Somewhat Approve 19%
Somewhat Disapprove 13%
Strongly Disapprove    29%

Do You Approve of the President’s Decision to Use Federal Troops to Restore Order?
Yes 64%
No 31%

December 21st 2019
Strongly Approve 23%
Somewhat Approve 11%
Somewhat Disapprove 14%
Strongly Disapprove    51%

Should the Troops be Withdrawn?
Yes 53%
No 44%


The situation was a boon for Progressive organizing, making them the story of the week all summer, and in the fall they realized that they could take over the media cycle by staging any sort of confrontation. Outside Massachusetts, recruitment sped up by as much as 500%.

The President was furious in the aftermath of the march, but what frustrated him the most was that on November 5th, both Virginia and New Jersey elected Progressive Governors. New Jersey might have been foreseeable, but Virginia had no history of Progressive organization, and the party had fielded only 1 congressional candidate the previous time.

Virginia
Sam Marshall(P) 36%
James Howell(R) 34%
Will Englin(D)    29%

New Jersey
John Balboni(P) 40%
James Sweeney(R)  31%
Will Levy(D)             29%

Determined to break the backs of Progressive resistance he signed an executive order banning the position of any automatic or semi-automatic weapons by para-military groups, or the public display of firearms. He also demanded of congress the authority to try political violence in the Federal Courts.

The first proposal almost derailed the second, causing an outcry from the NRA, and being impossible in effect enforce. A series of raids on private homes in late November resulted in the YouTube spectacle of US Army soldiers storming residence and pointing weapons at children. By January it was all but abandoned.

This was unfortunate, because it was actually reasonably effective in scarring Progressive supporters on the ground when other policies had failed. It was effective to the extent that people began begging the party to take back their weapons, and several raids on de facto state arsenals in December, lost amidst the images of pregnant woman crying at gunpoint, had seriously depleted their arsenals.

It was far more effective than the second law, which succeeded in reminding everyone why the federal courts don’t handle criminal cases. Initially successful in producing a dampening effect, with the US Attorneys indicting 1800 individuals in the month of December alone, it rapidly became clear that there was no capacity to try them, and by the federal pull-out in February, only 160 had appeared in court.

With the Presidential campaign starting up, Governor Walton and his inner circle decided that the end of December to up the ante. Protests against the troops became a daily phenomenon, and began to feature high school students throwing stones and fruit at the troops. Increasingly under fire, moral began to drop massively.

This was a prelude to January 5th, 2020, when during a confrontation outside Faneuil Hall, a crowd of around 400 “Patriots” surrounded 9 soldiers who had gone in to eat. Grabbing garbage, rocks, anything they could get their hands on they closed in. The soldiers fired into the air, or tried to, but with the crowd closing in, three of them fired on the crowd. A 21 and  a 23 year old male were injured, and a 17 year old girl, Rebecca Stark was hit in the head. She died in a hospital later that afternoon.

[Dan the Roman]

The country was horrified, as the President attempted to reiterate his determination to continue. Governor Walton saw the opportunity, and in cities across the nation crowds took the streets carrying Rebecca’s picture. The martial law states were all but shut down, and with the nation focused on the protests elseware, the ones in Massachusetts and Connecticut turned violent as Patriots began to seize the streets in street fighting, attacking opposition homes. Determined to restore order the President ordered the troops out, only to have one company mutiny.

The Army was not the only mutinous body. The Progressives, seeing their opportunity, toppled the Republican leadership in both houses of congress, voting Democrats into both, who then introduced articles of impeachment against President Pence. On January 21st, with 12 million people in the streets of the country, the House voted 238-193 to impeach the President.

Normally the process would have continued to the Senate where the motion would have failed with somewhere over the majority but less than two-thirds. However, on a motion proposed by the Progressives, the Senate Republicans voted to go into recess for two weeks before a vote. This allowed them to hear from a public that was less than enamored of the current Administration.

President Pence Approval Ratings Rasmussen

November 1st 2018
Strongly Approve 29%
Somewhat Approve 14%
Somewhat Disapprove 25%
Strongly Disapprove    32%

April 12th 2019
Strongly Approve 38%
Somewhat Approve 19%
Somewhat Disapprove 13%
Strongly Disapprove    29%

Do You Approve of the President’s Decision to Use Federal Troops to Restore Order?
Yes 64%
No 31%

December 21st 2019
Strongly Approve 23%
Somewhat Approve 11%
Somewhat Disapprove 14%
Strongly Disapprove    51%

Should the Troops be Withdrawn?
Yes 53%
No 44%


January 20th 2020
Strongly Approve 12%
Somewhat Approve 7%
Somewhat Disapprove 18%
Strongly Disapprove    63%

Should the Troops be Withdrawn?
Yes 62%
No 33%

It also allowed the President to hear from the military. On the 24th of January, a delegation of senior military commanders had visited him and informed him that his orders were no longer being respected by the occupying troops, and that any further commitment would “break the army”. They urged him to resign for the good of the country, and indicated that the Joint Chiefs would resign en masse if he did not.

President Pence spent the next few hours attempting to judge his ability to survive the resignation of his senior military commanders, conferring with Vice President Perry and his cabinet. Every member of his cabinet with the exception of Jim DeMint at DHS suggested he should resign, and DeMint made his comments conditional on having the votes to survive impeachment.

That afternoon, Perry spoke with Republican Senate Leader David Dewhurst, who indicated that he had barely had the votes before, but with the news of the military ultimatum, it was far too close to call. Futhermore, no one wanted to be the 34th vote to sustain the President in office.

Pence at this point determined to resign, but he wanted to be sure Perry would succeed him the Progressives and Democrats had also introduced articles of Impeachment aimed at the Vice President. In an emergency meeting between the Joint Chiefs, the House Speaker, and the Senate Majority Leader, it was agreed that if Pence would resign, the charges against Perry would be dropped. The Progressives were expected to oppose it, but Senator Martin(UP-MA) indicated that after consultations with Governor Walton, the Progressives would be willing to tolerate Perry’s ascension on the condition that all federal troops were withdrawn.

They need not have worried had they been aware of another meeting that had taken place after the military ultimatum had been delivered.T he Chairman of the Joint Chiefs had met with his fellow officers, and in words that were ominous for the future expressed the view that the US Army could not survive another crisis of the sort that had occurred over the last 11 months. Desertion, mutiny, a collapse in enlistments, they were even under threat of having their domestic strength eclipsed by the “Patriots”. He therefore asked them for an oath to pursue a policy of complete neutrality from hereon out in political matters. Only in the case of armed effort to seize control of the state would they intervene..

Walton had won. The Progressives had scored a decisive victory. They had stood down the US Army and beat them, gaining untold prestige. For 10 months, they had been the most important political issue, and in the months of occupation, local organizations grew rapidly in all fifty states. In fact, the Patriots had increased in membership from 135,000 at the start of the crisis to nearly 400,000 at the end, and the 2020 elections promised to be extremely fertile. As such, it was no surprise that both Rick Perry and many a Democrat and Republican alike had difficulty sleeping that unusually cold January night, the last of the Pence Presidency.