The Problem With Republicans


So the Republicans achieved a great and historic victory in the 2014 midterm elections a few weeks ago. They took back the majority control of the Senate, and slightly increased their current majority in the House. When Congress reconvenes in January 2015, the Republicans will now control both chambers of Congress. To those in the general public who fall along the center-right, many are now breathing a sigh of relief at these results. They view this outcome as finally a way for the Republicans to rein in the out of control socialist Democrats and President Obama. I however do not see things this way, for as much as I love watching the Democrats lose—and don’t get me wrong I do—my joy of watching the progressive socialists lose is only marginally higher than that of watching the Republicans win.

I will be blunt. I am not a Republican, and I do not support the Republican Party in its current state. The modern Republican Party does not represent true-conservatism, and therefore lacks the will and strategy to stand up and fight for it. There are many reasons why I feel this way, and it is something that I would like to explore in this article. This article is intended only as an objective look at the realities and failures of the modern Republican Party, and is in no way an endorsement of the modern Republican Party.

Understanding The Results: Midterms 2014

To many observers, it would appear that the 2014 midterms were a “wave” election for the Republicans. By most political analysts and pollster accounts, it would seem that the Republicans rode a wave of public discontent over the progressive policies and direction of the country under the socialist Democrats and the Obama presidency thus far. This apparently led to Republican pickups and gains in many districts and states not usually friendly to the Republicans. Now I will be the first to admit, that I am not some sort of political analyst or pollster—and I am especially not a political pundit or “talking head”—therefore, I will rarely waste my time analyzing polls, political trends, approval ratings, or the conditional fortunes of individual politicians. Rather, I am a student of history, sociology, economics, and political science and theory on the macro-level, not an analyzer of temporary fads and trends. I tend to look more at the “big picture”. Therefore, I have not spent much time over analyzing or theorizing on what these election results mean. However, since we are on the subject, I may as well throw in my buck-oh-five (it’s what freedom costs) and briefly opine on the topic.

I do not see these results as some sort of grassroots groundswell demographic shift, in that all of a sudden the country is lurching back to the right in opposition to big-government progressive socialism, or that the pendulum is finally starting to swing. I do not see these results as some sort of indication that the American people are finally beginning to grow weary of big-government progressive socialism, and are therefore moving back towards constitutional limited-government and true conservatism. I simply see these results for what they are, a snapshot of time from a single moment in history. The people may very well be annoyed with the policies of the socialist Democrats, as well as the current state of the economy and country, but these election results are not some sort of indication of a drastic move to the right by the general public. Basically, these results can be broken down into nothing more than a combination of two simple things: voter turnout, and the independent “opposition” factor.

Whenever the socialist Democrats have unchecked power—control of the House, Senate, Presidency—they will inevitably push too far, and then there is usually a backlash. The uninformed ignorant people are generally either accepting of—or oblivious to—the slow incremental “reformist” approach to socialism, but there may be the occasional backlash when the Democrats get over confident and push too far—i.e. Obamacare. This then usually leads to Republican gains, simply because they are the “opposition”—and I use that term quite loosely as we will soon discuss—on the other side of the ballot in the two party system. Therefore, essentially what has happened is the so-called independents decided to vote Republican this time around, simply in symbolic opposition and protest to the socialist Democrats pushing too far. These so-called “independents” did not have some sort of “conservative epiphany”, nor were they really endorsing or supporting the Republicans, they were merely casting a protest vote for the “other” party in a two-party system.

The second contributing factor to the midterm results—which is also in no way indicative of a changing political tide—simply comes down to nothing more than voter turnout. In this particular off year election, the simple fact is that the Republicans were able to turn out their base in larger numbers than the socialist Democrats. The Republican base was far more enthusiastic to get out and vote this year than the Democrat base was. That’s pretty much it. This was the same base that will generally turn out and vote Republican in any given election, so this too does not indicate some sort of massive shift to the right by the general public.

Basically, the Republicans turned out their base in larger numbers, and the independents broke for the “opposition” Republicans this election. That’s pretty much it. That is the extent of my political analysis of the 2014 midterm elections, so now back to my original point: the problem with Republicans.

The Lesser Of Two Evils, The Weaker Of Two Parties

I will just come out and state the obvious–no punches held—the Republicans are by far the weaker of the two major parties. They are weaker in both a functional and an ideological sense, as well as a soon to be in a demographic sense. They are also by far weaker just in sheer political brutality as well. The socialist Democrats are without a doubt the stronger of the two main parties. Allow me to explain.

A) Functionally

Functionally and strategically speaking, the Republican Party is no match for the modern socialist Democrat Party. Comprised of former and up-and-coming radicals, the modern Democrat Party “machine” far surpasses that of the Republicans, both organizationally and in sheer political brutality. The Republicans have a much weaker organizational, campaign, fund raising, and “ground game” structure than the socialist Democrats. Hell, the Obama campaign has left their campaign and organizational “machine” largely still in place, despite the elections being concluded, as a means of furthering the socialist Democrat machine as a whole.

The socialist Democrats—and progressive movement as a whole—is also far superior at community organizing, as well as broadcasting their mass message and propaganda. The Democrat machine also draws a lot of functional and organizational strength from various other sub-organizations and elements within the progressive movement, such as unions, academia, public education, Hollywood, television and pop-culture, hundreds of various other radical, social justice, and liberal interest groups, as well as most of the mainstream media. The progressive control of the media alone is in-and-of-itself a massive functional and strategic advantage. It allows the socialist Democrats to spread their propaganda, promote their policies, and cover-up their failures, all while posing an almost insurmountable obstacle towards the objective presentation of the other side. Remember, a state controlled media is straight from the mind of Karl Marx. Along this same line of thought, the socialist Democrat machine also far better understands, utilizes, and capitalizes on the “new media”—Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, other social media, etc—far better than their Republican opposition.

To top it all off, the socialist Democrat machine is also far more brutal in their political tactics and strategy than the weaker Republicans. They are far better at pandering to individual voting blocs, organizing and manipulating various voting blocs, and at playing the game of “identity politics” in general. The socialist Democrats are also far more skilled at passing new laws and policies which increase their voting blocs and numbers, as well as ensnaring and ensuring that these various blocs will continue to support them. They are also far better at using scare tactics to manipulate and motivate various voting blocs to get out to the polls.

The socialist Democrats are also far superior at playing dirty brutal politics. Whether it is attack ads, “straw man” arguments, ad hominem attacks against their opposition, or just plain old deception, they know that their allies in the media will carry their water. The socialist Democrats are also far superior and brutal in their political strategies and tactics, to marginalize and destroy their opposition, but I will go into more detail on that later.

But to top it all off, the socialist Democrats are also far superior at administrating and perpetrating massive voter and election fraud, in order to help swing close elections and ultimately ensure their victories. Once achieved, they are also far more skilled, and organizationally functional, at hiding, covering up, and down playing such fraud. Yet when all is said and done, or if things somehow fail to go their way, they can still claim and blame massive voter disenfranchisement on the weaker Republicans, to further pander, scare, and strengthen their base.

To put it bluntly—functionally speaking—the Democrats are playing in the majors, and the Republicans are playing junior varsity. The sheer political brutality and motivation of the socialist Democratic machine can be summed up in the Leninist mindset of “the ends justify the means”.

B) Ideologically

As I have written before, the progressive movement as a whole draws its strength from lockstep in both thought and ideology, as well as a unity of mass message. The socialist Democrat Party–the most powerful organization and mouthpiece within the progressive movement–is no exception to this. The socialist Democrats are often far stronger, united, and willing to fight for their ideology—however evil that ideology may be—than their far weaker Republican counterparts.

Sure there may be some alleged “moderate” or “Blue Dog” Democrats within the party, but they will only claim this distinction when it is politically advantageous or suits their best interests to do so. The only time that you will see these so-called “moderate” Democrats really distance themselves from the establishment, is when they are trying to win a close election with a public that has temporarily grown tired of the socialist Democrats pushing too far—as we witnessed in the 2014 midterms. Behind closed doors however, with the rest of the socialist Democrat establishment, these so-called moderates will toe-the-line and vote accordingly in order to advance the socialist progressive agenda and ideology.

The Republicans on the other hand, do not have this unity of ideology. Both parties may be comprised of various factions, but it is only the socialist Democrats that are truly united by their common ideology and the goal of furthering the progressive movement. The Republicans however lack this underlying and unifying ideology–following the decline of neo-conservatism as I’ll discuss later—and therefore what remains is generally weak and without core principles. Without such principles, the Republican in-fighting amongst the various factions—establishment, conservatives, Tea Party, libertarians, etc—is therefore often far more brutal and public than that of the Democrats. Far more time and energy is spent by the Republican establishment fighting to retain their own internal power, and fighting amongst themselves, than is spent fighting the socialist Democrats. The Republicans may perhaps be unified in their opposition to the socialist Dems, but as far as actually standing for something and presenting a unified set of principles that they can all rally behind, they are silent. This lack of a unifying ideology, as well as constant in-fighting, makes them far weaker than the Democrats–and I will go into more detail on this shortly.

C) Demographically

Although the country may currently still be roughly evenly divided demographically—as far as self-identified party affiliation—this ratio is very likely to change in favor of the socialist Democrats in the coming decades. Current data may seem favorable to the Republicans, but it is misleading.

Depending on the data and poll you reference, the most recent numbers appear to indicate that roughly 28% of people self-identify as Republican, 28% of people self-identify as Democrat, and roughly 41% self-identify as Independent. However, when you include the numbers of people who either self-identify or “lean” towards a certain party, the percentages are 47% Republican and 41% Democrat. These percentages change frequently—indicating the ignorance, stupidity, indecisiveness, and malleability of the American public–but have generally remained evenly split over the years.

To further complicate the matter, many polls still indicate that more Americans self-identify as conservative or moderate, as opposed to liberal. According to the most recent poll I found, 38% of Americans self-identified as conservative, 34% as moderate, and 23% as liberal. This may also seem favorable to Republicans, but again there are two important things to consider. The first is that the percentage of people who self-identify as liberal has been growing, while the number who self-identify as conservative is falling. The second–and most important thing–to remember, is that just because 72% of people self-identify as either conservative or moderate, this in no way indicates that they will vote that way. The reason behind this disconnect largely has to do with the political and historical ignorance of the general public, in that most of them have no clue what those distinctions or definitions truly even mean, or what each party even represents, or what is even in their own political best interests.

Another complication is that although there may currently be a roughly even split demographically, the socialist Democrats hold a geographical advantage. Any post-election map broken down by county will clearly indicate that although the country overwhelmingly appears to be Republican “red”, the Democrats control the large urban and populated areas. This then gives them not only a functional, organizational, and strategic advantage—as I discussed above—but also a Senatorial and Electoral College advantage as well. It also means that demographically, the socialist Democrats can eventually control and swing elections–even in a traditionally conservative state–simply by controlling the large cities and urban areas. We have already seen this in Colorado, Florida, Nevada, and even North Carolina, where just a few urban counties can swing the entire state Democrat. The socialist Democrats are currently and desperately trying to pull this tactic in Texas, which—if accomplished—would make a Republican Electoral College victory essentially impossible.

2012 Presidential Results

2012 Presidential Results

The final demographic factor that will continue to benefit the socialist Democrats is the fact that the national demographics are rapidly changing in their favor. Attitudes and acceptance of the socialist welfare state is increasing among the youth population, and even among so-called moderates as well. The socialist Democrats—and progressive movement as a whole—is also far more likely to be viewed as “hip” and “cool” by various youth and counterculture cliques. The socialist Democrats–through the use of identity politics—are also far better at uniting many disparate groups, with often very different political motivations, under the flag of progressivism and opposition to the Republicans. And finally, through the use of executive amnesty, Obama is hoping to legalize millions of illegal immigrants in the long-term goal of creating millions of new Democrat voters. It is a calculated strategy, weighing the temporary political backlash against the long-term political gain of creating a new and dependent voting bloc.

The Lesser Of Two Evils

As I stated above, I am not a Republican nor am I a supporter of the Republicans. I will agree to the point that the Republicans are not quite as bad as the socialist Democrats, but that isn’t saying much, and that statement is hardly an endorsement. The Republicans perhaps have marginally more fiscal, economic, and free-market sense than the Democrats, but again that isn’t saying much. The Republicans also may not be full-on Marxists like the socialist Democrats, but that does not mean that they are a stark bold contrast, representing true-conservative principles, like a limited constitutional government, fiscal and economic sanity, and individual-liberty. Voting Republican is certainly the lesser of two evils—in a strictly pragmatic sense—and in some cases may even be warranted, but that still does not really solve the problem. At best, it may temporarily slow the problem, but it will not eradicate or even begin to fix the problem. Not in my view humble at anyway. I have basically boiled this down to two key reasons—although there may be plenty more—some of which I briefly touched on above, but would now like to explore in detail.

The Republican Establishment: A Total Lack of Principles

Where do I begin with my contempt and criticism for the Republican establishment. If ever there was a time when the establishment of the Republican Party actually stood for true-conservative principles, it was certainly not during my lifetime, and especially not during a time in which I was politically aware. There is of course a reason for this, and like most things, it is rooted in history.

A) Historical Background

From the 1960s up until the end of the George W Bush presidency, the predominant ideology within the establishment wing of the Republican Party was neo-conservatism. Neo-conservatism began primarily as a backlash against the increasingly more radical and Marxist ideology of the New Left, which was beginning to take over the Democrat Party in the mid-1970s, and move it closer towards full-on socialism and Marxism. Therefore, many moderate and disillusioned Democrats of the day began to jump ship to the Republican Party, which began to water down any true-conservative principles in the party with a more “Democrat” and liberal approach. Although the Republican Party of the day opposed the rampant anti-Americanism and radical countercultures of the increasingly more radical and Marxist left, they began to embrace the more moderate Democrat policies on economics, spending, and centralized government.

After the Vietnam War, the modern Democrat Party became increasingly more radicalized and Marxist, as it filled its ranks with the now grown-up radicals and activists of the 60s and early 70s. Therefore, the foreign policy of the Democrat Party began to shift towards a more anti-interventionist and anti-confrontational stance, as was prevalent among the anti-war movement during Vietnam. The now neo-conservative Republicans however still maintained their belief in an aggressive foreign policy, the containment and defeat of the Soviet Union, adventurism, and the spreading of democracy around the world. Principles that would eventually come to define neo-conservatism.

As the years went on, the neo-con Republican establishment also cozied up to the religious right movement, which not only helped to influence the principles of their social policy, but also helped to create a large base of their voting bloc as well. This influence can be plainly seen in the neo-con’s anti-individual liberty stance against gay rights, as well as the anti-science stances of creationism and stem cell opposition. The partnership between neo-conservatism and the religious right created the perfect storm for the Republican Party to represent both economic, fiscal, and governmental liberalism, while at the same time embracing social conservatism–neither of which is representative of true limited-government, free-market, individual-liberty, civil society conservatism.

The height and collapse of the neo-con movement—and when the word neo-con largely became a pejorative—was the presidency of George W Bush. During the Bush administration, we saw the War on Terror, an increase in the surveillance state, an increase in government spending and centralization, the Iraq War, and the bailouts of private business. The administration was also comprised of people who would come to be synonymous with the neo-con movement as a whole—including George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Karl Rove—as well as its eventual hatred and backlash. Also, whether warranted or not, the neo-con policies of the Bush administration were largely blamed for the Great Recession of 2008. It did not matter whether this was even factually true or not, the stronger more brutal socialist Democrats, along with their allies in the media, blamed the economic recession on the policies of George Bush. The outcome of which is history, the rise of a radical Marxist in President Obama.

B) Republicans Today

The presidency of George W Bush, as well as the Great Recession, spelled the end of the neo-con movement within the Republican establishment—at least as a defining set of principles. Sure, many of the old heads within the Republican establishment are still neo-cons at heart, but many have learned from John McCain’s crushing defeat to Obama in 2008, that to publicly espouse these views is political suicide in today’s current political climate. As I said before, even the term neo-con itself has become a pejorative, and is something that the establishment Republicans want to distance themselves from politically. Yet love it or hate it, at least under the neo-conservative principles the Republicans had some kind of unifying core values. So then where does this leave them today?

The modern Republican Party—as I discussed above—has never really been a “true-conservative” principled party. By their own modern history, they have always been–and continue to be—nothing but a watered down Democrat Party, or better yet, the Democrat Party from the 50’s and early 60’s. They believe in big-government, centralized power and bureaucracy, deficit spending, government control of the economy, corporate bailouts, corporate subsidies, corporate welfare, and illegal immigration. The modern Republicans don’t oppose an all-powerful centralized government, they just want to be the ones controlling it. Even policies where they once strayed from the Democrats–such as social conservatism, crime, and drugs–they are beginning to become more moderate on as the political winds shift. This then further leaves the modern Republicans without a strong core set of defining principles following the death of the controversial neo-cons, as well as a lack of bold contrast with the current socialist Democrats, and certainly without principles grounded in true conservatism.

The problem then becomes that the Republicans are not really able to boldly stand apart from the socialist Democrats ideologically, nor are they able to “out Democrat” the Democrats on policy. If the weaker Republicans are nothing more than a token objection and opposition to the socialist Democrats, while at the same time proposing nothing but slightly more moderate versions of Democrat policies, they will not continue to regularly win. Like I said above, the Democrat’s functional, ideological, demographic, and brutality advantage will eventual destroy the modern Republicans.

C) Infighting

Perhaps the greatest—and the most unforgivable—sin of the modern Republican Party establishment, is their desire to maintain their own power internally within the party at all costs. Rather than right the ship, set a new course, or embrace conservative principles and reform the party, the establishment “old guard” is only concerned with doing whatever it takes to hold onto their own power. This desire takes on many forms, all of which is harmful to the future of the party.

The first most obvious form of this, is the lengths to which an establishment incumbent will go to destroy a more principled conservative primary opponent. We saw this blatantly on display with the likes of Thad Cochran and Mitch McConnell in the recent elections. Both of these incumbents went to great lengths to brutally slander and destroy their more conservative Tea Party primary opponents, even resorting to rather despicable tactics. Mitch McConnell—a pathetic establishment old guard soon to be the Senate majority leader—was even quoted during the election as stating that “we will crush the Tea Party”. This sick desire to maintain power at all costs, at the expense of new blood and ideas for the party, ensures that the same old tired people and ideas will likely remain. It also does almost irreparable harm to the true-conservative people and ideas that are trying to reform the party, as well as to the party itself.

When true principled and conservative candidates do get elected as Congressmen or Senators within the party, their voices, ideas, and characters are often berated and silenced by the establishment leaders in charge. I spoke of this in my last article “The Best And Brightest”. It is rather telling and sad to watch the lengths to which the establishment will go to destroy the voices and influences of true-conservatives, the Tea Party, and libertarians within the Republican Party. They will do and say anything in order to desperately cling to power, even if it means preventing the party from moving in a new direction and embracing conservative and libertarian principles, ideas, and leaders. It is sad but not at all surprising, because as I discussed above, the establishment and neo-cons within the party do not actually believe in or support true-conservative, limited-government, free-market, and individual-liberty principles. Therefore, in actuality, these tactics by the establishment stem from both a desire to maintain their own internal power, as well as a defense of their tired and twisted ideology.

The Republican Establishment: Weak, Incapable, And Unwilling To Fight

As I discussed above, because the modern Republican Party establishment lacks strong core principles—and is essentially nothing more than a watered down slightly more moderate Democrat Party—they are weak and often unwilling to fight politically. Sure, on occasion they may offer some token resistance for political theater, but behind closed doors this often disappears. The reasons for this are blatantly obvious, and it goes back to what I said above.

The first—and perhaps primary—reason why the Republican establishment rarely seems to put up a strong fight against the socialist Democrats is because deep down they tend to agree with them. They may not agree with the extreme extent to which the socialist Democrats want to go with an individual policy or law, but philosophically or ideologically speaking the establishment is not adamantly opposed to the concept. Illegal immigration is a perfect example of this. Like I said, sure they will publicly offer their mild to severe token objections in order to pander to their base, but behind closed doors they will meet secretly to try and negotiate a more moderate alternative. Very rarely will you see an outright opposition or true fight from the establishment against the Democrats, and if that rare occasion occurs, it is only because of overwhelming public opposition and pressure. Even then, behind closed doors, you will still find that the establishment is usually trying to negotiate a slightly more moderate approach to a Democrat idea or policy. I suppose it’s really no wonder though, it’s difficult to mount a true fight and opposition when your heart’s not in it and you secretly agree more with the other side.

This leads into the second reason why the establishment is unwilling to fight, and it basically comes down to political tactics and strategy. The establishment Republicans want to be liked. They want to be liked by the general public, they want to be liked by the media, and they want to be liked by the Democrats and the “inside the Beltway” Washington elite. Rather than achieving respect and support through strong, bold, principled leadership, the establishment desperately seeks respect and support through compromise, “getting along”, and “playing nice” with the Democrats. They also desperately want to be perceived as moderate and “middle of the road”—as opposed to the pejorative “far-right extremist”—and believe that by compromising and working together with the Democrats they can achieve this perception.

The establishment Republicans believe that the only way they can win elections is by becoming more “moderate” and cooperative. Like I said in my last article, the establishment assumes and takes for granted that the majority of their base will automatically support them regardless, and therefore they believe that the best way to gain additional support from the public is to appear “nice” and compromising. They also believe that this approach will be successful in garnering them new support from various other voter blocs that don’t normally vote Republican, but once again they fail to realize that they cannot “out Democrat” the Democrats, or play the identity politics game as well as them either.

The establishment genuinely believes that the public wants to see them—and will reward them—for working together and compromising with the Democrats, and reaching “across the aisle” to get work done for the American people. Of course compromise to the establishment Republicans usually consists of completely caving in to the Democrats, and sacrificing what little conservative or moderate principles that they may actually have. The Republican establishment is so concerned with being liked, as well as with the perception of working together, that they fear any kind of Washington gridlock or consequences—government shutdown—from standing what little ground they may have. They are also completely obsessed and terrified by their perception and coverage in the media, yet practically oblivious to the fact that the only fair treatment that they will ever receive from the media is when they stand unopposed to the Democrats, or completely cave in to compromise.

Of course this blatant cooperation, compromising, and “selling out” is pretty damn easy, when at best you have no strong core conservative principles of your own, and at worst you actually tend to agree and side with the Democrats ideology and policy—just to a slightly more moderate degree. This complete and utter lack of conservative principles by the establishment, or a casual “wink and nod” agreement with the Democrats, makes mounting anything other than a token “for show” opposition impossible. The establishment lacks both the will and the principles to politically stand up and fight against the socialist Democrats, yet they make every effort to brutally fight, silence, and marginalize any true conservative or libertarian voices within their party. And it is all in the false belief that “playing nice” and compromising will somehow get them ahead politically. Again, the establishment Republicans do not really ideologically oppose a strong all-powerful centralized government, they merely want to be the ones who control it, and believe that “playing nice” is the correct political strategy to achieve this.

If you were a Republican voter in the 2014 midterms, or voted Republican merely in opposition to the socialist Democrats pushing too far, and you somehow expect the Republicans to view their victory as a mandate to stand up and fight to stop the progressive socialist Democrat agenda, you will be severely disappointed. If you expect to see staunch Republican opposition to Obama’s executive amnesty and executive overreach, as well as the socialist Democrat agenda over the past 6 years, I think you will be extremely disappointed. At best—and I say that with total sarcasm—you can hope to see the Republicans compromising and reaching “across the aisle” to end the political gridlock. Perhaps I will be wrong, and will need to write another article as a correction on the matter…but I doubt it.

Democrats Are Bloodthirsty

And while the establishment Republicans desperately seek to create an atmosphere of cooperation and compromise in Washington—in a pathetic and feeble attempt at being liked—their socialist Democrat counterparts do not play the game this way. In fact, the socialist Democrats are completely polar opposite in their approach and strategy. As I have stated before, the Democrats are far more politically brutal than the weaker Republicans. They want blood—figuratively and literally speaking, depending on the progressive radical you talk to—and it all stems from the roots of their ideology.

As I have written many times before, the modern socialist Democrat Party over the years—and the progressive movement as a whole–has become increasingly Marxist in their ideology, as well as increasingly more radical in their reformist Marxist strategy and approach. The end goal of Marxism, and therefore the end goal of socialist Democrats and the progressive movement as well, is the establishment of a single-party controlled authoritarian communist state. This single-party concept is called the vanguard—or vanguardism—and it is plainly written and spelled out in the writings of Karl Marx. It is also plain to see to anyone who is willing to study the history of communism. As I have written many times, to understand Marxism is to understand the motivations, actions, and goals of the progressive socialists and Democrats.

By understanding this predominant root ideology of the modern socialist Democrat Party—Marxism—it is plainly obvious to see why they have no real intentions of compromising or “playing nice” with the Republicans. Their entire ideology is based upon the complete and utter destruction of all opposition parties, and it is that ideology which drives their political intensity and brutality. The socialist Democrats therefore would love nothing more than to achieve the complete destruction of the Republican Party, and any other political opposition, and attain the ability to govern and rule with unchecked authority and impunity.

This is ideology drives the political strategy of the socialist Democrat Party. It is their sole motivation behind their sheer political brutality towards any opposition party. This ideology prevents them from achieving any meaningful compromises with the Republicans, and any compromise that may be attained is usually at the expense of the Republicans “caving in”. The socialist Democrats are not playing the political game to “reach across the aisle” and to “get work done for the American people”, they are playing the game to annihilate their opposition. Sometimes they may push too far too fast, and incur a temporary backlash from the American public—as we saw with the 2014 midterms or Obama’s executive amnesty—but rest assured, every action they take is calculated to have the long-term effect of furthering their Marxist agenda, and consolidating their political power.

The weaker Republicans—weaker for so many different reasons as I discussed—in their current state, will never be able to fight back effectively, because they are not even fighting he same fight. They are fighting to find compromise, and the Democrats are fighting to destroy them politically. It is like the Republicans are “sparring” in a kiddie Tae Kwon Do class, and the socialist Democrats are fighting to the death in the ancient gladiator arena.


The establishment Republican Party in its current state, is without a doubt the weaker of the two major parties. It is weaker in a functional, ideological, and demographic sense, as well as weaker in sheer political brutality. Do not be fooled or relieved by the outcome of the 2014 mid-terms—because these results are not indicative of the political tides changing or pendulum swinging back right—and especially do not get your hopes up in the expectation that the Republicans will actually stand up and fight the Democrat’s Marxist agenda.

The establishment Republicans rarely display an intensity or desire to fight the Democrats, because ultimately their ideologies are somewhat similar, perhaps just slightly more moderate. They do not necessarily oppose an all-powerful centralized government, they just want to be the ones to control it. History has shown us that the modern Republican Party is comprised of, and influenced by, many former moderate Democrats who fled the increasingly radical socialist Democrat Party in the 70s. Therefore, the establishment Republicans lack the core conservative principles to fight the Democrats ideologically, and they lack a strong strategy to fight them politically, choosing instead to “play nice”.

Sadly, the Republican Party in its current state is not the party of true-conservatism, nor should it be the home to any true-conservatives. The establishment Republicans do not represent or fight for true-conservative values, such as a limited constitutional government, free-markets and economic liberty, fiscal conservatism, the civil society, and above all individual-liberty. In fact it is quite often the opposite, in that the establishment Republicans devote more time, energy, and intensity fighting, silencing, marginalizing, and destroying any true conservative, Tea Party, or libertarian voices within the party, in a desperate attempt to maintain their own internal power. This is will continue to prevent the Republican Party from ever becoming a true-conservative party, and will either lead to its continuation as the more moderate Democrat Party, or its eventual marginalization or destruction.

Sure, in a two party system the Republicans are the lesser of two evils, but what has that ultimately accomplished. The country under both parties still continues its march towards an all-powerful socialist authoritarian state. In the extremely likely event that the Republican Party will never reform and embrace true conservatism, perhaps conservative energy is then best spent supporting actual 3rd party conservative options. Bleed your support, and allow the weaker Republican Party to wither away and die—if they are complicit or unwilling to fight the authoritarian tide—and perhaps a true-conservative phoenix can rise from their ashes. The authoritarian socialist future looks rather bleak, and things will get a hell of a lot worse before they get better, but maybe—just maybe—there will be a spark in the darkness.

© 2014 By AB Nihilist, All Rights Reserved


This entry was posted in Culture, Society, And Political Theory. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.