Populism, Then and Now

A while back, I put up a blog post dealing with populism, and pointing out that the populist mantle has now been assumed by both the left and the right – although the term “populist” seems, most of the time, to be restricted to descriptions of the right, and not necessarily complimentary. You can find the blog post here: https://zarathustrasoldman.blogspot.com/2017/06/whose-populism-is-it-anyway.html

But what is populism? Rather than get into poly-sci theory, because most populists aren't theoreticians, let's just say that “populism” is what happens when a large portion of the citizenry starts feeling left out. Left out, neglected, ignored... mocked and derided... exploited... persecuted, even. This is clearly what energized Trump's “base” during the 2016 campaign, and what continues to energize his supporters. They basically felt that the people in charge – the ruling elite – had written them off, forgotten them, chosen to ignore them... and they were perfectly correct. But at the same time, there was an equally malcontent group on the left, including supporters of Bernie Sanders, who felt pretty much the same way. But how can this be? Part of the answer – as we see more clearly than ever with the results of the Democratic primaries – is that the mainstream, or “moderate”, Democrats had no more use for the true radicals – the “democratic socialists” – than did the conservatives. In politics, and especially with our one-party system that masquerades as a two-party system, the worst thing you can do is rock the boat. Things as they stand are the result of years – decades! – of fine-tuning... of a balancing act that puts the Wallendas to shame. Most of the opposition and controversy between the Republicans and Democrats is nothing more than a kabuki dance to gull the citizenry into thinking there is Something Really Important going on... something fraught with principles, morals, firmly-held beliefs. Whereas in practice, after putting on a farce on the floors of Congress our elected representatives retire to the nearest watering hole and slap each other on the back with cries of “Good show!” and “We fooled 'em again!” and so on.

But this is precisely what populists of either the left or the right are protesting. They are tired of business as usual... of every election resulting in the new boss being just like the old boss... and mainly of feeling chronically out of the loop, exploited, taken for granted, overtaxed and underrepresented. So when this feeling reaches critical mass – which it does roughly once in every generation – you wind up with a “populist” movement of some sort.

This phenomenon could be traced, in American history, all the way back to the Revolution, except that in that case it was more like the landowning elite enlisting the aid of the common people to make good their decision to split off from England. Anything that is birthed among the elite can hardly be termed populism in the strict sense. Many years later, we had the Progressive movement, which had some of the markers of populism, except that this time it was an invention of the intellectual, humanist elite – and its flaws were brought out in sharp relief when Woodrow Wilson – a progressive of the first order – got us into World War I and then became a dictator on the domestic front. (So much for intellectual college professors, especially those of the Ivy League persuasion.)

But the first blush of populism in our history, unless you include the Whiskey Rebellion, was the movement called Jacksonian Democracy. And then, just as now, “the people” rose up in protest that the country was being run by an elite (made up of wealthy landowners, bankers, merchants, transportation moguls, and the like) for their own benefit. And while the era of Jacksonian Democracy may not have lasted intact for very long, it set a tone, and the dynamics of populism were established to appear again and again (while being suppressed at other times) right up to the present day. One can talk about historical cycles, thesis-antithesis-synthesis, etc., and the history of populism fits the model.

The question about populism as a movement, or cultural meme, is not why it arises from one generation to the next – that's obvious -- but why it fades – why it seems to go away. One reason is that other events intervene – either accidentally or by intention – and war is a prime example. The Progressive Era came to a screeching halt when we got into World War I – ironic, since going "over there" and fighting in a war that should never have started in the first place was Wilson's idea, and he was a died-in-the-wool progressive, as I mentioned above. The New Deal, likewise, had to be put on hold when World War II broke out. (Some will say that the New Deal ended with World War II, but all you have to do is wander along the Mall in D.C. and gaze at all of the New Deal-era government buildings, which are still intact and which house the very same agencies that were established in the 1930s by FDR. And some of these agencies and programs were only established on an “emergency” basis in order to deal with the Depression. So why are they still gobbling up billions of dollars each year 80+ years later? Don't ask...) The Great Society – not a grass-roots movement by any means, but certainly designed to appeal to populist sentiments – hit an iceberg called Vietnam. And so on. This is one of the great ironies of America – the greatest, perhaps. Our ideational founding set the stage for ever more “progressive” domestic policies, but at the same time planted the seed of empire building. It's the old “guns vs. butter” question, and at any given time we have to choose, because we can't have both – not in abundance, even by increasing the national debt to stratospheric levels. War may be “the health of the state”, but it's the death of all economic sectors not directly involved in supporting the war effort. And on those rare occasions when a war ends and prosperity breaks out, we soon become restless and start looking for another one to either initiate or get involved in. We are – let's face it – a warlike people, and we have to accept the consequences (either that or engage in massive denial, which is the more common response). We marvel at the economic and social achievements of countries in Northern and Western Europe, and wonder – if they can do it, why can't we? Well... they don't stagger around with the heavy chains of perpetual war hanging from their shoulders, and they're no longer spending their wealth establishing, maintaining, or defending empires. They might even have learned a lesson from World War II; who knows? In any case they've managed to avoid pretty much any serious direct involvement in wars ever since (with the exception of France, if you want to talk about Algeria and Indochina), whereas we have been on a war footing the whole time, and have, since 9-11, explicitly adopted a perpetual war policy (one of the few things both the major parties can agree on). (Ironically, we spend money on military preparedness so the Europeans don't have to. Any questions on who actually won that war?)

To return to the populism thread – another major instance of genuine, up-from-the-grass-roots populism was the response to the Great Depression and the enthusiastic support for the New Deal by the “forgotten man”. Even then, there were plenty of “agents of change” stirring up the citizenry – said agents being, in many cases, real agents, i.e. of Stalin and the Soviets. But it was populism in that the people found a voice, and applied it in a political way, and the system responded – perhaps more readily then than at any time since. (It's important to remember that capitalism – however defined – was in severe disfavor at that time, and that it was widely felt that the future lay with some form of socialism. The leading contenders were Soviet-style socialism, AKA communism; German-style socialism, AKA Nazism; and American-style socialism, AKA the New Deal. Make no mistake – World War II was not about capitalism vs. anything else, it was about which form of socialism would emerge triumphant. And since both we and the Soviets were on the winning side, it had to take 45 more years before a victor emerged from the Cold war, namely us – but by that time socialism had become controversial, and not something to simply be accepted without question.)

Fast forward to the 1960s. The hippie/anti-war/anti-draft movement had a populist flavor, but it had a limited agenda and was also the province of a fairly narrow age group (albeit under the considerable influence of left-wing academicians both here and abroad, and undoubtedly aided by some “dark money” from the Soviet Union). Plus, the establishment at that time was pretty much united behind the war, from the conservatives (American empire, and war is good for business) to the liberals (since it was started by JFK, a liberal icon, and escalated by LBJ, hardly an icon but nonetheless a hero when it came to domestic policy). (If you want further proof, look at what happened to the anti-war Democratic candidates in 1968.) If the only people out on the streets protesting are “dirty, drug-crazed hippies” and a few wild-haired professors, it's not going to impress anyone. I think in the long run the cultural impact of the 60s was much greater than the political impact, especially when it comes to foreign policy. The culture war was won by the anti-establishment types, but the foreign policy chickens haven't yet come home to roost. (Some will contend that 9-11 was a major piece of push-back, but that's assuming the establishment narrative is true, and really, what are the chances?)

But at the same time – actually a bit earlier – we had the Goldwater campaign, which can be seen as the very first blush of conservative populism, i.e. conservatism not limited to polysyllabic eggheads like William F. Buckley Jr. Goldwater was, as we all know, crushed and ground into fine powder by the LBJ machine, the media, and all of the other usual suspects that are still on the front lines today. But he paved the way in a sense – at least making it semi-respectable to be a home-grown conservative without an array of think-tank appointments and framed advanced degrees hanging on the wall.

But – you might ask – why was this significant? Why then? Wasn't the country as a whole still fairly conservative in its thinking at that time? And it was, compared to now. But the culture war had already shifted into a higher gear... the lid of the cultural Pandora's Box had been lifted just a crack... and people were starting to be afraid that “their” country – the one they had grown up in and were used to – was under assault. And, lest we forget, the war in Vietnam was getting off the ground at that point, and the civil rights movement was in high gear, and so the cultural fault lines were starting to stand out in sharp relief. All of a sudden it was the young vs. the old, conservative vs. liberal, black vs. white, male vs. female, freedom (however defined) vs. liberty (however defined), and so on. So Goldwater represented a return to that which was old and reliable and secure – to a nostalgic, sepia-tinted time that may never have existed, but which had great power as an icon. It was the first reaction, in other words, of people who had always taken things for granted, but who now saw the revolution coming over the hill. So while the left at that time claimed to represent “the people”, the populist conservative movement also claimed to represent “the people”. And they were both right; the difference was in their constituencies. (And please note, in that case as in all cases each side claims to represent the real people as opposed to the other side, which is made up of – pick as many as you like – reactionaries, collaborators, socialists, communists, religious fanatics, drug and/or sex addicts, traitors, fools, the gullible, the easily-persuaded, anti-intellectuals, intellectuals, people who are pro-science, people who are anti-science, etc. etc.)

So populism suffered a stunning blow in 1964, but it didn't go away. It returned in full force in 1980 with Reagan's election, and yes, he won at least in part due to Carter's towering incompetence, but it was also because the grass roots from the Goldwater debacle arose, bloodied but unbowed, to give it another try. And they felt duly rewarded for their efforts – so much so that they were willing to support George H. W. Bush in 1988, even though he was a charter member of the ruling elite with nary a populist bone in his body. Then we had Clinton's “vacation from history” when populism took a vacation as well because the 8-year soap opera that was the Clinton administration was much more interesting... and then we had the Bush II administration which was based entirely on a single event, namely 9-11... but then populism returned on the other side with Obama. And it was the blatant triumphalism of Obama and his supporters that paved the way for Trump – action, reaction. But at the same time, there were people for whom Obama's brand of liberalism wasn't good enough, and they became Bernie supporters. Even when Bernie caved to Hillary in 2016, they remained loyal, and when he caved again to Biden, well... we'll see how that plays out at the Democratic convention. (My question is, will Antifa be there, and if so, whose side will they be on?) Right now the Bernie-ites are licking their wounds, but they may yet turn the 2020 convention into the 1968 convention redux, which would at least be mildly amusing before we slouch into the brain-dead Biden era.

When it comes to populist movements – of which there have been plenty, as we see – it's always tempting to assign scores, or ratings, as to which ones were more radical, i.e. anti-mainstream and anti-establishment, which ones lasted the longest, and which ones had greater impact. It strikes me that we're still “enjoying” (if that is the word) the fruits of Progressivism 100 years later – including, I might add, the fruits of empire, and make no mistake, these are intimately linked. The New Deal expanded government far beyond the wildest dreams of the Progressives, and established, once and for all, the Deep State, which is still very much with us and getting bigger every day. In fact, it has been argued that the Deep State has, for all intents and purposes, supplanted the presidency, and I believe this is true in many respects. But it also depends on their relationship at the time. Obama, in addition to being The Anointed One and being crowned king, was also the head of the Deep State, and is even now considered its head emeritus. Trump, on the other hand, has been at war with the Deep State ever since he announced his candidacy. But in a sense this supports the argument. If, in Obama's case, the presidency and the Deep State were one and the same, then you clearly don't need both. And if, in Trump's case, the presidency and the Deep State don't overlap to the slightest degree, then it makes more sense to get rid of one and keep the other. A house divided against itself cannot stand, etc.

After that brief – ahem! – introduction, we come up to the present day, when an interesting phenomenon is taking place. We have the pandemic, and the government's reaction to it, which is to basically shut down the entire economy until further notice. And then we have the reaction to that. Now, the latter reaction is a spontaneous, grass-roots movement if anything ever was. There is no charismatic leader, no money behind it (How could there be? Everyone's out of work.), and coverage by the mainstream media is entirely negative, and the social media are censoring all attempts to organize protests and start petitions. You might say it has all the earmarks of an underground movement except that it's just the opposite – it's above ground and out in the streets. What they're objecting to is that those in charge want them to stay underground (or behind closed doors). But at the same time there's a very strong, and vocal, social movement in favor of the restrictions, and I don't think they're all working for the government; they're grass-roots as well, and – I'm sure – convinced that what they're doing (admonishing, enforcing, tattling) is what's good for the community. It is, if you will, a civil war which is being fought on Facebook and Twitter. (Better that than with guns and cannons, I guess.)

There are, of course – as with everything else these days – political correlates. The obedient ones tend to be liberal and authoritarian, and cheering for Fauci and Birx, and whatever they consider to be “science”. The rebels tend to be conservative and on the side of Trump. So the fact that Trump and his brain trust appear on the same stage for hours every evening has to be causing a bit of cognitive dissonance whiplash.

The one thing that the two sides in the current controversy have in common is fear – and fear stoked by, no surprise, the government and the media. One side is scared to death of dying, and the other is scared to death of the spectre of unemployment and poverty. Some in government (at all levels) are trying to pull off a balancing act (the Wallendas again) and come up with a formula that will satisfy both sides, but I think this is an exercise in futility. If they go all in for health and safety, they're going to be blamed when the Second Great Depression hits, and if they go all in for the economy, they're going to be blamed every time someone sees a hearse rolling down the street. So they can't win, and I wouldn't want to be in their shoes for all the tea in China. But hey, they campaigned for this job, they wanted it in the worst way, and sure enough they got it in the worst way.

If you want to talk about Trump himself, history will remember him primarily as the guy who was in office when everything changed. There will be plenty of blame and credit to go around, but at least the entire impeachment drive will fade into oblivion by comparison, and rather than finish out his time as a lame duck Trump will be able to think of himself as a brand-new kind of war president, and that may convince him that it was all worthwhile. I mean, who knows, he may even get his face on a stamp some day; now that would be something!

Conspiracies on Parade

This is a tough time to be a conspiracy theorist. And it's not because there aren't plenty of conspiracy theories to go around – on the contrary! They multiply and proliferate on a daily basis. They spill out, unimpeded, from the print media, TV, radio, the Internet, social media, and pretty much anyone you might encounter on the street (keeping a safe distance, of course). No, the problem is more about which theory to choose, or which cluster of theories to choose, and which ones to reject, and where to assign various theories according to perceived probability. Besides which, there don't seem to be any “leading” theories – ones that are getting the lion's share of the votes. While not all are perceived as equally probable, it seems like there is an unusually high number of valid contenders – kind of like the Democratic field when the 2020 race began. (We have yet to identify the Joe Biden of conspiracy theories, in other words.)

Of course, any situation that generates conspiracy theories also features the establishment narrative, also known as “the official finding”. This is, traditionally, something along the lines of “stuff happens”. In other words, there are accidents, coincidences, and random events that make up most of existence, and this is just another one of them. The most they will ever allow for is a single narrative, which is striking in its simplicity. For example, the “lone nut with a gun” narrative has been used so many times that it has become a meme, or a verbal tic. But curiously, the “lone nut with a gun” explanation is always accompanied by a frantic search for a “motive”. It never occurs to anyone that the premise (lone nut) renders any search for a motive futile. The very concept of a “lone nut” implies that there may not be a motive – at least not one that any sane person can understand. And I think on some level they (officialdom) know this, but they also know that people are looking for something they can understand and grasp on to, and which will provide that perennial will-o-the-wisp known as “closure”, which also ranks high on the list of verbal tics of our time. And “closure” is another word for “all is well”, and Big Brother is in control, and you can plug your thumb back in your mouth and space out. Brutal, but true. (Ever notice how network news programs always end with some feel-good, “human interest” story? That's the opiate that is intended to neutralize the crazy juice you've been force-fed for the preceding 55 minutes. Create fear, provide relief. Rinse and repeat. It's a time-honored method, and it works just as well now as it ever did. The fact that in the long run it creates chronic anxiety and paranoia in the public mind, and a longing for protection by Big Brother, is... well, how about totally intentional?)

And yet in this case, even the establishment narrative looks shaky. We all agree that it started in China, right? But did it start in a biological research laboratory or in a market that sells bat soup? Or pangolins? Or bat soup with a side order of pangolins? Or pangolin soup with a side order of bats? (And for that matter, was the laboratory studying viruses for public health reasons, or for biological warfare reasons? Or for both offensive and defensive purposes, not unlike comparable facilities elsewhere?) And then we have the interesting phenomenon of the media vs. the Trump administration when it comes to policies and actions vis-a-vis the corona virus. For the mainstream media, anything Trump is for they will be against, without exception. They will oppose his every action and every statement – his every thought, every gesture, every choice of necktie. So what happens when he assembles his corona virus team in front of the press every evening? When he and his superstars Fauci and Birx seem to be on the same page, Fauci and Birx are, according to the media, stooges, sell-outs, hacks, yes men (and women), sock puppets, etc. On alternate days, when there appears to be a rift between Trump and his brain trust, the media present them as saints! Victims! Whistle blowers! Martyrs! Scientists! And so on. So much for the unshakable reverence for “science” that the media always claim to have.

So what we have is an establishment narrative that looks anything but firm and well-grounded. It makes the narratives for the JFK assassination and 9-11 look downright Biblical – etched in granite! (And all the “conspiracy theories” in those cases are still scratching at the back door, begging to be let in.)

So... having set the stage, let's delve into some of the many conspiracy theories that festoon the airwaves and everyday conversation at this point (and these may not be mutually exclusive):

• Yes, it originated in China, but it was no accident. It was an intentional biological attack on the U.S. in retaliation for economic and trade sanctions, our position on Taiwan, our positions on currency manipulation, intellectual property, etc. As such, it was intended to be a “shot off our bow”, i.e. get out of our face or else (it could be worse).
• Variation 1: It was a probe – a test case – to see how effective biological warfare would be, what our response would be, etc. Corona was never intended to be the ultimate weapon, in other words; that's still under development.
• Variation 2: The intention was not only near-term but long-term. By bringing the U.S. to its knees economically, China would be assuring its ascent to the position of leading economic power on the planet – and, soon to follow, leading military power.
• Variation 3: The focus was on causing major damage to our military, which has turned out (no surprise, if you know anything about history) to be particularly vulnerable to viral infections and epidemics. If you can sap the strength of the U.S. military, and get it to stand down, it's much easier for China to continue its high jinks in the South China Sea unimpeded. (If the military was the prime target, then the civilian population counts only as “collateral damage” – something that aggressors are always willing to accept.)
• Footnote: China has decided that a direct military confrontation with the U.S. would be costly, and they might not even win. So they had to come up with something completely different (if not totally unexpected – after all, we've been studying the biological warfare issue since before World War II).
• It was a false flag operation on the part of the globalists and their collaborators in the U.S. (including no small portion of the Deep State). See that China gets the blame, while in fact they are creating a crisis in order to (1) cut the U.S. down to size, and (2) increase the power of central government exponentially, which will, in turn, (3) increase the power of the globalist elite once they consolidate their control over the U.S. government, which will, at that point, become a mere proxy or shadow government for the globalist empire, the way most Western European governments already are.
• It was cooked up by the vaccination industry and lobby in order to demonstrate, once and for all, that vaccination is the only way to survive, and that vaccinations for every conceivable ailment, up to and including toenail fungus, should be mandated by the government, and anyone who objects should be arrested and jailed because their reckless ideas threaten public health.
• It was a false flag operation on the part of our own Deep State, which seeks (1) a death blow to the Trump administration, because all other efforts have failed; and (2) an exponential increase in the power and reach of the Deep State, with the ultimate goal of complete control of the citizenry, including monitoring all movements, transactions, and social contacts. (The totalitarian dream, in other words.)
• It was a false flag operation on the part of our economic “planners”, political ideologues, “agents of change”, and the ruling elite. Getting rid of Trump is necessary, but it's only a first step. The main goal is to deliver the final death blow to the American middle class, and finally achieve what the elites have been dreaming of for generations – namely, a slave state made up of serfs and rulers, with the middle class eliminated as an economic and political factor. Note that:
  • The titans of big business have no problem at all with the shutdown – in fact, they're urging Trump to keep it going indefinitely. That should be a clue right there. And with their cash reserves, they can weather just about anything while they wait for their “stimulus” check from the Treasury Department.
  • The ruling elite and the working classes have recently discovered a common cause in demonizing the middle class and gradually eroding its resources and influence. This is exemplified in the makeup of the Democratic Party.
  • The economic shutdown is having a much more severe effect on the middle class – in terms of employment, income, and small business – than on big business (an example being the DJIA, which took a major hit but is still alive and well, because it represents big business, which has sufficient reserves to ride this out, whereas small businesses are dropping like flies and unlikely to recover). (It's also possible that the scheme included letting the Dow take a hit as a cover – “See, we're suffering too”, etc. But see what recovers first when this is over with.)
  • Footnote 1: Why is the middle class so despised and persecuted? (And why, for that matter, has this process been going on ever since the Progressive Era, although it has become much more blatant over the last 50 years?) For one thing, it tends to be, and vote, conservatively-- especially if you're talking about people in agriculture, small business, and the skilled trades. People who do meaningful work that has a well-defined product, and people with ties to the land, are naturally more conservative. It's the paper traders and parasites who tend toward the liberal side.
  • Footnote 2: What the people in charge of this project intend is for small business to vanish, and for all of those enterprises to be absorbed into vast industrial and commercial cartels which will eventually become synonymous with the State. Note that (1) this process is already underway, with predatory large businesses gobbling up small businesses at a rapid rate, and turning those business owners into franchisees at best, and wage slaves at worst; and (2) what we call “crony capitalism” will, in its ultimate state of evolution, become either business being a wholly-owned subsidiarity of the State, or vice versa. This will be a distinction without a difference. Whether those in charge are called CEOs or commissars will make no difference to the disenfranchised citizenry.
  • Footnote 3: But how does a “modern, industrialized society” function without a middle class? We've had that discussion before. The answer is that it doesn't – not in the way we're used to. But the Soviet Union managed to pull it off for many decades. (China, on the other hand, was stuck in the stone age until they decided to try a bit of free enterprise and property rights. And apparently it worked.)

And finally...

• It was a deal worked out between China – birth-control experts extraordinaire – and the ZPG cartel, to reduce populations worldwide because free and unrestricted abortion has failed to do the job (as has war).
• It was an act of sabotage by the “greens” and eco-fanatics, who are already celebrating the improvement in air quality as the result of restrictions on commerce and travel.

So... and this just scratches the surface (and I'm not going to assign a probability value to any of the above – consider that an exercise you can perform on your own). Stay tuned for many more, and many more outlandish (or maybe not) theories. (What's crazy one day is overtaken by reality the next. Then we have to redefine “crazy” – until the next day.)

So what we wind up with is a cafeteria of sorts (or a Chinese menu, appropriately enough) – pick two, pick three, and go to town. The thing is, these theories are all possible – quite possible, in fact, although I doubt if very many would succeed in isolation. In a state of symbiosis they could work quite well. They are not out of la-la land, they don't involve flying saucers or tinfoil hats or even 5G. They could happen because things like this have happened, more than once down through history (our own and that of the world in general).

It's also true that, regardless of how this all got started, there are plenty of people willing and able to take advantage – to the extent that it might be possible to add conspiracies, layer upon layer, as more people and entities pile on. So we might wind up with a single initial cause, but many conspirators after the fact. Is having dreamed something like this up worse than taking advantage of it once it's going full speed? To answer that you'd have to probe the minds of everyone involved, and who wants that job? Similar questions can be asked about any man-made catastrophe down through history. Are the people who lit the fuse worse than the exploiters? Well, if it hadn't been for the original mad geniuses, the exploiters would have had nothing to exploit, right? But being who they are, they would have found something else in due course. Plus, in some cases it might all have fizzled except for the people who came along and gave it more energy – a booster shot, if you will. This has been claimed for the Great Depression, for example, and it's almost certainly true of the Great Recession. Even in the present case, there is so much self-serving going on that it's hard not to find the people doing it guilty, regardless of what we believe about initial causes. There are slickee boys around every corner, and on every Internet page, looking to make a buck from other people's misery – 'twas ever thus.

But a word of caution is apropos here. It's one thing to theorize as to how something came to be, who cooked it up, etc. And it's one thing to theorize as to what they expected to gain from the event. (The eternal question, “Cui bono?” is always relevant, and no, it's not always about the money, but that's usually the first place one should look, to be closely followed by power.) But when one views any major event in retrospect, and sees who and what really benefited, it would be a mistake to assume that that was always the motivating force, and that those who benefited were in on it from the start. For example, plenty of people benefited from the events of 9-11. Does that mean they were all in on it? Maybe their benefits were accidental – something the people who really were in on it allowed to happen, partly as a cover and partly because it was too small a matter to be concerned with. If a hedge fund manager makes a killing in the stock market by devious means, and some day trader makes a killing because he happened to have a portfolio very similar to that of the manager, that doesn't mean the day trader was in on the scheme. Likewise, there will be many people who will benefit from the current crisis, and we shouldn't hold them accountable without further evidence. On the other hand, some of the conspirators may actually wind up losing, but that does nothing to lessen their guilt.

I should add that – in line with the fragmented establishment narrative – public confidence in the government's pronouncements seems to be at an all-time low. (Who knows, maybe conspiracy theorists will someday be in the majority!) This is attributable to the Trump Effect to some degree, i.e. to the idea that some people would trust the government if Trump weren't nominally in charge of it, and some people would trust Trump but not the government in general. But regardless of the reasons, this newfound skepticism can only be a good thing. The ruling elite has been blowing smoke up our butts for generations, with the full cooperation of the mainstream media, and if it's time for a reckoning, this would be a good place to start. Part of it, of course, involves skepticism regarding “experts”, and people who rely on “models”, and of course this can run into the opposite extreme, namely that of anti-science. So as with any other historical process that can be characterized by thesis/antithesis/synthesis, the present process may yield up a favorable and valid middle ground, where the “experts” are no longer worshiped without question, but the citizenry are not treated like a bunch of idiots and retards either.

At this point in history, as omnipresent and powerful as the ruling elite is, I don't believe that they have yet acquired total control, by which I mean total control. We have not yet become a people's republic (although a lot of people are starting to think they're inmates in some vast prison camp, and it's hard to blame them). I think the current crisis is a major step in that direction – perhaps the biggest single step since the Depression – but total control? It would be like having total control of the weather. There are just too many variables... the system is too complex, and there are too many random factors. And besides, you have human nature, which is notoriously fickle, cupidic, irrational, and subject to whims, crazes, fads, panics, and hysteria. (And American human nature is especially that way, as we see on a daily basis.) Every time a totalitarian regime has attempted to remake mankind, it has failed – we had the Master Race, the New Soviet Man, and all of the various lunatic schemes of Chairman Mao and his acolytes in places like Cambodia. All failures, and spectacular ones at that. Why should this be any different? We are feeling the cold, heartless hand of totalitarianism in our midst and in our daily lives at this point, but at the same time the Regime is getting a lot of push-back. People are cooperating up to a point, but then turning around and saying “Enough! We're not taking it any more!” They are spilling out onto the streets and highways in protest, and to hell with “sheltering in place”. This, to me, is an encouraging sign. Other peoples, at other times, have resorted to sabotage, insurrection, revolution, and so on; I don't think we're anywhere near that point as yet. But if the degree of oppression, and its degree of apparent arbitrariness, increases, we may see signs. Right now, the “vibe” I'm picking up is similar to the “feeling tone” of people who have to pay income and property taxes, or obey traffic laws. They gripe and mutter, but they do it – grudgingly and with occasional glimpses of dark humor. The elite have to think long and hard before they assume that if people are basically cooperative now they will remain so if the ante is raised. There is a point at which any people – any society – will rebel, and turn on its masters. And this varies from one society to another. In Cambodia half the population had to be exterminated by the other half before people decided they'd had enough. Things were slightly less severe in Mao's China and in the Soviet Union, but the dynamics were similar. Right now we seem to be at the tipping point – either we capitulate to increased control, or we fight back. And fighting back will not be without cost; it never is. “There will be blood”, as the saying goes. What comes out at the end is anybody's guess, but whatever it is will both confirm and debunk conspiracy theories. Many will fall by the wayside and others will rise to greater prominence (those Democratic primaries again!). Those that survive will serve as a conceptual template for the future, and those that don't will nonetheless be stored up in the event of future needs, like 3-piece suits. There is, after all, always a future – maybe not the one we would like, but a future nonetheless. And the chances are that it will continue to be inhabited by flesh-and-blood people, not just by bats and pangolins.

There will be many winners and losers who will come out of this episode – some according to plan and some according to accident, and some with what one might call karma (good or bad). It's going to be very interesting to see how it all falls out – even though the process may take years or even decades – and how it impacts the future of this nation and society.

Life Before Trump

We are all so mesmerized these days by the events unfolding before our eyes that we find it hard to remember, or even imagine, that there was any time before the Trump Era – before that fateful ride down the escalator. But that time did exist, and it paved the way, in ways that are only now starting to be revealed, for not only current events but for a long time to come – possibly right up the end of the United States as a republic. (Note that I said “as a republic”, not necessarily the end of the United States. I can imagine – as many others apparently can – a time when there will be a country called the United States, but it will no longer be a republic, or a democracy, or anything else resembling those concepts. Many people, in fact, believe that we've already reached that point – or did reach it, years or even decades ago. But that's too broad a topic for the present, so I will press on.)

Consider, for a moment, what has already been revealed not only by numerous investigations and in numerous reports, but also (wittingly or otherwise) by the media, as well as by our own eyes and ears. The opposition against Trump and his administration did not appear overnight like some gigantic fungus in the depths of the forest. The groundwork had been laid for a long time, although the process did accelerate considerably under the last administration. One can argue all day and into the night about the when, the why, and the who, but the hard fact is that the State Department, the FBI, the intelligence community, and the military had been thoroughly politicized prior to the start of the 2016 campaign. Government agencies and entities that, in order to function as originally intended, should be as apolitical as possible had been packed with people loyal to the liberal/progressive program, to the Democrats, most recently to the Obama administration, and – above all – to the globalists and globalism. Call it preemptive... call it “insurance”... whatever, the point is that the dice were already loaded in favor of Hillary Clinton (not least, as became known, by the Democratic Party) and against whomever the Republicans managed to nominate. And the most casual survey of the political landscape at that time would have assured anyone on the liberal/Democratic/progressive side that there was no one out there with any chance of beating Hillary. So the final touches – the politicization of those few parts of the government that had not already been politicized by prior administrations was not just about getting Hillary elected; it was a way of policing up the battlefield... consolidating... establishing a future groundwork or structure – a way of solidifying the Deep State in such a thorough way that it could never be defeated or seriously threatened.

So the Deep State was already in place, and politicized, and monolithic on June 16, 2015 – secure in the knowledge that everything was under control, that another one of their own would soon be president, and that there would be a seamless transition between the Obama and Clinton II administrations.

But it goes deeper than that. The solidification of the Deep State was intended to defeat any future Republican (not to mention third-party) candidate for the presidency – and to help defeat Republican candidates for lesser offices as well. And this is not to say that old-fashioned chicanery was no longer in the toolbox; there would always be (as we saw in liberal strongholds like Florida and California) attempts to steal votes, suppress opposition votes, create favorable votes out of thin air – all the old tricks. And the Ministry of Propaganda (AKA the mainstream media) would be running at full speed as well, as would other “agents of influence” like the “entertainment” industry, academia, and social media. (Please remember that the totalitarian impulse is not compatible with close races. Overkill is the method of choice, and total defeat of the opposition is the goal.)

And then we have the state of the Republican Party at the time, which was manifesting all of its least savory traits – passivity, lack of energy, lack of charisma, lack of principles, being easily intimidated and cowed, and generally unable to come up with anything in the way of arguments other than “we're almost as compassionate as the Democrats”. So the Obama administration ran roughshod over the Republicans in an overt, public fashion, and also set up a structure – an insurance policy like unto none before – that would keep the Republicans out of the White House forever. They were winning on both overt and covert levels, in other words... and all was well, until...

Until the fateful escalator ride. And this Trump guy was clearly not just another candidate – another lukewarm body spilling out of the Republican clown car. And enough people in the Obama administration noticed this and realized that, to quote Chris Berman, “He! Could! Go! All! The! Way!” So the structures and people who were already in place to act as insurance, and as agents of gradual change, went into instant overdrive – All hands on deck! – Condition red! – and everything that has happened since then is the result. And it wasn't just that Trump was a Republican (albeit the least typical Republican ever, but he did run on their ticket for lack of a more viable option – not caring to repeat Ross Perot's mistake), but that he came right out and challenged the Deep State (although few called it that at the time) and its collaborators and facilitators in and out of government. In other words, he challenged the Establishment – the ruling elite – the status quo – pretty much everybody who was anybody. And yes, it was, and remains, an “existential threat” as long as he's in office, which is why the effort to get rid of him has not flagged. They have too much to lose – everything to lose, in fact, since political power is the be-all and end-all of their existence. Some people can take or leave politics, but not these people; for them it's like air, water, sustenance, and whole blood rolled into one; it's their life force, without which they would perish.

So... anyone who thinks the Deep State erupted out of nothing and out of nowhere, somehow magically appearing, full-blown, on Escalator Day, is mistaken. It was there, it was fully formed, armed and ready. The networks were in place, as were the power structures and the principal actors. But it was expecting to operate, as it had in the past, in a subversive, subtle fashion – not in a way so obvious and blatant that the most feeble-minded among the electorate could detect it. But Trump changed all that. He forced their hand, and over the ensuing 4 ½ years much of the weaponry, many of the tricks, much of the corruption and deceit has been exposed – partly voluntarily but mostly involuntarily. And there is more to come! And yet – amazingly enough – the world would know nothing of this if Hillary Clinton had been elected in 2016. It would all be there, fully operational, but entirely hidden. But as things stand, the denizens of the Deep State have, out of sheer necessity, appeared by the score before Congressional committees, have stood up and proudly listed their credentials and achievements, and have admitted, without the slightest hint of shame, regret, or self-doubt, that each of them is a single cell of a gigantic organism, and that organism is the power center – the only real power center – in the government – a fourth branch, in effect, compared to which the three branches we're all familiar with are a sham and a facade. They have made it abundantly clear that when it comes to a question of their programs, attitudes, and opinions vs. those of the president who is their nominal boss, it is their way or the highway (for Trump, in this case). They are, after all, the experts... they have the experience, the training, the networks, and the class consciousness necessary to run the country, and Donald Trump does not. (And, in fact, no president does, including Democrats.)

And it's this realization, more than anything else, that has eroded “trust in government” to the point where it no longer exists among significant portions of the citizenry. And this should be troubling, given our pretensions to honest, open, and above-board government... to democracy (however defined)... to “a government of, by, and for the people”. Now we see what we may have just suspected up until now (and yes, that includes “conspiracy theories” cherished by “right-wing nuts”) -- that there are “the people”, and there is government – but that the power relationship only goes in one direction – that we are no longer led by leaders, but ruled by rulers. And some, having a historical perspective and lacking protective naivete about human nature, will say that this is a natural trajectory... that it is -- tragically, perhaps, but inevitably -- what always happens to republics, democracies, governments of the people, etc. in the long run – that there is a gradual shift in power, an erosion of the rule of law, and a gradual takeover by the rich, the cynical, and the unprincipled. It's as if to say, why were we kidding ourselves that we were so different – that we were the first society in human history that could pull it off? But human nature rules in the long run, and we are living in that long run right now (despite John Maynard Keynes, in the long run we're not all dead). And of course, as I've pointed out previously, no one wants to live in “history”; war, revolution, turmoil, etc. are all well and good as long as they don't happen during my time – leave it to others (our ancestors or descendants) to deal with it. And this is especially true if current events all seem to reflect a decline – defeat and disappointment – the next generation not living as well as the previous one, etc. Then we see a rise in nostalgia, like what is happening in our time (all across the political spectrum, actually). But along with it comes a rise in optimism and a simultaneous rise in pessimism, depending on where one stands on the political spectrum. You can be both nostalgic and optimistic, or both nostalgic and pessimistic, and there are plenty of examples of each.

At this point, to be perfectly fair I have to give credit to the opposition, by which I mean the sum total of liberals/Democrats/progressives + the Deep State and its facilitators + popular culture + the media. They all describe Trump and his election as an “anomaly”, and they're right – it is. And it's an anomaly for many reasons. They will say that he shouldn't have been elected (or, in a delusional way, following Hillary Clinton's lead, that he wasn't elected, that he just somehow managed to sneak into the White House under cover of night) because... well, just because. And because he's unsavory in every way... and an outsider... and a businessman... and rich... and everything a normal, acceptable candidate is not. He never buttons his coat, and sits in chairs like some juvenile delinquent in the principal's office. And then there's the fact that his base – the people who elected him – the “deplorables” (and we have to thank Hillary Clinton for etching that term of derision into the lexicon of American politics for perpetuity, especially since it has now become a badge of honor) – were, and are, people who really shouldn't have any say in things, least of all presidential elections, because the truth is not in them. Besides which, they are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. etc. And who knew there were so many of them? – that's the really galling thing. I mean, if the only people who voted for Trump in 2016 had been card-carrying KKK members, or Proud Boys, or whoever, we wouldn't have had this to deal with. But when there are more white supremacists in the local family restaurant on Saturday morning than there are ex-Nazis in Paraguay, drastic measures are in order.

That's the mind set. And you can be certain that they won't make the same mistake again – i.e. they won't let any Republican with two gonads to rub together anywhere near the primaries or the election. Way too chancy. The people who laughed at Trump on Escalator Day and were laughing at him right up to Election Night have learned their lesson: Assume nothing, infiltrate everything, leave nothing to chance, and do whatever is necessary. No more mumbling to your girlfriend on e-mail about “insurance”, no – it's time to get out the WMDs.

This is why the election of 2020 is going to be so interesting (it already is, actually), no matter which hapless Democrat gets nominated and no matter who winds up running on the Republican ticket. (There is a Republican convention, remember – Trump isn't going to be a shoo-in for the nomination even assuming he makes it up to that point.) No, what will be interesting is that the Deep State and all of its allies, once unmasked, will see no point in holding back. They have been exposed now, by their own doing... they are out in the open and blatant... and there is no sense trying to scurry back under cover. So they will be raining fire and brimstone down on the Republican candidate, no matter who he or she is – partly because it's what they do, partly to take care of people who haven't already learned their lesson by seeing what they've done, and are doing, to Trump, and partly as a warning to the Republican Party that if they want to survive at all they need to be content with second-class citizenship in perpetuity. In other words, if they are content to be wallflowers and strap-hangers, fine – but don't start getting any ideas about having any real influence, because what is happening to Trump and his associates can happen to you too, under cover of night and in broad daylight. You can wind up in jail for just existing; this has to have a, let's say, chilling effect on any sort of political assertiveness, and on expressing any opinions at all that are at odds with those of the ruling elite.

There's a thin line, I suppose, between realism and pessimism. In these times they can seem to be pretty much the same thing, and maybe they are. The problems facing whoever's in charge now or in the future are so enormous, and so intractable, that to expect anything other than frustration and failure is to show a high level of delusion. Once again, history has caught up with us, as has human nature. American-style democracy may soon go the way of The New Soviet Man, or of the Ubermensch and the Master Race. And we've had a pretty good run of it, quite frankly – certainly longer than the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, which had flaws that were too blatant from the start. We were, if you will, sustainable – but not indefinitely. This Republic was conceived by highly-intelligent, well-educated, and certainly far from ignorant men who were under few illusions about human nature. It would be interesting to find out how long they expected it to last before succumbing to degeneration and decay; who knows, they might be surprised it has lasted this long, even if in vestigial form. But they were, after all, men of ideas, and ideas only work if they are workable, and if there is sufficient political will to make them work. So again, this was the case for quite a while – way longer than the French Revolution which was similar in many ways. But that revolution was in 1789 and by 1804 they had an emperor, and in between they had a Reign of Terror and other unpleasantries. (And we were their principal inspiration, by the way – don't forget that.)

Well, we have yet to crown an emperor, although we came close in the case of FDR. Someone once joked that the American system is an odd one – it's a monarchy where we elect a new king every 4 (or 8) years. But that would be to unduly belittle monarchies, some of which have lasted for centuries if not millennia. Maybe what works is not always what's best from the point of view of poly-sci idealism.

To sum up, whatever was put in place over time that has manifested itself in the opposition is not going to go away. It won't go away when Trump leaves office, and it won't go away if a Democrat becomes president. It's a permanent fixture, and some will celebrate this fact, the way one-party rule is celebrated by fans of totalitarian regimes. Competing parties? Debate? Compromise? Way too messy. Much better to just have a single party, and a single party leader – a strongman who commands – demands – obedience from all of his faithful subjects. We forget that this is as strong an impulse – every bit as much as part of human nature – as notions of “freedom”, democracy, populism, etc. And it's a highly cultural phenomenon. The Russians, for example, apparently cannot get along without a strongman in charge; democracy is just not in their blood. The Scandinavian countries, on the other hand, are the true “people's republics”, whose leaders are so low-profile that no one knows who they are. (Do you? I certainly don't.) We have European monarchies that are, operationally, more democratic than most alleged democracies or republics. Such are the paradoxes when it comes to governments.

At this particular time in our history it's the liberals/Democrats/progressives who are all in favor of the all-powerful state, the regulatory state, totalitarianism, and what amounts to one-party rule. They seem to forget what happened to the Old Bolsheviks who, once they had outlived their usefulness, were hunted down by Stalin's henchmen and summarily shot. Their problem? They were rebels and nonconformists by nature, and too full of ideas, and those ideas started to clash with the desires of the more pragmatic (i.e., cynical) types who were rapidly filling the positions of power. There will always be revolutionaries like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who will be at the front of the parade, waving a red flag and playing an accordion. But the funny thing is that they very seldom wind up in charge. Their position is like unto that of the point man in a military operation – vital, but with low life expectancy. Sometimes they wind up as cannon fodder for the very entities that they thought were on their side, as happened to the Red Guard in China. The revolution is cannibalistic; as has been said, it always devours its own. But there's no sense in warning them, because they never listen.

So even the Deep State may not always be the property of today's “opposition”; it has its own priorities, its own needs, and its own survival strategies. One point to remember is that the Deep State is motivated solely by its need to survive and expand; otherwise it is as unprincipled, amoral, and unfeeling as a malignant tumor. It is, if you will, reptilian in nature – without compassion and unappealing except to those who see it as a pathway to power. So Democrats who celebrate the Deep State and consider it their power base might have to think again some day – but by then it will be too late. They are, after all, expendable. And the Deep State, because it's a thing and not a person, has staying power well beyond the life span of any one individual. One may even say that it is given birth by war, and nourished by conflict and strife; and if this is the case, its origins followed very closely on the origins of the Republic.

Now, maybe all of this is fine with you. Maybe living under the watchful eye of Big Brother (as currently manifested in the social media, communications, and the intelligence community) is your idea of the good life. If so, then you're quite fortunate, because you're already living in a world tailored to your tastes, and about to live in a world even more so. This will be a cause for celebration. For certain other people, however, this is not the ideal; it's not what they voted for and it's not the world they want to live in. And – most importantly – they're not going away. They have become visible, they have an identity and cohesiveness that's every bit a match for the opposition. The clouds have lifted, and we now, at long last, see that there are two Americas (and maybe more than two), two different world views... two different worlds, in effect. Those worlds are colliding now, in a way that is more open and obvious than ever. The American public is now thoroughly politicized; no one is neutral, no one is “undecided”. We are all “woke”, but in different and opposing ways. (Did you think “wokeness” was limited to just one end of the political scale? Think again. If it's a good thing for one group, then it's a good thing for other groups as well. Otherwise, it's just another word for tyranny.)

I, for one, think the current flood of revelations is a good thing – as stressful, time-consuming, and energy-consuming as it may be. The marketplace of ideas has finally come to pass as somewhere everyone can shop, not just activists and intellectuals. And who knows, if enough people become interested in politics they might also become interested in philosophy; wouldn't that be something! Because politics is, after all, a manifestation of ethics, which, in turn, is a manifestation of philosophy, which, in turn, is a manifestation of our view of man and mankind – of his origins, nature, and ultimate fate.

The downside, of course, is we have to live in a time of war – a war of words, at least. That, and pretty much every negative emotion in the book – which tends to swamp and distract from everything else, things that might be more worthwhile to the individual and, in the long run, to society. But it's a rite of passage that we have to go through – not necessarily in every generation but often enough. Societies re-define themselves now and then, at least on the political and social level if not on the deeper levels of faith, tradition, and custom. Post-empire England is still England. Post-Soviet Russia is still Russia. Post-Maoist China is still China. And so on. (The post-Confederate South is still the South, much to the dismay of non-Southerners.) Of course those were more coherent cultures to begin with, whereas we take great pride in our “diversity”. But that's also our weakness. What it means is that we lack the connective tissue needed to weather storms such as the present one, and come out in one piece rather than in shambles – divided, therefore ready to be conquered. The United States has become disunited, and the great American melting pot turns out to be more of a stew pot. So yes, once this crisis is past we may find that we are no longer the same, even on levels we always thought were permanent and solid. We may, indeed, descend to a more primitive condition of warring tribes. (It's already happening in our large cities.) If so, it will take a government even more powerful, all-seeing, and all-knowing than the one we have now to keep things together – if that's even considered worthwhile. And it may not be, as witness the increasing incidence of anarchy and “no-go zones” in our large cities. The globalists of this world don't want a strong United States with any sort of national pride; they want a muscular but dim-witted and compliant servant to do their bidding – and they already have it to some extent, but it's likely to become even more so in the future.

And once again, if this is OK with you, then fine. Go ahead and cast your lot with the globalists and see how satisfying it is. But what does it take to completely suppress all needs and desires for the eternal verities – home and hearth, family, pride in work, faith, sense of place, and, yes, ethnic and racial identity as a source of cohesion and loyalty rather than a mere political weapon? These are signs of the Natural Man, whereas loyalty to globalism, totalitarianism, and authoritarianism is a sign of – what? I would call it despair. Of giving up, of being less than fully human. Of basically opting out of the human race in favor of a subhuman existence. But it's the sort of despair that will not confine itself to the individual. People who have lost whatever it is that makes them human will waste no time before taking the same thing away from others, by persuasion or by force. The impulse to share the misery and the fear is something we see every day and everywhere in the public forum. It is a sign of weakness and vulnerability. It indicates that we have been conquered from within – and a people that is conquered from within will soon be conquered from without.

Corollary: The Deep State = The Regulatory State = The Surveillance State = The Perpetual Warfare State.

These are four heads of the same beast. They are not identical, but are highly interdependent and symbiotic. No one of them can operate effectively without the others. For example:

• The Deep State depends as much on regulations as on laws for its existence. Laws merely provide the broad outlines; they have to be filled in by regulations. This is why Trump's efforts to reduce the number of regulations are seen as such a threat.
• Regulations are designed primarily to regulate, control, and restrict the activities of the citizenry. Without surveillance, it would be difficult to assess whether regulations were being adhered to.
• Perpetual warfare requires the Deep State for implementation, and surveillance in order to insure that the citizenry are “with the program” and are not developing an aversion to perpetual war.
• Since the Deep State and the Perpetual Warfare State are inseparable, it's foolish to be against “big government” but in favor of war, as the neocons are.  War is impossible without the Deep State, a highly-regulated economy and industrial base, and surveillance.  Every war we've ever fought shows this, and yet there are people who don't believe that's it's necessarily the case.
• It's also foolish to protest against surveillance but be in favor of big government. Big government naturally gives rise to surveillance as a means of determining the level of cooperation of the citizenry. And, the Surveillance State, over time, becomes an increasingly large portion of the Deep State. One reason the Soviet Union collapsed is that half the citizens were employed spying on the other half.

There are many more interconnections. The point is that it is, ultimately, all one thing, so we each have a choice – we can be for all of them or none of them. Anything else is irrational, illogical, and a symptom of delusional thinking.

Welcome to My Nightmare

Last night I had the strangest dream. It was November of 2020 and I was in a voting booth, and I looked down at the ballot for the president, and the only two names on it were Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney. Then I woke up bathed in sweat with my heart pounding, and it took me a while to realize that this was not only a nightmare, but it was a nightmare that could very well come true!

Here we are, 12 months plus change from the 2020 election, and who is positioning himself to run for the Republican nomination? None other than the loser from 2012. And he is bolstering his “Never Trumper” credits on a daily basis, standing up, like Superman, for “truth, justice, and the American way” against treachery, treason, and criminality (not to mention bad manners and bad hair). And of course part of his plan is that Donald Trump will, in fact, be out office by November of 2020, and it matters little how or why – the main thing is that Romney will by that time be seen as the salvation of the Republican Party – the man who can set things right and rid them of the taint of Trump. What will he have to offer the American public as an incentive to not only vote, but to vote for him, other than the fact that he is not Donald Trump? Nothing in particular, just the same old boring mainstream Republican pap, which typically features pleas along the lines of “We're almost as compassionate as the Democrats.” Which is not a winning formula, as had been amply demonstrated already. Romney will run as the anti-Trump and his platform will be, basically, to pledge that the Republicans will never never never, and we mean it, nominate anyone even remotely like Trump ever again. Great – but the Democrats already occupy that territory, so why not just vote for them and be certain? (And by the way, if you think the Democrats/liberals/leftists would ever give the Republicans credit for ousting Trump – in the event that occurs – think again. The Republicans will be forced to live a life of austerity and penance for generations to come. Which, in turn, is saying that they will be rendered extinct on the national level, leaving a gap to be filled by – whom? But that's a topic for another day.) (And also by the way, if not Romney, who? Does anyone even remember who was in the gaggle of Republican candidates who fell, one by one, to the Trump tidal wave in 2016? And has anyone heard anything from them since? The fact that Romney, for all his faults, is willing to stand up and be counted at this point may be all he needs in the way of credentials.)

What about Hillary, then? She is rapidly moving from the impossible and unthinkable into at least the “buzz” category, and has, of late, been much more vocal in her opposition to Trump (although she's been making excuses for why she lost since Election Night 2016). Add to this the impression that she and Joe Biden are the only halfway normal human beings in the bunch, the rest being delusional on some level or just plain frauds. (And doesn't it say something about that motley crew that Hillary, by comparison, can appear normal? “Sad”, as Trump would say.) Then we have three very important facts: (1) The Clintons and Obama still control the Democratic Party, no matter how many empty suits pretend to be in charge; and (2) The Deep State political machine that Obama and Hillary put in place is intact, alive and well, and eager to, once again, enter the fray (actually, they never left it); and (3) The mainstream media are more fanatically anti-Trump than ever, as is the “entertainment” industry.

The only bump in the road should Hillary capitulate to all of her adoring admirers and declare for the presidency again is the basket of already-declared candidates, who have already expended considerable time and money on their campaigns, with the election still more than a year away. They are likely to be somewhat upset should Hillary ride into the Democratic convention on a white charger and insist on being nominated by popular acclaim. But you can be sure that they will fall into line with nary a peep, the way poor old Bernie did in 2016 even though he knew he'd been cheated. As a number of commentators have pointed out, the Democrats' strength is in their unity; they may have their occasional squabbles, but when the chips are down they always present a united front – something the Republicans have never seemed to be capable of.

So anyway, that was my nightmare – although some would prefer to call it a dream.

Footnote 1: Unlike Hillary's case, Donald Trump does not own the Republican Party. It would be more accurate to say they have disowned him. So don't expect loyalty to play any part in next year's election; in fact, disloyalty will play a much bigger part, as exemplified by Mitt Romney. The Never Trumpers are alive and well and living not only in Congress, but in the Republican Party hierarchy. Now, whether they will have the nerve to defy tradition and refuse to re-nominate Trump is another question; it kind of depends on how afraid they are of the grass roots. After all, even if Trump is denied a second term, most of them will still be in contention for re-election. I imagine we'll see a variety of responses to this dilemma. And there will be a lot of strange new respect for anyone who takes part in the mutiny even at the risk of their own political career.

Footnote 2: Hillary vs. Tulsi Gabbard – why single her out? Because she's the only one of the Democratic candidates who has been making libertarian-type noises. And in Hillary World, libertarian = defiance of rightful authority (i.e., her) and skepticism regarding overseas adventures (vs. the Democrats' newfound respect for endless war) – among many other things, no doubt. So Tulsi has to go. But that's not as much of an issue as the fact that Hillary is already engaged in a debate with a declared Democratic candidate; maybe she felt that Tulsi was the lowest-hanging fruit, and thus a good test case, considering the number of other candidates Hillary would have to run off the road in order to win the nomination. And as for Jill Stein, since Hillary is now blaming her and the Green Party for her loss in 2016, the Greens have to be neutralized by being identified as Russian puppets.

Footnote 3: As I've said before, Trump basically threw the Republican Party a lifeline by winning in 2016. The problem is, they refused to take hold of it, so they maintained their position as perpetual losers who are rendered acutely uncomfortable by winning. Now, when it comes to 2020, if Trump wins with or without their support, it will create another opportunity to take hold of the same lifeline, and I imagine that will be rejected as well. If Trump (or some other Republican) loses in 2020, the Republican Party is doomed on the national level, for the simple reason that “they” – the opposition – will never forgive the Republicans for having nominated Trump in 2016, never mind that many of them opposed him and have dug in their heels on his programs ever since. And the idea of the Democrats, and the opposition in general, giving the “Never Trumpers” in the Republican Party “credit”? Ha! They will be flushed down the toilet along with all the rest. (Who knows, maybe on some level the Democrats see the Republican “Never Trumpers” as being disloyal, and disloyalty is the greatest sin a Democrat can commit – as amply demonstrated by Bernie's abject capitulation to Hillary in 2016.)

Red, White, and Blue Bloods

Now that I've pronounced doom on the Republican Party (even though there is much more to say on the matter) I'll move on to a much broader topic, namely the American Empire and the U.S. as the world's policeman. A wise man once said, “anything that can't go on forever will end”, and this has proven to be true of empires (at least the earthly kind), and there is no reason it will not prove to be true of ours. Empires are notorious, in fact, for coming to an end – usually ignominious, but sometimes with a minimum of pain, as witness the ends of the British, French, and Soviet empires, still within recent memory. (A generation or two earlier saw the more painful end of the German overseas empire, the Ottoman Empire, and before that the Spanish, etc.) It's not necessary that a given empire is conquered, as the Roman Empire was; most of them rot from within, from an erosion of political will, diminishing resources, and just plain demoralization. Empires go along with aggressive nationalism, and when the cultural, social, political, and economic basis for nationalism is reduced to some critical level, the empire, which seemed so permanent and invincible, collapses – much to the dismay and mystification of its adherents. The point is, this will happen – it's inevitable. It's a matter of when, and by what means, and what will remain. England and France wound up quite intact, and arguably better off; Russia is trying to regain some of its former glory, with limited success; Germany lost its empire as a result of World War I, and lost pretty much everything else as a result of World War II, but has gained much of it back because, as an acquaintance of mind put it, “the advantage Germany has is that it's full of Germans”. And yet nations, in a post-empire period, do manage to salvage some respect; they are no longer to be feared, but they are not about to be erased from the world map either. What keeps them in business, so to speak, are what I call the “eternal verities” – race, ethnicity, language, culture, and yes, faith – and these, note, are the very things that the globalists are waging war on at this time. (And don't be fooled by “identity politics” and “diversity”; those are strategies to liquidate the nation on the cultural level, not strengthen it.) A nation that asserts and shows pride in these things is likely to survive, whereas a nation that does not is doubly doomed – no more empire, and, eventually, no more nation. (Oh, did I mention borders? That's another essential quality of a nation. And we're busy giving up ours.)

So where do we stand in all this? Well, for starters, this country was not founded – at least not explicitly – on the basis of race, ethnicity, language, faith, or culture. It had a dominant race (white), a dominant ethnicity (English), a language (English), a faith (Protestant deism), and... well, not much in the way of culture, let's admit. But it was, in essence, ideational, i.e. founded not on the sorts of things that have characterized nations throughout history, but on ideas, as expressed in the founding documents of the Republic. And those ideas served us well for a while, and continue to do so, if only in the iconic (I'm tempted to say “fetishistic”) sense. They are, in fact, a kind of crumbling bulwark against what has become a wildly “diverse” society, in which all races, all languages, all cultures, and all faiths (and non-faiths) have a right to stand up and be heard, and to join the culture wars, i.e. the battle for the so-called “soul of America”. But America's “soul” is ideas, and ideas can change, and morph, and become obsolete much more readily than the more solid, natural, organic factors that traditionally define nations. (Try to find one idea from the writings of the Founding Fathers that would not cause outrage and demonstrations on college and university campuses today, and in the media – you won't find any.)

And can a nation characterized as such remain an empire? Don't the same factors that are essential to the strength and coherence of a nation apply to its empire as well? And if our nation is rotting from within, how is that supposed to be consistent with the persistence of an empire? It can't, but – again, historically – we see that, oftentimes, an empire can persist, at least for a while, even if things are collapsing on the home front. The Roman legions were spread across the known world even as Rome itself was decaying and collapsing – and we see much the same thing today. We have a military “presence”, and “force projection”, all over the globe, even while the White House is under siege and American “ideals” are under criticism and attack. It's a strange sight, to be sure – but one that is all too familiar to anyone with a sense of history. (And the rest of the world looks on in wonder, as it did when the Roman Empire came to an end – “Lo, how the mighty have fallen!”)

And when you think about it, the American Empire is a relatively new thing, historically speaking. For that matter, America itself is a relatively new thing. When the English colonies coalesced into The United States of America, it didn't take long before age-old empire urges began to surface; I'll make the Mexican War the beginning of this (although, even there, we're at least talking about adjoining territory, the difference being that we had to fight Mexico for it, whereas in the case of the Louisiana Purchase, it was one colonial power selling a piece of property to the former colony of another colonial power – which seems just, in a kind of way). But real colonialism got a shot in the arm with the Spanish-American war, where we wound up with territories halfway around the world; that's the true beginning of empire.

But then a curious thing happened. On top of the age-old empire urge, we acquired a new meme, if you will, namely that we had to – for some reason not ever quite fully explained or justified – become the world's policeman. This began in earnest when we joined up in World War I, which was supposed to “make the world safe for democracy”, but which actually made it less safe for democracy and more safe for communism and fascism. But we had a foothold on the world map, and that's what counts. And in between world wars, we pursued the Monroe Doctrine with a vengeance, charging down on any number of rebellious and upstart movements in the Western Hemisphere – allegedly in pursuit of law and order, but it was really about commercial interests. (The American Empire has always been at least as much commercial as military in intent and outcome, and it remains so to this day with the exception of the Middle East, which is purely political.)

And throughout all of these developments up to the present day, a few isolated voices were raised along the lines of “What business it is of ours?”, and “What gives us the right...”, and “Whose real interests are being served here?”, and so on. But those voices were promptly shouted down on the basis of such well-thought-out notions as “Because we're the best”, and “We need to teach those people a lesson”, not to mention verbal tics like “spreading democracy” and “protecting the American way of life”, which were invented to cloud people's minds and keep them from seeing what's really going on.

And this is not to say that there weren't people of influence along the way who really, sincerely believed that we had something to offer the benighted masses of the Third World – or the oppressed masses of the Second World. That may have been true, but the way to spread the gospel of democracy is not to start bombing and sending in troops; spreading ideas through violence is a contradiction in terms, even if it seems to actually work on occasion. Even if you can get people (whoever survives the invasion) to embrace our ideas, it is more often than not a sham; they are just mouthing words in order to stay on our good side (assuming there even is a good side in these situations). Eventually, if and when we ever leave (a rare event), the old ways return and, sooner or later, it's as if we were never there. We can poke as many holes in the ocean as we like, but unless we stick around to reinforce, protect, and maintain those holes they are going to vanish as soon as our last soldier goes back across the border. Because, once again, we are fighting traditionally-based culture with ideas. The Russians and the Chinese tried it with communism – the idea to end all ideas – and once communism in the strict, or “pure”, sense collapsed of its own weight the old culture – the “pre-idea” culture, if you will – returned. This country at least had the advantage of starting off as a blank slate, culturally speaking, which meant that ideas could gain, and maintain, more of a foothold here, because there was nothing to compete against. And yet even in what one might call “pioneer” nations, an organic culture will arise sooner or later; it's just against human nature to live in a cultural vacuum for very long. And once that new culture asserts itself, it competes with ideas for the loyalty and dedication of the citizenry – as can be seen throughout this country at the present time. Take more than ten steps outside of the National Archives, where the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are housed and meticulously cared for like ancient mummies, and you run into people with radically different notions of man, society, and how one is to live. And they aren't all aliens, fresh off the boat; most are citizens and voters, whose families have lived here for generations. The ideas that gave rise to “diversity” – or at least to its toleration – have turned out to be self-destructive. I'm not saying this is either good or bad; it's just the way things are.

So – the fool's errand to end all fool's errands is for us to venture overseas in order to convert the unwashed and ignorant masses to the American way of thinking, which is based entirely on ideas which must seem impossibly abstract to said masses, and for which, in order to take them seriously, one must give up loyalty to things with more solidity and permanence. Plus, the fact that this is undertaken, in most cases, as a thin veneer for empire building and commercial interests, AKA imperialism, makes it even less likely to succeed and take root. So, once again, when we leave our ideas leave, and things return to normal. The problem is that there are very few examples of this because we almost never leave; the main exception in recent times has been Vietnam, and we left because we lost a war, which is also a rare occurrence.

And even if take back the bulk of our troops, we invariably leave “peacekeepers” behind, as we did in Germany and Japan. Is our military presence only a way of insuring continuing commercial advantage, or is it also a form of insurance, i.e. making certain the country in question doesn't make the same mistake – getting into a war with us – again? I say it's both, and that the two motives are complementary. The military is there to intimidate, and the commercial presence is there to soften the blow by offering economic advantages, trade being the most obvious. So we wind up with a world filled with client states who are not quite happy slaves, but who must wonder, once in a while and in the stillness of the night, what it would be like if we would just get out of their lives. And who knows, they may find out sooner than they think, if things continue the way they are going.

All of which leads to the question implied at the beginning. If the American Empire and America as world policeman can't go on forever, it will have to stop. But even when it does, the world will still be there, with all of its pathologies and discontents. So what happens then? Does someone else step up and assume the world's policeman role, or do they decide, right off the bat, to reject that hypocrisy and assert raw power? (In which case, history not only fails to end, but it starts running in reverse.) Russia and China are already making moves in that direction, and they are certainly our most likely successors. And no, I'm not forgetting the E.U., but, lest we forget, the E.U. has no troops, and neither does NATO – not really. NATO has never been anything more than the U.S. and a bunch of other guys, and the E.U. is the other guys without the U.S. These sorts of entities do not an empire make – at least not in any traditional or lasting form. Can you imagine the E.U., or NATO, going up against a resurgent Russia without Uncle Stupid providing muscle? I can't bear to look! And I suppose the U.N. is going to go toe-to-toe with China (or even North Korea) without muscle-bound us in the mix. Forget about it!

And this, I suppose, is the reasoning of the globalist powers-that-be. They may despise us and consider us uncultured, primitive slobs and idiots suitable only for cannon fodder, but they have a hard time imagining the world without us – the way the owner of a vast estate couldn't imagine getting along without his serfs and servants. And yet, “something will happen”. The world as it is is in such flux, and there is so much instability on all fronts, that things as they are simply cannot stand, any more than a machine shedding nuts and bolts and leaking oil is going to run much longer. The conservatives who want nothing to change, ever, are dreaming. The revolutionaries at least know that things can't go on, but they imagine that they're the ones who are going direct the changes and own the future (“Well, it worked for Lenin and Mao, why not for us?”) – but they may be wrong too. And even if they win some near-term victories, revolutions are notorious for devouring their own; revolutionaries who win actually have a lower life expectancy than those who lose. So the future may not be as rosy as they think. In any case, take heart – if you don't like the American Empire, be assured that it will vanish some day. The question is, will America survive its empire, and if so in what form? Hopefully not abject slavery, but even that is not assured.

The Republican Party post-Trump

I briefly considered being a wise-ass and just posting this title followed by nothing but a blank page. But I decided that would constitute a disservice to my loyal fans (ahem!) so am going to flesh out the idea a bit.

The point being that the Republicans do have a future, but just not on the national level. They will continue to be players in various redoubts across the fruited plain – not including the coasts, of course, nor various liberal enclaves in flyover country (cities controlled by Democrats plus university towns). They will enjoy dominance in some state legislatures and may be elected governors – although how much good it will do is questionable, since judges everywhere seem committed to reinforcing the “progressive” agenda at all costs. And they will, of course, be active at the county, small city, town, and village level. But on the national level I consider them the walking dead, and here's why.

But first a comment. Now and then someone – not necessarily a disgruntled Republican, it could be a liberal engaging in triumphalism – will contend that Donald Trump killed the Republican Party by, first, having the unmitigated gall to enter the Republican primaries in 2016, then to be nominated (aided by the Russians, no doubt), and then to be elected (ditto). And Republicans ever since then have been wringing their hands that here's this Godzilla-like creature in their midst who's ruining everything and giving Republicans a bad name, and that the nation will never forgive the Republicans for having foisted Trump off on them, and that this spells doom for generations to come, et cetera.

I have a slightly different take on this. My opinion is that Trump actually saved the Republican Party from its own boring, colorless incompetence... injected new life into it (or tried to)... and kept it, basically, alive for four more years (or however long) since it was at death's door by the end of the Obama administration, and a Hillary victory would have been the coup de grace (or coup de disgrace, whatever). The problem is that most Republicans, and especially the “never Trumpers”, would disagree with this, and contend that the party would be in much better shape now if it hadn't been forced to, somehow, support, or at least not oppose, the bulk of Trump's initiatives. Party loyalty is, of course, party loyalty, not loyalty to any one person; all we have to do is go back to the Watergate era to find confirmation of that. (And at a slightly earlier time, a lot of Democrats bailed on LBJ.) But sometimes party loyalty involves compromise – doing what you have to do. And yet there were, and are, people who disagree, the foremost example being John McCain, who took an active role in subverting the Trump administration from Day One.

But the point is that Trump, simply by being who he is and doing what he did, at least kept the Republican “brand” on the market, even though it was an operation not unlike the process of keeping a disembodied brain alive in a jar like in some horror movie. (Except in the case of the Republicans, he was keeping a body alive without a brain.)

So Trump gave the Republicans a new lease on life, except they didn't want it and didn't appreciate it. They would rather be dead (as a party) than be seen as supporting Trump, as many of them said quite explicitly during the 2016 campaign. Distance from Trump = virtue and respectability, is the message. He is as much an outsider to them as he is to the liberals/Democrats/progressives.

All of which is going to make a very interesting election season next year. Assuming that Trump survives impeachment, and doesn't simply leave office of his own free will (a very real possibility in my opinion, but not too many other people seem to have considered it), the Republicans will be faced with a bizarre dilemma – let him run again (primaries, convention, campaign) even though their support for him is lukewarm at best, and in most cases nonexistent – or call an end to the Trump Era by either not letting him into the primaries, or into the convention, i.e. by not nominating him for a second term. They are, after all, already feeling the pain of having lost the House of Representatives, which they blame squarely on Trump... and their chances of regaining it next year are nil, and they stand a good chance of losing the Senate as well, which they will also be happy to blame on Trump.

So what are they supposed to do? Hang on to Trump (or allow him to hang onto them), as troublesome as he is, even if it means losing all control of Congress and reasserting their status as irrelevant and moribund? Or try someone new and hope that all will be forgiven, and that they will be restored to (this time legitimate) power in the White House, and win back the Senate as well?

And if not Trump, which candidate is going to save the day for the Republicans? I don't see anyone out there who has even the vaguest presidential “vibes”. If they stick with tradition, I guess they could nominate Mike Pence, but like Gerald Ford in 1976 no amount of decontamination and no number of hot showers is going to rid him of the “cooties” of his old boss. So what will most likely happen is that they will, in a state of tacit despair, nominate some empty suit who can't possibly win just as a place filler, the way they nominated Bob Dole in 1996 and Mitt Romney in 2012 just to stay in the game. “Hey, it's not our fault, we nominated a fairly normal guy this time.” And then they get to return to the soporific creature comforts of minority status, except this time for keeps. Which means, incidentally, that the U.S. finally capitulates and converts to a one-party system on the national level, which is an inevitable characteristic of tyrannies and dictatorships everywhere, and that the Democratic primaries become the equivalent of the election, assuming that the Republicans even bother having primaries any longer. (Many states, cities, and counties already have a one-party system, and you can generally tell which they are by measuring their level of incompetence, corruption, and downright failure – not to mention less-exalted measures like the number of homeless and the incidence of fecal matter on public property.)

But why else, aside from their general demeanor and appearance, are the Republicans the walking dead? It's because they have become a minority party that can barely capture enough independent and “swing” votes to win elections, except in certain “deep red” locales. And why, in turn, is this? One reason is the power of ideas; the Democrats have them, and the Republicans don't. Say what you like about “AOC”, she has ideas. They may be wrong-headed, foolish, and delusional, and reflect profound ignorance, but they are ideas, and they serve to energize and inspire. And when revolution is in the air, ideas are all that count; cold reason and pragmatism can take a hike. And, of course, youth must triumph! By definition! Of course, the youth of the 1960s are now the grizzled products of the culture wars, whether they consider themselves to be on the winning side or not. They may have won many battles, but the culture war is still on or Trump would never have been elected.

Is there a Republican AOC out there anywhere? Some talk-show hosts might qualify, but they already have paying jobs and are not about to enter politics. We are, once again, in a time of revolution, the way we were in the 1960s, and the Young Turks in Congress are at the forefront, with the Old Guard forced to deal, cope, dither, rationalize, whatever it takes to hold on to their weakening grip on power. (The 60s were not just about “sex, drugs, and rock & roll”, although those were the loss leaders. They were about more profound cultural changes, which took root then and are being promoted to new levels at the present time. Anyone who wonders when this process will stop – when it will be “mission accomplished” – has missed the concept of continuous revolution, of which the most prominent advocate was Chairman Mao, but which has plenty of lesser followers, including the present-day governments of Cuba and Venezuela. For them, the revolution is not finished until Utopia is realized, and since Utopia can never be realized, the revolution is never over. Call it a full employment act for “agents of change”.)

Another reason – and this is old news, but still – is that the Democrats are busy importing new constituents from other countries, primarily Central America but other places as well. And these people are willing to do work that Americans just won't do – namely reproduce. So... to over-generalize just a bit, you have self-sterilizing Democrats, and liberal eunuchs, bolstering their numbers by letting in people who have a vested interest in their programs, i.e. “benefits”. It's a smart move, for sure. And even if Republicans do have an edge when it comes to reproduction (it would be more accurate to say that traditionalists of many different kinds have an edge in that department), there's no way it can make up for what amounts to a siege from the Third World. There is a human wave – nay, a tsunami – coming across our southern border every day. History will record this as one of the great migrations of humanity, but it's hard to appreciate historical significance when you're getting overrun. (One consolation for those who don't believe in the American Empire is that this may be the biggest single factor in its demise; time will tell.)

Then you have good old generational differences – and, as always, the revolutionaries are on the young side and the conservatives are on the old side. This is not to say that the conservatives will some day be totally replaced by the revolutionaries, because even in the worst of times there are people who, somehow, manage to engage in rational thinking... but we are, basically, looking at a revolutionary society on the national level (a process which has been building slowly over a century at least, but which is now coming to full fruition) which will do everything in its power (which is considerable) to silence and neutralize all opposition, if not engage in its outright extermination. (As things stand, the liberals are busy exterminating themselves through abortion, which is ironic to say the least. So the race is on – do they cease to exist before, during, or after the revolution? Time will tell. And if they do cease to exist, who keeps the revolution going?)

So, to sum up, Trump arguably saved us from a headlong rush into this fate for... maybe not even four years, depending. But it does seem inevitable, and that applies in any case – Trump getting re-elected, some other Republican getting elected, or a Democrat getting elected in 2020. The long-term trends are what they are... and I haven't even touched on aggravating factors like the national debt, crony capitalism, environmental degradation, infrastructure, the cost of empire, the collapse of our public education system, social media turning us all into robots, corruption in general, and so on. Everything else that's happening at this time can be considered an accelerant; there are no counter-trends that I can think of. Trump's hard-core supporters will continue to be so until the day he moves back to his golden palace atop Trump Tower, but they're not going to matter as long as Trump loses the narrow edge he achieved in various states in 2016. Those weren't all Trump supporters; there were also “never Hillary” voters in the mix. But they won't be a factor next year (unless she runs again – and yes, she's thinking about it). And there were also independents who cared for neither candidate but figured Trump might be preferable, or more palatable, for some reason. (For one thing, he's rich enough not be bribed, which is no small consideration.) Well, now he's had a chance to prove himself, at least in terms of initiatives, if not actual accomplishments – and it's up to people to decide whether that's good enough, and I suspect that enough of them will decide that it's not good enough and thus flip some of those states that delivered for Trump in 2016. As always in any election, the hard core tends to remain the hard core; what changes (and who the candidates are really trying to appeal to) are the independents, “undecideds”, and plain pragmatists – how does it affect my quality of life, my pocketbook, etc.? These are what we might call the non-idea people – not that they're uneducated or ignorant, simply that they are not into ideas or ideology. They are bottom line-oriented, in other words. And yet they're the ones who really count. Trump can have all the enthusiastic, high-energy rallies he wants – as can Biden, Sanders, Warren, Butti-whatever, et al. – but a minority is still a minority. I'm not even convinced that the Democrats can patch together a majority out of true believers either; that's why they need to recruit new voters from other countries. Those voters, I imagine, are much more pragmatic and “bottom line” than most citizens; if you can vote other people's money into your own pocket you'd be a fool not to. Traditional American notions of self-sufficiency are simply not on their radar.

So what we may well see next year, in one fashion or another, is the final death rattle of the Republicans on the national level – an event which will be celebrated far and wide, no doubt. And the conventional wisdom will be that Trump was what did it – he was the bull in the china shop, the disrupter, the destroyer. But if that's true, once Trump leaves the political stage the Republicans should expect to recover whatever respect they enjoyed before he took that fabled escalator ride. The problem with that idea is they didn't enjoy any such respect, except possibly in their own deluded world view. And remember that Trump's hard-core supporters didn't vote for him because he was a Republican; they voted for him because he was who he was. (He might even have won as an independent candidate, the way Ross Perot tried to do.) So without him to prop them up, the Republicans are going to collapse – said collapse being long overdue. And Trump's hard-core supporters will fade back into the fields and forests of flyover country, satisfied that, for one brief shining moment, their voices were heard and their values were honored. They will hunker down and wait out the revolution, hoping that one day they, or their descendants, will once again have a voice.