To Save the Right, the West, and the United States, Trump Must Lose.

[John Dule]

In the primary elections this year, I wrote two essays-- one promoting Andrew Yang, and the other outlining what I saw as positive elements in Sanders’ candidacy. Now the Democratic nominee is Joe Biden. I sent in my ballot for him this week, and for the first time, I didn’t split my ticket at all. But rather than outline why I think Biden will be a successful president, I will instead focus this last essay on why, for the good of America, Donald Trump must lose the 2020 election. Consider this a final plea to my fellow right-wingers who are either on the fence or still in the Trump camp. The choice made by the American Right (which comprises a majority of the country) in the coming weeks will decide the fate of Western democracy. And while it still may be too late to reverse course, choosing Biden in a fair, free, and decisive election is the only way forward for this country. The other path is the road to the destruction of the American Right, and America with it.

I will divide this into two parts, outlining the two greatest challenges that the next American president will face. In each part, I will attempt to give a detailed analysis of why Donald Trump-- with his willful ignorance, glorification of stupidity, narcissism, short-sightedness, and arrogance-- is uniquely unqualified to see us through this chapter in American history. There is no other word for it: He is an idiot, without any sense of higher purpose, loyalty to his country or its people, or interest in the well-being of American citizens. He is disinterested in the arts of statecraft, policy, and governance. He has contempt for all those who do not display loyalty to him. This inexperienced moron-- who up until four years ago was best known as a reality TV star-- is now attempting to guide us through the most treacherous geopolitical waters we’ve waded into since WWII. There is no doubt in my mind that, if entrusted with this task, he will fail.



Domestic Policy

The digital age has brought with it a two-pronged attack on America’s social fabric. Firstly, better technology has exacerbated the already-growing American wealth gap. Online businesses have found that by consolidating an entire market (entertainment streaming, shopping, social networking, image storage) under one banner, they can create a wholly natural monopoly that actually benefits the consumer. Amazon’s size is what makes it so easy to do business with. Google is successful because it provides one-stop shopping for the function it serves. At the same time, advancements in AI and robots have rendered many jobs obsolete. The sheer expense of utilizing these technologies in a company’s production chain ensures that only large, established corporations will be able to afford them. And by rendering certain labor pools obsolete, resulting in mass layoffs, these technologies guarantee that the profits from these innovations will be further consolidated among those who possess capital. This is neither good nor bad. These are just facts.

Secondly, this economic dissatisfaction has pitted Americans against one another. Liberals point to the growing wealth gap as evidence that the rich are crooks who have rigged the system in their favor. Conservatives look at their livelihoods disappearing and blame increased environmental regulations, unfavorable trade deals, outsourcing, and immigration. In this respect, both sides are somewhat correct. But what has obfuscated this discussion-- a discussion that carries with it the weight of this country’s future-- is social media, another product of digital innovation that has wreaked havoc upon America’s cultural fabric. There have always been two Americas-- heartland and coasts, Bible Belt and Unchurched Belt, blue collar and white collar, etc-- but never before have they been in such easy contact with one another. As a result, the very real economic issues mentioned above have been drowned out by relentless battles over abortion, kneeling at the national anthem, “Happy Holidays,” gun control, gay marriage, transgender toilet access, flag-burning, Confederate monuments, pronouns, the word “Latinx,” and an innumerable list of other flash-in-the-pan platitudes and controversies that have engulfed our national discourse.

A country can only go on like this for so long before its citizens develop a genuine and deep-seated animosity for one another. Any educated leader looking at this country today would automatically think of Rome, or Austria-Hungary, or 1940s India, or any other nation riven by internal divisions that ultimately split into pieces. Any patriot examining these problems would attempt to start a dialogue on these subjects by treating both sides with the basic respect they deserve. Any sane person would see people casting votes in a democracy solely for the purpose of “owning” their fellow countrymen, and would immediately take steps to rectify the deep social problems and divisions at work. Anyone who genuinely wanted to preside over a functioning government-- to, you know, enact policies and laws-- would focus our attention on the small common ground we all still share.

But then there’s Donald Trump.

Trump’s inability to communicate on these issues is not due solely to his lack of skill with the English language. His entire presidency is predicated on preserving-- and indeed, exacerbating-- these divisions. The more his supporters hate and fear their fellow Americans, the more built-in his base becomes. The more they hate and fear the other side, the less likely they become to interact with those with whom they disagree, and the less likely they become to vote for anyone but a Republican. This strategy is not unlike the one utilized by churches and cults in indoctrinating their members. By sending their congregation out to knock on doors and recruit new members, churches aren’t trying to win converts-- they’re solidifying their control over their current members by exposing them to a world of rejection and hostility, and then comforting them when they return to the safety and security of the group. As Trump cultists grow more alienated and distant from their liberal friends, family, and neighbors, they become less willing to admit their mistakes, more reliant upon the group for support, and less likely to question Trump’s authority.

Similarly, the more Trump “triggers the libs,” the more unhinged the Left behaves, thus driving reluctant moderates into the MAGA cult. Trump was elected largely due to certain people’s desire to piss off their fellow Americans. A democracy where that instinct is a major motivating factor in decision-making is simply not long for this world.

At the same time, every day that Trump spends in office is a long-term loss for the American Right. The young people in this country increasingly have favorable views of socialism, support restrictions on free speech, and display a reflexive anti-patriotic attitude that borders on self-loathing. All of these pathologies are (in part) reactions to Trump, who they view as the embodiment of capitalism, “toxic” speech, and nationalism. When the Millennials and Zoomers of this country take the reins of political power, they will remember a man who demonized their Mexican friends and relatives, who cavorted with white supremacists, who bungled a deadly pandemic and who routinely flaunted the institutions of democratic government. Conservatism, free-market capitalism, and healthy patriotism will all carry the stain of Trumpism for generations. The movements that the right claims to hate-- Antifa and BLM-- will only continue to gain power so long as Trump is in office. If these disaffected people feel as though they have no recourse within the system, they will continue to operate outside of it-- to destructive results. This is not to say that we should appease these people. But giving them Trump as an enemy-- a cartoonish scapegoat who so perfectly encapsulates the worst of the American Right-- is an unforced error.

This only scratches the surface of Trump’s negative impact on this country’s politics. By violating innumerable norms and laws, Trump has opened the floodgates to future politicians who will take his reign as valid precedent. They will feel no obligation to release their financial information, which will make it even more difficult to decipher how special interests are influencing their positions. They will feel no obligation to divest themselves from investments that compromise their ability to be objective as public officials. They will have no regard for the norms Trump has discarded-- they will pack the courts, manipulate electors, threaten violence at polling stations, refuse to accept election results, rig the census, create chaos at debates, cry wolf about voter fraud, and spread conspiracy theories about satanic pedophile cults that molest children. They’ll do everything Trump has done and worse. Valid economic arguments from both the right and the left will be forever drowned out in a deluge of news cycles about scandal, procedure, and partisan infighting.

As I see it, the only way around this is to ensure that Trump’s GOP receives an absolutely decisive defeat on November 3rd. Trump must go down in the annals of American democracy as an anomaly that defied all norms-- and paid the price. The alternative is devolving into a completely dysfunctional system where the Democrats and Republicans circle the wagons when one of their own is accused of wrongdoing, firing back with “BUT WHAT ABOUT” to every accusation levied against them. The Republicans have wrecked our political system. Democrats feel wholly justified in doing the same, but the only thing stopping them is the levelheaded geezer currently running their party. If Trump stays in power another four years, their patience will certainly have worn thin.

Politics Stops at the Water’s Edge

“Politics stops at the water’s edge” was once a common saying in US political circles. It represents a basic, intuitive element of governance: When presenting yourself to your adversaries on the world stage, you must project an aura of consensus, solidarity, and unity. Setting internal disagreements aside when conducting international diplomacy was the policy of every functional government from ancient times until 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed and the US, feeling completely unchallenged on the world stage, decided that every internal rift in our national politics should be inflicted upon the entire rest of the planet. To that end, we’ve had senators publicly denounce international treaties signed by the opposing party, a schizophrenic approach to foreign relations that changes course every four years, and increasingly incoherent responses to world crises such as global warming.

The biggest contributor to this chaos as of late has been Donald Trump. The biggest beneficiary, meanwhile, has been the People’s Republic of China. If you love Xi Jinping and want your grandkids to be speaking Mandarin in an oppressive global surveillance state, then Donald Trump is the candidate for you!

Trump has blundered from one foreign policy debacle to another in a way that can only be described as a national embarrassment. His most touted success-- stopping North Korean aggression-- is a simple lie; North Korea continues to develop atomic bombs, and the productive and substantive talks that Trump promised never came to fruition. The isolationist “America First” philosophy that right-wing doves claim to support never materialized either; Trump has not only continued the Obama administration’s drone policy, but has in fact gone out of his way to make the US even less accountable when it kills civilians, thus putting to bed any “pacifist” argument for this abhorrent presidency. Under Trump’s leadership, world perception of the United States has plummeted to all-time lows. His supporters claim that the opinions of other countries don’t really matter-- which would be true if we were still the only superpower game in town. Now the world is looking elsewhere for stable, long-term leadership, and it is finding it in the cold embrace of the CCP.

But Trump’s biggest failure-- and the biggest boon he’s given to China-- has been his idiotic trade war, a policy so inept that anyone who understood its ramifications couldn’t possibly support it (luckily for Trump, none of his supporters do). Trump withdrew the US from the TPP-- a trade bloc specifically designed to counterbalance Chinese trade supremacy in East Asia-- thus effectively abdicating any US responsibility in challenging China’s influence in the region. Since then, he has waged not a calculated and targeted trade war against China, but a scattershot attack on free trade at all fronts. He has levied tariffs against Canada, Germany, Mexico, and India-- exactly the kinds of countries that we need on our side to present a united front against China. Any leader with an ounce of strategic thinking would currently be attempting to knit together a vast coalition of democratically inclined nations to impose sanctions, tariffs, and restrictions on China’s economic might. But Trump does not think strategically. As a person who has had everything in life handed to him on a golden platter, he truly believes that everything will work itself out in the end-- this is why he says COVID will “just disappear” one day. He thus feels no need to think past the 24-hour news cycle when planning long-term.

The truth is that the past four years have actually been quite terrible for China (or at least, they would have been if America had a president of even modest strategic and mental competence). Pork production has dropped in China recently, leading to inflated prices for an important staple. The Hong Kong protests drew world attention to the CCP’s authoritarianism and barbarism. Growing western awareness about China’s influence in the media has led to a cultural backlash against businesses that appease the CCP. The Three Gorges Dam nearly broke after record flooding. The recent elections in Taiwan decisively rejected pro-unification sentiments, opting instead for the “province” to strike out on its own as an independent state. North Korea has been at the forefront of many people’s minds, and this has called attention to China’s relationship with the pariah state-- which has in turn pressured the CCP to distance itself from the DPRK. Oh, and then there was that one time when a Chinese wet market accidentally caused a global outbreak of a deadly virus that crippled the world economy. Yeah, it hasn’t exactly been a banner year for Xi Jinping.

But under Trump’s leadership, China has thrived. They’ve continued to gobble up new ports and strategic bases worldwide. While attention has been focused on the president’s scandals and controversies, China has emerged from this chaotic period largely unscathed. The tariffs which Trump implemented have done virtually nothing to the Chinese economy; the CCP has simply sold those goods at slightly lower prices to other countries, and in order to work around the trade war, they’ve been sending nearly-completed products to Indochina to receive a “Made in Vietnam” sticker before shipping them off to America. Meanwhile, the West’s resistance to Chinese fascism has been tepid, disunited, and without a clear leader.

China represents a unique challenge of a sort that America has never before confronted. It is more populous than the US. It is just as economically powerful as us. Most importantly, China is competent, a quality that the Soviet Union never possessed even in its best times. China does not rule through fear and intimidation alone; it has genuinely provided millions of people with peace, stability, and prosperity, which makes it a far more dangerous form of authoritarian state than we have confronted before. To deal with this looming threat, the US needs a coherent plan-- something that Trump has proven himself incapable of producing. All he has done thus far is distract from China’s aggression, drive states like Malaysia and Vietnam towards the CCP, and alienate dozens of other useful allies. Oh, and he also told Xi Jinping to keep building those internment camps. Another four years of Trump means another four years wasted on petty infighting, absurd scandals, and the colorful sideshow of the culture war-- all while China grows stronger.

To check the global spread of authoritarianism, we need a leader who has a little more self-control than a mentally addled, verbally incomprehensible toddler in the throes of a temper tantrum. We need someone who genuinely cares about seeing democracy perpetuate itself into the distant future. We need someone who has actually read the United States Constitution. We need someone whose political career does not hinge upon pitting American citizens against one another. We need someone who is capable of building bridges, gaining allies, and swaying important players on the global stage to our side.

Donald Trump does not meet any of these qualifications. The style of leadership that he became accustomed to during his years in business-- a top-down dictatorship where his is the only word that matters-- is uniquely unsuited to diplomacy (or, for that matter, democracy). The evidence for this is written all over the past four years of American foreign policy, during which Trump has wasted one golden opportunity after another to stand up to China. This idiot has time and time again proven himself incapable of learning from his mistakes or listening to experts. He must be denied another four years in office, and those who still support him are entrusting this litany of crises to the unstable hands of a raging lunatic.

If you vote for Trump, have no illusions about it-- you are perpetuating the destruction of everything you claim to hold dear.

[Red Velvet]

I mean, there is a reason some different sectors of the socialist left or anti-imperialists in general are secretly rooting for a Trump win.

[SNJ1985]

the American Right...comprises a majority of the country

You must have quite a loose definition of ''the right''.

The young people in this country increasingly have favorable views of socialism, support restrictions on free speech, and display a reflexive anti-patriotic attitude that borders on self-loathing. All of these pathologies are (in part) reactions to Trump, who they view as the embodiment of capitalism, “toxic” speech, and nationalism.

Leftists have been successfully pushing American culture in their direction for literally decades. They've dominated institutions like academia, the mainstream news media, and the entertainment industry in this country for a long time now (certainly since before Trump rode down that escalator). The stage for their current cultural dominance among young people (and the country at large) was set years before Trump launched his 2016 campaign. I see little reason to believe that American young people would be significantly more right-wing than they are today if the country had elected Mitt Romney in 2012 and re-elected him in 2016. You have it completely backwards when you act as if Trump is responsible for the left dominating American culture as opposed to the left's dominance of American culture predating his election and (in part) leading to it.

The movements that the right claims to hate-- Antifa and BLM-- will only continue to gain power so long as Trump is in office. If these disaffected people feel as though they have no recourse within the system, they will continue to operate outside of it-- to destructive results.

Antifa and BLM will continue to gain power because institutions like academia, the mainstream news media, the entertainment industry, and major corporations (most notably including Big Tech) are sympathetic to them and keep pushing their narratives. This won't change if Biden gets elected. If anything, they'll be even more effective with a sympathetic administration on top of the institutional support they already get and will continue to get - and yes, it would be a sympathetic administration. Biden may very well be an old school moderate Democrat at heart, but his administration is going to be filled with people that description very much does not apply to - including his running mate, who could end up being the Dick Cheney to his George W. Bush (if he doesn't just resign so she can officially become president).

Antifa and BLM have no actual reason to feel that they ''have no recourse within the system''. These people receive aid and comfort from all sorts of powerful institutions, and said institutions are often not even subtle about it. I think an example that really shows how mainstream these movements actually are is the fact that Burger King once posted on Twitter to let Antifa know that they were selling milkshakes near where Nigel Farage was making an appearance. If one of the world's largest fast food chains is comfortable lending you public words of encouragement and isn't worried about it significantly affecting their bottom line, you're probably not actually an opponent of the system, and you're probably not actually a ''marginalized underdog'' fighting an uphill battle.

This is not to say that we should appease these people.

That's exactly what you're saying. You are literally telling people to vote for their preferred presidential ticket.

The isolationist “America First” philosophy that right-wing doves claim to support never materialized either

Trump's foreign policy hasn't been perfect by any means, and he has definitely made some bad moves on that front (like the strike on Soleimani), but he is the first president in decades to not start any new wars. I'd say that counts for something. You talk as if he hasn't been any better than George W. Bush. He clearly has. Joe Biden, on the other hand, is supported by neocons like Bill Kristol. Is that who people that believe in an isolationist ''America First'' philosophy should be supporting? The guy backed by Bill Kristol?

Trump has not only continued the Obama administration’s drone policy

...and you think that's an argument in favor of voting for Obama's VP, who will probably also continue said policy?

As for the stuff about China becoming more powerful than us, you just chastised right-wing doves who still support Trump for supposedly not fully adhering to ''the isolationist ''America First'' philosophy they claim to support''. Well, part of such a philosophy is the belief that it is not actually America's job to be the most powerful country in the world and ''fight for democracy overseas''.

If there is a genuinely right-wing argument for voting against Trump (and I'm actually not totally dismissive of the notion that there is, contrary to your probable assumption that I'm some ''Trump cultist'' who thinks he can do no wrong), the answer is to vote for a third party candidate or write someone in. Not to vote for the guy who is running on the most left-wing platform of any major party candidate in history and might end up packing the Supreme Court with left-wing judges. That would be the epitome of cutting off your nose to spite your face. For the record, I'm not really trying to convince you in particular as much as I'm trying to convince people more ideologically aligned with me that might be swayed by your message.

[John Dule]

The young people in this country increasingly have favorable views of socialism, support restrictions on free speech, and display a reflexive anti-patriotic attitude that borders on self-loathing. All of these pathologies are (in part) reactions to Trump, who they view as the embodiment of capitalism, “toxic” speech, and nationalism.

Leftists have been successfully pushing American culture in their direction for literally decades. They've dominated institutions like academia, the mainstream news media, and the entertainment industry in this country for a long time now (certainly since before Trump rode down that escalator). The stage for their current cultural dominance among young people (and the country at large) was set years before Trump launched his 2016 campaign. I see little reason to believe that American young people would be significantly more right-wing than they are today if the country had elected Mitt Romney in 2012 and re-elected him in 2016. You have it completely backwards when you act as if Trump is responsible for the left dominating American culture as opposed to the left's dominance of American culture predating his election and (in part) leading to it.

It's not that Trump has primarily driven that trend, it's that he's done nothing to halt it and everything in his power to accelerate it. A forward-thinking conservative in this country needs to look at demographic change and figure out how to tailor their message to Hispanic-Americans; Trump has ceded that ground to the Democrats through his incisive rhetoric on immigration and his atrocious border policy. Moreover, an increasing number of white Americans are now growing up with Latino friends and classmates, and they will forever remember this as a time when social conservatives, garden-variety right-wingers, and market liberals effectively teamed up to torment and frighten that entire demographic.

Young Americans are also turning to socialist policies because they came of age in the aftermath of the financial crisis and during an era of extreme wealth inequality, both of which are widely perceived to be the result of a runaway free market. There is an excellent case to be made from the right that these problems can be answered without resorting to far-left economic policies, but Trump and his advisors have shown absolutely zero interest in making that argument or appealing to young people. Once again, they've ceded the future of America to the left in order to appeal to elderly white evangelical boomers-- a demographic that shrinks every passing day.

The movements that the right claims to hate-- Antifa and BLM-- will only continue to gain power so long as Trump is in office. If these disaffected people feel as though they have no recourse within the system, they will continue to operate outside of it-- to destructive results.

Antifa and BLM will continue to gain power because institutions like academia, the mainstream news media, the entertainment industry, and major corporations (most notably including Big Tech) are sympathetic to them and keep pushing their narratives. This won't change if Biden gets elected. If anything, they'll be even more effective with a sympathetic administration on top of the institutional support they already get and will continue to get - and yes, it would be a sympathetic administration. Biden may very well be an old school moderate Democrat at heart, but his administration is going to be filled with people that description very much does not apply to - including his running mate, who could end up being the Dick Cheney to his George W. Bush (if he doesn't just resign so she can officially become president).

Antifa and BLM have no actual reason to feel that they ''have no recourse within the system''. These people receive aid and comfort from all sorts of powerful institutions, and said institutions are often not even subtle about it. I think an example that really shows how mainstream these movements actually are is the fact that Burger King once posted on Twitter to let Antifa know that they were selling milkshakes near where Nigel Farage was making an appearance. If one of the world's largest fast food chains is comfortable lending you public words of encouragement and isn't worried about it significantly affecting their bottom line, you're probably not actually an opponent of the system, and you're probably not actually a ''marginalized underdog'' fighting an uphill battle.

Let me get this straight: You claim that BLM and Antifa have real recourse within the system, and your evidence for this is... a tweet sent by Burger King? You have got to be sh*tting me. You know, I used to think it was the left that was "extremely online" and based its perception of reality on Twitter, but now I'm starting to think the right is just as guilty of this.

The Trump administration has, from day one, shown that it has no interest in playing by the rules. Trump made a mockery of the presidential debates, refused to release his tax returns, got caught on tape confessing to sexual assault, refused to divest from his companies, used taxpayer dollars to pay for events at his own properties, rammed through Supreme Court nominees in ways that are widely perceived as illegitimate, and pressured a foreign government to drum up a scandal against his political rival. When someone gets away with the sheer number of crimes (and yes, I mean crimes) that Trump has, you can hardly blame people for feeling as though working within the system is a waste of time.

This is not to say that we should appease these people.

That's exactly what you're saying. You are literally telling people to vote for their preferred presidential ticket.

If you honestly think that Joe Biden was on Antifa's shortlist for presidential candidates to support, you're beyond delusional. Biden is the only chance the Democrats have right now to return to sanity; if he loses, many leftists will argue that two moderate Dems in a row have now lost, and will push for far more radical candidates in the coming decade. Make no mistake-- far-leftists are quite pleased with how their organizations have grown in power and recognition in the past four years, and that has been driven completely by the fact that Republicans elected the biggest caricature of a right-authoritarian they could possibly come up with. Without Trump in power to energize people against the right, their movements will slowly run out of steam.

The isolationist “America First” philosophy that right-wing doves claim to support never materialized either

Trump's foreign policy hasn't been perfect by any means, and he has definitely made some bad moves on that front (like the strike on Soleimani), but he is the first president in decades to not start any new wars. I'd say that counts for something. You talk as if he hasn't been any better than George W. Bush. He clearly has. Joe Biden, on the other hand, is supported by neocons like Bill Kristol. Is that who people that believe in an isolationist ''America First'' philosophy should be supporting? The guy backed by Bill Kristol?

Who cares about Bill Kristol? The man hasn't been relevant in a decade. You could just as easily argue that because Trump put John Bolton in his administration, he wants to go to war with Iran.

On a broader front, Trump has made every single one of our international alliances weaker. This is the least safe I've ever felt as an American on the world stage in my lifetime, and I lived through the War on Terror. It will take at least a decade to rebuild out diplomatic network after Trump's administration, and I'd like to start that sooner rather than later given the way China and Russia have been acting as of late.

Trump has not only continued the Obama administration’s drone policy

...and you think that's an argument in favor of voting for Obama's VP, who will probably also continue said policy?

He will certainly increase transparency, which is a return to the Obama policy and is a step in the right direction-- unlike Trump's.

As for the stuff about China becoming more powerful than us, you just chastised right-wing doves who still support Trump for supposedly not fully adhering to ''the isolationist ''America First'' philosophy they claim to support''. Well, part of such a philosophy is the belief that it is not actually America's job to be the most powerful country in the world and ''fight for democracy overseas''.

This is hardly a right-wing argument-- in fact, this is the sort of thing I would expect from a rabid internet tankie or a brocialist pothead. I'm not asking that we start "liberating" countries willy-nilly, but is it really too much to ask that we maintain some semblance of international prestige so that we can coordinate a decent response to, say, China's seizure of Hong Kong?

I actually had hope for Trump's foreign policy at one point; I thought he'd be able to pull off the "madman" facade and frighten some of our enemies into coming to the table. Of course, Kim Jong Un completely played him, and Xi Jinping is thrilled that the West is distracted by daily scandals and Twitter infighting.

If there is a genuinely right-wing argument for voting against Trump (and I'm actually not totally dismissive of the notion that there is, contrary to your probable assumption that I'm some ''Trump cultist'' who thinks he can do no wrong), the answer is to vote for a third party candidate or write someone in. Not to vote for the guy who is running on the most left-wing platform of any major party candidate in history and might end up packing the Supreme Court with left-wing judges. That would be the epitome of cutting off your nose to spite your face. For the record, I'm not really trying to convince you in particular as much as I'm trying to convince people more ideologically aligned with me that might be swayed by your message.

If you actually care more about another few justices on the Supreme Court than you do about our institutions themselves, you can make no claim to being a patriot. This stopped being about partisanship the moment that Trump announced he was running. If I agreed with a candidate on every single solitary issue, and they still behaved like Trump, I would never support that person. It's truly a shame that so many Republicans have completely failed that simple test of decency and moral character.

[SNJ1985]

Let me get this straight: You claim that BLM and Antifa have real recourse within the system, and your evidence for this is... a tweet sent by Burger King?

No, that is not my sole piece of evidence in favor of that claim. I said ''Antifa and BLM will continue to gain power because institutions like academia, the mainstream news media, the entertainment industry, and major corporations (most notably including Big Tech) are sympathetic to them and keep pushing their narratives''. That obviously encompasses a lot more than just Burger King. I used that specific example to show that even a fast food chain has nothing to fear from them despite their posturing as ''anti-establishment rebels'', let alone institutions that are much more powerful than a fast food chain.

If you honestly think that Joe Biden was on Antifa's shortlist for presidential candidates to support, you're beyond delusional. Biden is the only chance the Democrats have right now to return to sanity; if he loses, many leftists will argue that two moderate Dems in a row have now lost, and will push for far more radical candidates in the coming decade.

No, I don't think Biden was their first choice for president. I'm certainly not convinced that most of them don't want him to beat Trump now that he is the Democratic nominee, though. Nor do I see any logical reason to believe that they, or at least fellow travellers of theirs, aren't going to have any significant influence over the Biden/Harris administration. Kamala Harris literally publicly told people on Facebook and Twitter to donate to a fund to bail rioters out.

Make no mistake-- far-leftists are quite pleased with how their organizations have grown in power and recognition in the past four years, and that has been driven completely by the fact that Republicans elected the biggest caricature of a right-authoritarian they could possibly come up with. Without Trump in power to energize people against the right, their movements will slowly run out of steam.

They're going to be energized against any person we put forth that actually tries to take aggressive, meaningful action against them and isn't a complete pushover. One can use your logic to justify basically doing nothing to oppose them.

Who cares about Bill Kristol? The man hasn't been relevant in a decade. You could just as easily argue that because Trump put John Bolton in his administration, he wants to go to war with Iran.

Kristol is far from the only person of his ideological persuasion who is backing Biden. I'd say the majority of them are. In fact, John Bolton - while not endorsing Biden - has said that he will not vote for Trump. It's not too far-fetched that he might ultimately prefer a Biden victory to a Trump victory despite having served in the Trump administration (and I concede that Trump was stupid to let him in the administration to begin with. Thankfully, he did end up correcting that mistake.).

Again, if someone believes in an isolationist ''America First'' philosophy, it doesn't make much sense for them to vote for a guy who is being supported by scores of people who represent the exact opposite of that. Trump is at least somewhat on board with the philosophy they espouse, even if he hasn't been perfect in his adherence to it.

If there is a genuinely right-wing argument for voting against Trump (and I'm actually not totally dismissive of the notion that there is, contrary to your probable assumption that I'm some ''Trump cultist'' who thinks he can do no wrong), the answer is to vote for a third party candidate or write someone in. Not to vote for the guy who is running on the most left-wing platform of any major party candidate in history and might end up packing the Supreme Court with left-wing judges. That would be the epitome of cutting off your nose to spite your face. For the record, I'm not really trying to convince you in particular as much as I'm trying to convince people more ideologically aligned with me that might be swayed by your message.

If you actually care more about another few justices on the Supreme Court than you do about our institutions themselves, you can make no claim to being a patriot. This stopped being about partisanship the moment that Trump announced he was running. If I agreed with a candidate on every single solitary issue, and they still behaved like Trump, I would never support that person. It's truly a shame that so many Republicans have completely failed that simple test of decency and moral character.

I didn't even say that right-wingers necessarily have to vote for Trump. I said they should vote for a third party candidate or write someone in if they truly feel that he is unworthy of their vote, and I concede that there are legitimate reasons to feel that way (though we might not necessarily agree on what said reasons are). I simply said that they shouldn't vote for Biden, and that Trump is indeed the preferable option if they feel they must choose between the two major party nominees. Again, this isn't really directed at you so much as it is directed at people more ideologically aligned with me that might be swayed by your message. Our visions of what the right should be are extremely different, and there isn't much of a point in a socially conservative, economically moderate immigration restrictionist like me trying to appeal to a libertarian like you.

[John Dule]

Let me get this straight: You claim that BLM and Antifa have real recourse within the system, and your evidence for this is... a tweet sent by Burger King?

No, that is not my sole piece of evidence in favor of that claim. I said ''Antifa and BLM will continue to gain power because institutions like academia, the mainstream news media, the entertainment industry, and major corporations (most notably including Big Tech) are sympathetic to them and keep pushing their narratives''. That obviously encompasses a lot more than just Burger King. I used that specific example to show that even a fast food chain has nothing to fear from them despite their posturing as ''anti-establishment rebels'', let alone institutions that are much more powerful than a fast food chain.

Dude, who cares about what the social media intern for Burger King tweeted? Look, it's actually quite simple: If you want the media to be fair to the right, then start electing people who are worth taking seriously. If you want to chase far-leftists out of academia, engage with them on the issues they're concerned about and offer a credible alternative to the arguments they're putting forth. But with Trump, you're basically giving up on this discussion and instead taking an untenable hardline position that will not survive the next ten years of demographic change. If you really want to perpetuate your ideas into the next generation, that will require changing people's minds. You can't just tell them to shut up for their entire lives.

If you honestly think that Joe Biden was on Antifa's shortlist for presidential candidates to support, you're beyond delusional. Biden is the only chance the Democrats have right now to return to sanity; if he loses, many leftists will argue that two moderate Dems in a row have now lost, and will push for far more radical candidates in the coming decade.

No, I don't think Biden was their first choice for president. I'm certainly not convinced that most of them don't want him to beat Trump now that he is the Democratic nominee, though. Nor do I see any logical reason to believe that they, or at least fellow travellers of theirs, aren't going to have any significant influence over the Biden/Harris administration. Kamala Harris literally publicly told people on Facebook and Twitter to donate to a fund to bail rioters out.

Ok. If you really think that we can judge a presidential candidate based on the worst elements of their supporters, then what exactly does that say about Donald Trump-- a man endorsed by neo-Nazi groups, Klansmen, and the Taliban?

Make no mistake-- far-leftists are quite pleased with how their organizations have grown in power and recognition in the past four years, and that has been driven completely by the fact that Republicans elected the biggest caricature of a right-authoritarian they could possibly come up with. Without Trump in power to energize people against the right, their movements will slowly run out of steam.

They're going to be energized against any person we put forth that actually tries to take aggressive, meaningful action against them and isn't a complete pushover. One can use your logic to justify basically doing nothing to oppose them.

I'm saying that the most effective way of opposing them is to appeal to their key demographics-- young and nonwhite people-- and convincing them that there is a viable alternative on the right that will satisfy their demands without resorting to massive government intervention on their behalf. Telling them to f*** off while we manipulate and cheat our way through the democratic process will turn them into cynical, unpatriotic, far-leftists with a feeling of victimhood and zero respect for American institutions. Normalizing cheating and suffering zero consequences encourages others to cheat. It's not a novel concept.

Who cares about Bill Kristol? The man hasn't been relevant in a decade. You could just as easily argue that because Trump put John Bolton in his administration, he wants to go to war with Iran.

Kristol is far from the only person of his ideological persuasion who is backing Biden. I'd say the majority of them are. Again, if someone believes in an isolationist ''America First'' philosophy, it doesn't make much sense for them to vote for a guy who is being supported by scores of people who represent the exact opposite of that. Trump is at least somewhat on board with the philosophy they espouse, even if he hasn't been perfect in his adherence to it.

I'd imagine that many of the people who support Biden-- like myself-- do so non-ideologically, because we understand that Biden (unlike Trump) respects the United States and its people. If we follow your logic that Biden's policies will reflect the ideology of his voter base, then he will be simultaneously a neocon and a far-left socialist. Which is it?

I didn't even say that right-wingers necessarily have to vote for Trump. I said they should vote for a third party candidate or write someone in if they truly feel that he is unworthy of their vote, and I concede that there are legitimate reasons to feel that way (though we might not necessarily agree on what said reasons are). I simply said that they shouldn't vote for Biden, and that Trump is indeed the preferable option if they feel they must choose between the two major party nominees. Again, this isn't really directed at you so much as it is directed at people more ideologically aligned with me that might be swayed by your message. Our visions of what the right should be are extremely different, and there isn't much of a point in a socially conservative, economically moderate immigration restrictionist like me trying to appeal to a libertarian like you.

At the same time, I didn't say that right-wingers have to vote for Biden. I said that Trump must lose, and that can happen with or without your vote. Once again, if I agreed with Trump on literally every issue, I still would have enough respect for America to refuse to cast a vote for him. It's sad that you can't say the same.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We used to say in parlance of party's collapsing that they would "go the way of the Whigs". This was used frequently on talk radio and such during the late Bush years, "they will go the way of the Whigs" unless they move right.

To me this is a vast misrepresentation of how the Whigs Collapsed. The Whig base split in two and one half of that seized control of bottom up political movement and used that to control the rest of the 19th and early 20th century's political economy.

Far more relevant here would be "Going the way of the Federalists" or "Going the way of the Tories in 18th Century UK". That is to say focusing on a very narrow, and unpopular base to the exclusion of most everyone else, meanwhile subsequent generations view such with incredible disdain, disregard and in both those cases, frankly, as Traitors to the country. The end result was that both were eliminated electorally as relevant players with politics being reduced to factionalism among the now single party entity until a new left-right split occurs restoring the duopoly (National Republicans and Democratic Republicans in 1824/1828 and in the UK the divide from the Pitt faction and the Foxx-North alliance, which eventually became the new "Tory" (rejected name foisted on by their opponents) and Whig divide in the early 1800s.

Do I think we get that far necessarily? No I do not, simply because the Republicans adapted after the Depression, just as the Democrats adapted after Reconstruction. You find the left behind elements of the ruling coalition and you steal them by evolving in such a away as to obtain their support.

Simply put what Republicans are doing now, what Trumpism is doing now is not viable long term.

If you are a Trumpist, whether you consider it populism, nationalism or something else. You need to find a way to do some math to make that a majority? Is that working class Hispanics, is that African-Americans in ex-Manufacturing Towns, is that non-college white women?

Then you have to say, what are you willing to adapt or evolve on to make them jump ship? Remember the onus is not on them, it is on you and the metrics for "what is enough" is not determined by you either, it is determined based on what will get them to flip.

In the 1940s, The Democrats managed to overcome decades of innate racist tendencies North and South, for the sake of preserving the New Deal Coalition by uniting strong support from African-Americans, with their trade/labor union base in the North, turning their back on the core of what had been their base region and most reliable territory for the sake of their causes.

In the 1960's, the Republican Party surrendered its Civil War legacy and threw Lincoln in the upstairs bedroom closet to make a deal with their historical enemies based on their common opposition to a strengthened federal government that was harmful to business and the states. They also turned their back on their traditional base demographic and left it to shift in the wind, to build a new conservative majority in the sunbelt.


The purpose of the Republican Party is not to be a death cult, the purpose of the Republican Party is to be a vehicle by which some kind of conservatism can maneuver to achieve a majority in the country. If your form of conservatism is to narrow to achieve that, then it most either evolve to expand its reach or necessarily fall by the wayside in order for a broader conservatism to achieve success.

Who are you willing to try and attract to your form of conservatism to make the math work? What are you willing to concede, or adapt to make that happen? This is the question that every Republican and every Conservative and every Nationalist needs to be asking themselves. Remember the onus is on you and the metrics for success are in their hands.

[bagelman]

So the election is over. A chaotic mess of a Biden victory, with Biden's ballots being counted last in all the states that mattered. For several critical days, the world watched as Philadelphia slowly sorted through the mail to count each ballot as Trump's lead statewide by nearly 15 points after the election day voted was quickly counted.  Republicans, especially Republican women, made serious gains in the House and with several key defensive victories are heavily favored to defend the Senate. But Donald Trump has still lost, and is whining like a baby.

How would you rate what has happened? As a conservative, are you upset that Trump didn't get the resounding defeat we needed to give him, and that his supports remain resolute? (A couple houses in the area still have Trump signs, along with a custom message I didn't read). Or are you happy that my side didn't get the resounding victory because we have a more conservative congress than expected?