Share This Article with a Friend!


Outsiders vs. Insiders: GOP leaders snooze as America teeters on brink of cultural dissolution

As the political fallout trickles down from the polluted swampy Washington sky after the less-than-riveting testimony of fired former FBI Director James Comey last Thursday, it’s evident the political divide in this country is as extensive as ever – if not getting even wider.

Listening to the pontificating Democrats and liberal pundits speak after the hearing it struck me, once again, that there is very little room to have a meeting-of-the-minds on the concept of American “unity.” Simply put, “they” see it so much differently than “we” do that it will be virtually impossible to come together and move GOP leadersforward with any semblance of consensus.

And I’m not just talking about the Russia/Trump collusion nonsense. The Democrats are so blinded with rage and hatred for President Trump and what he represents – namely, Constitutional governance – that perhaps it’s time to…file for divorce?

David French wrote at National Review, “Our national political polarization is by now so well established that the only real debate is over the nature of our cultural, political, and religious conflict. Are we in the midst of a more or less conventional culture war? Are we, as Dennis Prager and others argue, fighting a kind of ‘cold’ civil war? Or are we facing something else entirely?

“I’d argue that we face ‘something else,’ and that something else is more akin to the beginning stages of a national divorce than it is to a civil war. This contention rests fundamentally in two trends, one political and the other far beyond politics. The combination of negative polarization and a phenomenon that economist Tyler Cowen calls ‘matching’ is leading to a national separation so profound that Americans may not have the desire to fight to stay together. Unless trends are reversed, red and blue may ultimately bid each other adieu.”

Due to space considerations it isn’t possible to quote French’s entire article but the somewhat reformed #NeverTrump National Review writer presents convincing evidence that America is dividing itself into geographical and cultural enclaves where like-minded people flock towards their own, utterly disdaining the type of utopian “bipartisanship” that naive starry-eyed dreamers dribble on so passionately about.

In other words, conservatives and Republicans are moving to live next door to each other and Democrats are similarly flocking with other Democrats. French even talks about the different TV viewing habits of the two groups and how scary it is that there are shows that basically only Republicans watch and the same for Democrats.

That’s a cultural divide though certainly there are racial components as well considering high percentages in most minority groups favor the Democrats. But our modern problems are not as “simple” (or well defined) as those in the lead-up to the American Civil War where the southern states attempted to separate themselves from the northern states roughly along the border of slave states and free.

The current American schism is much more deeply rooted in culture and just because one county in a state favors one political party the county next to it could just as easily prefer the other. A more accurate summation of today’s issues would be to say it’s a divide between rural and city with the more densely populated (but geographically smaller) areas choosing representatives that believe in larger government and wealth redistribution.

But even that synopsis doesn’t fully explain it. There is no easy definition of the problem much less a simple solution to it. America is growing apart and it’s hard to tell the difference between friend and foe. Like a couple moving towards divorce Democrats and Republicans don’t speak to each other anymore. No flowers are offered, no love notes left behind for admiring eyes. Only contempt and distrust between the parties remains.

French suggests the only real way back is to reestablish the genius of the Constitution. He concludes, “If we seek to preserve our union, we’re left with a choice — try to dominate or learn to tolerate? The effort to dominate is futile, and it will leave us with a permanently embittered population that grows increasingly punitive with each transition of presidential power. There is hope, however, in the quest to tolerate.

“Our Constitution is built to allow our citizens to govern themselves while protecting individual liberty and providing for the common defense. It’s built to withstand profound differences without asking citizens or states to surrender their strongest convictions. We can either rediscover this federalism, or we may ultimately take a third path — we may choose to separate.”

Of course French is correct though convincing today’s liberals and Democrats that states and localities deserve more self-governing lawmaking autonomy will be a hard sell, especially since the progressive minority of the country appears to want to force the conservative majority into “tolerating” their social beliefs – with exceptions for their own pet constituencies (Muslims), of course.

These universal federalists also seem to have judges on their side, people who are little more than black robed politicians bent on striking down state laws that violate their own view of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment. How else could judges rule state traditional marriage laws unconstitutional even when Congress had acted on the issue (the Defense of Marriage Act)?

Federalism is indeed the simple answer; states can decide for themselves which laws and customs they want to adhere to. Liberals would be happy; conservatives too. The federal courts would protect the federal sphere, the rest is local.

But you’d have to first get the Democrats to agree first. Right now, they’re much more focused on hating President Trump. Mike Lillis of The Hill reported last week, “Rep. Al Green, a Texas Democrat and member of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), is readying the articles of impeachment that mark the first official step in any congressional bid to remove a sitting president…

“Green’s criticisms focus on Trump’s firing of former FBI Director James Comey, who was leading the administration’s probe into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. Trump had reportedly pressured Comey earlier in the year to drop the investigation into Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, who was fired after lying about the nature of his conversations with a Russian ambassador.”

Lillis’ article quotes Green saying Trump’s actions constituted obstruction of justice no matter what an investigation would reveal. In other words, Democrats don’t even need to look into the situation further because they’ve already concluded Trump is guilty, his election was illegitimate and Republicans who sided with him are in cahoots with the corruption.

Nancy Pelosi (also quoted in the article) says Democrats are only interested in the facts – and the law. I almost fell off my chair snickering at that one. If Pelosi’s party is only interested in the facts they would have given up long ago. Simply put, they’re hopeful they can drag this Russia thing out for another fifteen months. Forget impeachment; Democrats want to prolong this scam, not end it.

They’re bad people – at least a good lot of them. There’s really no way to get around that fact. The president’s son Eric Trump seems to agree. Cheryl K. Chumley wrote last week in The Washington Times, “Eric Trump, following in his father’s footsteps, issued some blunt talk about the very vicious left and its very vicious hatred — and now, predictably enough, his comments are being a bit skewed, no doubt, in order to drum up some of that vicious leftist hatred to generate even more anti-Trump headlines...

“’I’ve never seen hatred like this,’ he said, The Hill noted. ‘To me, they’re not even people, It’s so, so sad. Morality’s just gone, morals have flown out the window, and we deserve so much better than this as a country.’”

Yes indeed we do deserve better, but people have little faith in the political management to produce it.

The Republican leadership could help immensely by getting off the sidelines and jumping into the heat of the battle to defend Trump and his limited government principles and policies. Instead of side-stepping the matter of Trump’s tweets and the absurd Russia investigation they could unequivocally voice support for the president and what he’s trying to do.

By trying so hard to appear “impartial” Republican leaders are only fostering an atmosphere of distrust and media sensationalism.

While they’re at it the party bosses could also crack the proverbial whip and impose some discipline on the “moderates” in the GOP caucus, the Democrat-like obstructionists that are holding up the entire agenda.

The country is certainly in trouble. As French suggests, we could use a return to the concept of federalism. But at some point right must triumph over wrong. As Abraham Lincoln observed in his Second Inaugural Address, both sides can’t be right. One side must prevail. This may not yet be civil war, but culturally speaking, we’re at the threshold.

Whose side are you on?

Share this

RINO losership both passively, actively obstructing

The RINO losership have been both passively, and actively obstructing the classical liberal/conservative/libertarian/Trump consensus agenda. When they have had means by rules to push through several goals, they have, instead sat back (and smiled and laughed at us, whom they seem to think of as serfs and rubes).

They refuse to cut federal spending, to reduce the rate of increase, to balance the budget (now!, not 50 years from now) and begin to pay down the debt and halt inflation/debasement of the currency. They refuse to fence/wall the borders (barely caught that typo, almost imprisoned those enthusiastic birders :B-). They refuse to allow visa applicants to be conscientiously and effectively screened. They fail or refuse to distinguish between free exercise of religion and initiation of force and fraud.

So, how do we take them to the woid-shed between now and 2018 November? Primary them. Cut off their crony socialist scemes to funnel cash from government into their own pockets and campaign chests. And then there is the Convention of States... 12 in about 25 -- when all is said and done (and 1 or 2 pull out) -- to go.

Our Cold (so far) "Civil War"

I have been arguing for decades that the United States didn't win the Cold War against Communism; we internalized it. At the risk of the all-too-human tendency to blame the other guy, I believe the cause of this internalization to be the wholesale adoption by the "Democratic" party of the Marxist-Leninist-Gramscian ideology. David French's observation that the "only way back is to reestablish the genius of the Constitution" is spot on, but at this point it's nothing but a pipe dream when one-half of the body politic is overtly hostile to the Constitution and everything it embodies.

Just as the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision precipitated a civil war over 150 years ago, current court decisions such as Obergefell v. Hodges and the various decisions that undermine the Executive Branch's powers to implement foreign policy and enforce immigration law have already lit the spark in the hay barn that will lead to our next conflagration. Federalism, like other principles embodied in the Constitution, only works when it is universally respected. Obergefell v. Hodges drove the stake into the heart of that dream; we're lucky it lasted as long as it did. Keep your ammo dry and plentiful!