October 18, 2013

One-party rule is so much more efficient

The top story in the New York Times:
California Seen as Example for How to Curb Partisanship 
By ADAM NAGOURNEY5:32 PM ET 
New election rules in California, once a symbol of government dysfunction, may be having their desired effect of leaching some of the partisanship out of politics.

Clearly, we must elect a new people to make the trains run on time.

67 comments:

Anonymous said...

I say, at this point, the ONLY thing the GOP does is split the white vote, and not even in the service of white interests but globalist neocon interests.

So, end the GOP, everyone join the Democratic Party and find allies to take on the elites.

Always fight one enemy at a time, and fight the main enemy FIRST before others are fought.
Our main enemy is the globalist elites, and that means we need form mass alliances with everyone to take them on. Only when the globalist elites are brought down low can we fight other enemies.

It's like US fought the Axis powers before it took on the Soviets.

Join with Hispanics for massive tax hikes on the globalist elite class. Demand more socialism for the '99%'.

First things first. Rich hate us, rich hate us. Remember that.

anony-mouse said...

Given its short distance and high cost, the California RR better run on time

Bobbala said...

Clearly, we must elect a new people that don't care if the trains run on time.

countenance said...

Absolute dictatorship...most efficient of all.

Anonymous said...

"I say, at this point, the ONLY thing the GOP does is split the white vote", and they you go on about how whites should all join a party that runs on a platform that openly wants more non-whites to immigrate and openly supports giving resources to these non whites over whites, remind me how this is good for whites exactly ?

Show me one society beyond pre civilization clans that does not have elites, getting rid of them will just have another bunch of elites replacing them. I am no GOP supporter, but to openly support a party (which also by the way has the most global elites backing it) that is openly hostile to me and would like nothing more than to see me gone, that is simply lunacy.

e......... said...

I'm surprised that Steve hasn't discussed Jerry BRown's signing the law that enables children the blessings of 3+ parents.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/6/calif-governor-signs-bill-allow-children-more-2-pa/

This is terrible. It will enable straight divorced parents to usurp each other's parental rights.

And yes, the death of the GOP is the best thing that could happen to working and middle class whites. The hell with the GOP - it always was the rich man's party. It was always against the interests of the white working class.

Anonymous said...

I see that a petition was started on the moveon.org website calling for House Republicans to be arrested and tried for seditious conspiracy.

As of this afternoon, it had 29,000 signatures.

Anonymous said...

Why did people turn against the GOP? Because government 'shut down'?

No, most of gov was still running.

It was because their stock portfolios were sinking and why?

Cuz big investors pulled out. In other words, Wall Street reaction to the crisis made people hate panic and hate the gop.

So, which side is Wall Street on?

Obama or those who wanna control the debt and rein in spending?

Anonymous said...

Given its short distance and high cost, the California RR better run on time

And yet, Governor Moonbeam vetoed a number of anti-gun provisions.

However, the reference to Mussolini is appropriate.

Anonymous said...

In 2009, Tea Party marched out in force in defense of Wall Street and told Obama to lay his hands off. As it turned out, Wall Street money was behind Obama and Obama was easy with Wall Street. But Tea Party went with the myth that Wall Street and the rich were under threat from the 'socialist' Obama.

It was easy to think this way since the Wall Street Journal had been championing free markets and small government for yrs.
But when Tea Party politicians called for those things this yr, Wall Street and its organ WSJ fully sided with Obama, denounced the Tea Party, sunk the stock market and got Americans mad at the GOP, and now lauds Obama for more easy money, more borrowing and spending.

Tea Party fools, you've been had. Had real bad.
Used and abused. And you thought the Wall Street guys loved you.

Wall Street loves big government as long as it keeps on borrowing, spending, printing, and lending to keep the bubbles rising for the benefit of the uber-urban class.

Auntie Analogue said...

"The other day, Anthony Cannella, a Republican state senator, joined Democrats as Mr. Brown signed a bill co-sponsored by Mr. Cannella permitting unauthorized immigrants to obtain drivers’ licenses."

Well, then, why bother having a country when your U.S. citizenship qualifies you only to be a doormat for illegal alien invader-colonists?

Anonymous said...

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/strangelove-republicans/

"Yes. I cannot believe I’m saying this, but I hope the House flips to the Democrats in 2014, so we can be rid of these nuts. Let Ted Cruz sit in the Senate stewing in his precious bodily fluids, and let Washington get back to the business of governing."

So, 'governing' is more borrowing, printing, and spending?

Okay, the hell with capitalism. We should jump on the socialist bandwagon and demand 'what is mine'.

So-called American Conservative that endorsed Obama twice and is afraid of any tough stance is what passes for 'alternative' conservatism.

So, now tell us that Democrats were right all along, and real 'governing' is creating massive bubbles.

James B. Shearer said...

This post seems off point, the new rules have little to do with California being dominated by Democrats.

Anonymous said...

"Clearly, we must elect a new people to make the trains run on time."

Funny you mention that. Here in the Bay Area the BART system is on strike. The average worker already makes $80k a year with only a high school diploma. If you've ever been to a BART station you might be forgiven for thinking that the most important job skill for being a transit employee is loitering. It's mostly black people in XXXL uniforms sitting around chatting about their life. If you ask them a question they might cut you off for interrupting their conversation. They are negotiating for an annual 5% raise and La-Z-Boy reclining chairs in the information booths, where it would appear employees spend most of the work day, including the track workers who can be spotted by their fluorescent yellow safety vests.

Of course it will be necessary to give in to their demands lest BART have difficulty hiring quality employees in the future. And BART fares will go up to cover contract concessions.

Single party government rocks.

Mountain Maven said...

Ask him if he wants to vacation in Stockton with Tom Friedman. I am sure they are BFF's.

countenance said...

Hard to believe this is the same AmConMag that Pat Buchanan started.

Anonymous said...

Super rich Wall Street sided with Obama against the Tea Party representing the middle class. As Wall Street guys can sink the stock market, even the middle class with stock portfolios panicked and sided with Obama.

Time to wake up?

Matthew said...

In a state like California - far, far to the left as it is - it doesn't strike me that non-partisan primaries are necessarily beneficial to leftists. When two Democrats wind up in the general election (as will happen quite often, I suspect) it will give right-leaning voters a chance to tilt the election to the more conservative of the two. In a Dem-leaning district (most of California) under a partisan primary system, the Democrats almost invariably choose one of the more liberal candidates, and that candidate ends up winning in the general, because he's the "Democrat."

But imagine a general election featuring two Democrats - a white vs. Hispanic. Hispanic Dem blatantly panders to La Raza while the white Dem presents a more moderate platform, including on illegal immigration.

This could introduce ideological diversity into a Democratic Party that presently has none (e.g., 100% of Dem senators voting for amnesty), and it could help splinter the Dem Party along racial lines.

Once upon a time, you could get Democrats to support things like border enforcement and welfare reform. Over the last two decades, though, leftists have tightened their ideological grip on that party. We need to find a way to drive a wedge between white and NAM Democrats. California may have just found a way to do that.

Matthew said...

From the article: "The other day, Anthony Cannella, a Republican state senator, joined Democrats as Mr. Brown signed a bill co-sponsored by Mr. Cannella permitting unauthorized immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses. Mr. Cannella said his district, which was 35 percent Republican when he was elected in 2010, will have considerably fewer Republican votes under district lines drawn by the independent commission for the next election."

According to Wikipedia, Cannella is the son of a former Democratic state assemblyman who tried to win this same senate district in 1998 and lost. So the junior Cannella's partisan ID could just as easily be (and almost certainly is) a matter of convenience.

Anonymous said...

*In a state like California - far, far to the left as it is - it doesn't strike me that non-partisan primaries are necessarily beneficial to leftists.*

It wasn't beneficial to old man Pete Stark, who lost his 40 year career to the much more pro-business Eric Swalwell. Down in LA a similar fate almost befell Henry Waxman. Howard Berman tried to do the opposite dance, pandering to Republican voters and touting his endorsements from right-wing neocons, but it didn't work.

Anonymous said...

Well, then, why bother having a country when your U.S. citizenship qualifies you only to be a doormat for illegal alien invader-colonists?

This is OT, but the comment above brought this to my mind. I was talking with some guy about obamacare helping illegals. He pointed out that illegals won't be able to purchase insurance through the exchanges.

This is true. However, I pointed out to him that illegals will not face penalties if they fail to purchase insurance. And that since they still will be able to get free care at any emergency room, they would have another competitive advantage over a citizen. For when the citizen seeks employment, he needs to ensure his compensation is adequate to support his newly mandated health insurance, or tax penalty if he fails to purchase it. The illegal, free from this expense, will be able to accept lower wages and still have access to the best ERs in the world.

Yes I understand some citizens will get tax credits. But the point is illegals will still crash our ERs which supposedly is part of the reason health care costs are so high. If the feds really wanted to control costs, they'd enforce immigration laws and not be pushing for the legalizing of tens of millions who will be on the public dole.

Indeed, what again is the benefit of citizenship?

Anonymous said...

Two big mistakes with the Republican Party in California and nationally. George H Bush cut the defense budget that destroyed the aerospace jobs in California and once the budget was cut then the aerospace jobs moved elsewhere were it was cheaper. This caused the white population to moved and replaced it with mainly Hispanics and some Asians. Two, Jack Kemp and other Republicans booed prop 187 and after Wilson no Republican in California took up the caused of illegal immigration, in fact 1996 was probably the last year the Republicans could have gotten off their butts. In fact George H should have proposed supporting like crazy Newt Gingrich a mission to Mars in the State. Kept more aerospace longer, aerospace workers voted more Republican than Silicon Valley workers.

Anti-Democracy Activist said...

Look at a county-by-county election results map. California is a deep red state with two geographically small but demographically huge deep blue megacities. These cities hold the rest of the state hostage, with no relief possible.

In the 21st century, there is a fatal flaw in the plan the "Founding Fathers" had for bicameral legislatures. They thought the most pressing problem would be the need to protect small political subdivisions from bigger ones. Instead, it has turned out to be the need to protect everyone else from the megacities.

Anonymous said...

"Hard to believe this is the same AmConMag that Pat Buchanan started."

Those with more money took over.

Matthew said...

"In the 21st century, there is a fatal flaw in the plan the "Founding Fathers" had for bicameral legislatures. They thought the most pressing problem would be the need to protect small political subdivisions from bigger ones. Instead, it has turned out to be the need to protect everyone else from the megacities."

That's #2, at best. What the Founders never contemplated was us becoming a country where the richest 400 Americans are collectively worth over $2 trillion - more than the poorest 100 million or so Americans combined, and all the implications that has for political influence via campaign contributions and bribery.

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41PT3-JRNdw

Sob story. Libs eat this up.
Though we can sympathize with her plight, there must be billions of similar stories all over the world.
If every badly off person in Africa, India, Mexico, and China wanted to come here and tugged at our heartstrings, and if we let them in, I mean what the F is that?

Anonymous said...

Anti-Democracy Activist said...
Look at a county-by-county election results map. California is a deep red state with two geographically small but demographically huge deep blue megacities. These cities hold the rest of the state hostage, with no relief possible.

In the 21st century, there is a fatal flaw in the plan the "Founding Fathers" had for bicameral legislatures. They thought the most pressing problem would be the need to protect small political subdivisions from bigger ones. Instead, it has turned out to be the need to protect everyone else from the megacities.


Indeed! I lived in Seattle years ago and in Washington State it is now possible to win a state-wide election while losing every county but one -- King County, which contains Seattle and its most populous suburbs.

Interestingly, Seattle is increasingly becoming more white (SWPL-types) while the affluent suburbs on the Eastside are becoming less white (largely due to the heavy East Asian and South Asian influx as tech workers).

Strangely, the Eastside is still more conservative (or at least business-friendly) and "pragmatic" than Seattle with all its whites. They actually build roads and bridges when needed there without doing a million environmental impact studies.

The joke in Seattle is that it is NOT a one party town because municipal elections are contested by two parties -- the Democrats and the Socialists.

I might add that Seattle also has more dogs than children and has probably the lowest church-attendance rate among all major cities. With whites like these, who needs immigrants* as enemies?

JN

*Before ya'all Richwine me for this anti-immigrant sentiment of mine, I'd like to point out that I, too, am a naturalized American like John Derbyshire and Peter Brimelow. And unlike some of these folks, I never violated my visa status. Squeaky clean, I have been.

Anonymous said...

Matthew said...

That's #2, at best. What the Founders never contemplated was us becoming a country where the richest 400 Americans are collectively worth over $2 trillion - more than the poorest 100 million or so Americans combined, and all the implications that has for political influence via campaign contributions and bribery.


While my blood too thrills at the the Jeffersonian sentiment of "blood of patriots and tyrants," I'd like to caution my fellow Americans that the Permanent Revolution (no elites and constant replacement of the top) can lead to some hellish consequences.

Burke had the right idea, I would think. Perhaps now it is becoming clearer that having a mostly hereditary upper class can guard against the excesses of the Men of Money by preserving some semblance of noblesse oblige.

JN

Anti-Democracy Activist said...

"That's #2, at best. What the Founders never contemplated was us becoming a country where the richest 400 Americans are collectively worth over $2 trillion - more than the poorest 100 million or so Americans combined, and all the implications that has for political influence via campaign contributions and bribery."

I beg to differ. I think that a group of wealthy patrician slaveholders in a country where even most of the free people were dirt farmers actually could contemplate a nation in which a relative few rich people had an inordinate share of the real political power.

I just think that it didn't matter, because the government wasn't massively bloated, terrifyingly powerful, and inserted into virtually every facet of people's lives. When the government existed mostly to arrest robbers, referee trade disputes between states, and organize the militia in case of foreign invasion, the stakes were far lower. Nobody much would have bothered organizing a huge, money-laden political machine to go to Washington and bribe everybody. The potential return on that kind of investment just wouldn't have been there.

The real problem here is that we have a political system that was designed to run a small-time pre-industrial farmers' republic; not a post-modern, astronomically wealthy, techno-industrial, geographically enormous, megacity-dotted, multicultural, multiethnic, globe-spanning empire. We've convinced ourselves that this system will scale to our present needs because we must believe that, because if it's not true, then... Oh God, what then?

The Roman Republic faced the same problem when it got too big and too powerful to be governable under the system it had grown to maturity under. Or maybe, when there was just too big a pile of money and power on the table for strong and proud men like Caesar to be able to continue to resist. Will the same thing happen to us? It's far less likely than it was in Rome. Rome relied primarily on its legions for its world influence; we rely primarily on our corporations. In Rome, a General ended up running things; here, well... you get the idea.

This might not be as fortunate for us as you might think, however. At least Augustus and his successors were able to make the Roman Empire governable for a couple more centuries after they came to power. That, too, is much less likely in our case. America and its empire look more and more ungovernable every day. Already our borders have collapsed, states openly defy the federal government (whether they are right to do so is beyond the point), and confidence in our financial stability grows shakier by the day. The police grow more militarized and the government more oppressive, but this is a sign of weakness, not strength. As Ugo Bardi has pointed out, one sign of a collapsing civilization is that it has to put an ever-increasing amount of resources into just maintaining the status quo - which in this case is the governability of the nation.

Anyhow, that was longer and more rambling than I intended. Sorry.

Anonymous said...

The BBC was reporting this story approvingly this morning.

bjdubbs said...

AmConMag has become reflexively anti-Republican. And I can't believe anyone reads Larison or McCarthy. They have some sort of invincible anti-click protection.

Anonymous said...

*In a state like California - far, far to the left as it is - it doesn't strike me that non-partisan primaries are necessarily beneficial to leftists.*
Actually, in some respects left states do better than right states since they force labor costs up while the Right wing states shown in the free and reduce lunch program info earlier keep labor costs down even if their housing is cheaper. In fact in Minnesota you still have less poverty than North Carolina. NC outside of the big cities was too much in garment industry work that went to Los Angeles where illegal immirgants work on at or eventually went overseas while Minnesota has more of a mix economy. Also, California in the Coastial areas might have the New York effect the Hispanics will dropped by 5 percent because of the high cost and eventually robots will be employed to do housework or yardwork. Ib reality outside of La or the Bay area California not far far to the left. San Diego is considered purple and Orange County is still complain about being too conservative for California. Riverside is Purple. Los Angeles is about 10 million versus 6 million for both Orange and San Diego that
s why the state is Blue.

Anonymous said...

Well, people here complain about the left and they are bad on catering to the minorities but the right has its problems. Take California the counties with the most illegals are sometimes red or purple Inland counties as a percentage of the population. Kevin McCarthy represents the real view of the Republican Party. McCarthy from Kern there is lots of farmwork. Now, if the right wanted to do something they would support selling the farm land in Kern to Oil companies because Kern also does oil production. In fact a study shown Kern, Frenso, Orange, Santa Clara have the highest percentage of the population here illegality, only Santa Clara is blue. Los Angeles is the next county and its blue. In fact San Franciso who everyone complains is a santuracy city is lower because they only have some tourism and have less construction work since they are built up. In fact I know a liberal Democrat who blames California problems on the growers and developers who were not Democrats. I'm not saying that the Democrat party has taken advantage of the situation.

Anonymous said...

Look at a county-by-county election results map. California is a deep red state with two geographically small but demographically huge deep blue megacities. These cities hold the rest of the state hostage, with no relief possible.
Your info is dated, there are few deep red counties anymore. There are a lot of purple counties like Riverside and San Diego or lite Red like Orange County, the deep red counties are the snall counties that wanted to secession and start Jefferson but lite Red or Purple certainly is not deep blue either.

Prof. Woland said...

The Exchanges mandated under ObamaCare are state run affairs which means California is now up to its neck in delivering our health care. The liberals in my state wanted to fully support Obama by embracing this law have ended up biting off about as much as they could chew. If this thing flops, and it could spectacularly, there will be a lot of Democratic politicians whose careers will be over. The good news is that they are proving to be so incompetent that we will never have a single payer system.

Anonymous said...

Actually, the Bay area doesn't have that much population its only 7 million while La, Ventura, Orange, San Bernadino, San Diego, Riverside are much larger at about 20 million, its La not the Bay Area that makes California Democrat. In fact Orange and San Diego are also among the 10 largest counties in the Us besides La. So you are incorrect it isn't the mega cities versus rural ares. It one big county versus large other counties that are not as big.

Anonymous said...

"I say, at this point, the ONLY thing the GOP does is split the white vote", and they you go on about how whites should all join a party that runs on a platform that openly wants more non-whites to immigrate and openly supports giving resources to these non whites over whites, remind me how this is good for whites exactly ?
Well, the Republicans do as well they simply called it guest worker programs. Ted Cruz supports 300,000 tech vistas a year and states in an interview that Mexicans are discriminated against in legal immigration. Why do all the right wingers want to pushed Ted Cruz for President when he wants to increase immigration as much as the Democrats.

Anonymous said...

"In the 21st century, there is a fatal flaw in the plan the "Founding Fathers" had for bicameral legislatures. They thought the most pressing problem would be the need to protect small political subdivisions from bigger ones. Instead, it has turned out to be the need to protect everyone else from the megacities."

The 17th Amendment sealed the fate of states at the federal level. Senators directly elected instead of appointed by state legislatures gave megacities too much federal power. The "Founding Fathers" didn't make that screw-up.

Anonymous said...

James B. Shearer said...
"This post seems off point, the new rules have little to do with California being dominated by Democrats."

Either you don't live in CA or you are dissembling on behalf of your fellow dems

Anonymous said...

"California is a deep red state with two geographically small but demographically huge deep blue megacities. These cities hold the rest of the state hostage, with no relief possible."

Most outlying areas have almost no people.

Look at farmlands. A handful of farmers per 100s of acres.

Anonymous said...

Obamacare vs single-payer.

For the middle class, the latter is better.

Obamacare will be funded essentially by raising rates on the middle class to subsidize the vast and increasing underclass.

While rates will go up for the rich too, they can afford to pay higher premiums. But beyond paying higher premiums, they don't have to do much else.

If middle class have to pay 2000 more and if the very rich have to pay 3000 more, it's a bargain for the latter but pain for the former.

But if we had single payer, then the main burden for funding the system will have to come from the rich. As health care will be free to the middle class, their taxes will go up somewhat, but to really fund the system, taxes on the rich will have to go way up, as in Sweden.

Since the rich gave us Obama and took massive bailouts, I say let's really stick it to them.

New conservatism must be statist. Use the Irish-American big city model.

countenance said...

I'm going to drop a fancy phrase on everyone here:

Homeostatic Equilibrium.

Even if California's one party rule is permanent, the political center always readjusts. In the case of California, it will be lodged within the Democrat Party. Even if the Democrat Party in CA does not formally bust into two, what will happen is that CA will become a statewide analogue to the politics of many major cities where there are both large voting populations of blacks and whites -- There is one party on paper, the Democrats, but two parties in reality, the black Democrats and the white liberal Democrats, with other races being wild cards, if they are relevant in those cities' politics.

Already this year, I've read articles about squabbles within CA's state Democrat caucus between largely white/Jewish/Asian pro-business types and the "down with the struggle" Razatards/unions.

The future I see for CA politics is that while there will be one heavily dominant major party on paper, the Democrats, it will functionally behave as two parties, the two factions I just described that are already at odds with each other. Each faction will have their own legislative caucus leadership structures. Republicans, what few crumbs they have, will only be relevant when they can help one faction of the Democrats defeat the other.

Anonymous said...

"Yes. I cannot believe I’m saying this, but I hope the House flips to the Democrats in 2014, so we can be rid of these nuts. Let Ted Cruz sit in the Senate stewing in his precious bodily fluids, and let Washington get back to the business of governing."
Except for the Amnesty which the Democrats will pushed more I have to agree, Ted Cruz himself is not the great on immigration, no Jeff Sessions. The Republicans and some Tea party folks tend to live in the past, except for Rand Paul state's rights on the social issues most of what is coming up is the usual group that does nothing much except enrich some folks like Rush or Sean Hannity. By the way, I think allowing New York to have gay marriage and having it opposed in the south is the way to go.

Anonymous said...

The various city-states and colonies in ancient Greece often came to this conclusion too: cut the B.S. political squabbling and put one strong man in place to get something done. Sometimes it worked pretty well but other times the "first among equals" decided simply to make himself "first". Yeesh.

The mask has slipped a few times during this government shutdown, where I've heard Democrats on NPR saying democracy isn't the an ideal form of government and that Europe doesn't have these problems because the parliament is less subject to angry voters.

Anonymous said...

"*Before ya'all Richwine me for this anti-immigrant sentiment of mine, I'd like to point out that I, too, am a naturalized American like John Derbyshire and Peter Brimelow. And unlike some of these folks, I never violated my visa status. Squeaky clean, I have been."

I just want to say that typing a country accent on text is probably one of the most idiotic things you can do on the Internet.

Anonymous said...

"you go on about how whites should all join a party that runs on a platform that openly wants more non-whites to immigrate and openly supports giving resources to these non whites over whites, remind me how this is good for whites exactly?"

You're missing the point. If all cons join the Democratic party, its platform will change, even if gradually.

Look, there are many white Dems who are angry with the globo-elites too, but they go with the Dems cuz they see GOP as even more pro-wall street and pro-globalist. So, the white vote is split.

My point is FIGHT ONE ENEMY AT A TIME. Germany lost two wars cuz it went for two-front wars.

If we take down the globo-elites, the HEAD of Liberalism will be broken, and then we can fight other wars.

FIRST THINGS FIRST.

US sided with China against the
USSR, but it is now forming alliances with India and Vietnam against rising China.

Sometimes, we have think politically than ideologically.

Jews sided with wasps to beat the Germany, and only after the Germany were defeated did they attack the wasps for supreme power.

Form realpolitik alliances to fight the MAIN enemy first.

We need a HUNGER GAMES strategy.
Time to let the scales fall off our eyes.
As the Jewish Congressman from Kentucky said: the BIG MONEY is with the 'left'. Even AFL-CIO is working with big corpies to bring in more cheap workers. That is the new 'unionism'.

When you're hungry, don't side with the fat cats.
GOP is useless in this regard. Better that it goes away and we form whatever alliances to bring down the elites.

Even when I used to read the National Review in the 80s, I always instinctively disagreed with its take on the French Revolution. True, it got extreme and spilled excessive blood, but it was the birth of modern nationalism where the rulers and ruled of the nation were one.
If anything, the aristocrats were like the global elites of today who dilly dally with elites of the world while disdaining the hoi polloi of their own nation.

countenance said...

To the anonymous poster who keeps advancing the curious theory that all white people should flood the Democrat Party.

First off, if I'm not mistaken, I think you post on AR as "Corporations vs the White Race." Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The main problem with your idea is that you're assuming that all white people have it in them to engage in political behavior indicative of racial thinking. Remember, you're reading Steve Sailer's blog, and he's made it abundantly clear that the prime division in American politics is not between whites and non-whites, and not any other sort of racial division. It's between non-Jewish white people involved in (or who want to be involved in or were involved in) traditional nuclear families (heterosexual marriage and children) on one side, and everyone else, i.e. all other white people and almost all non-whites on the other side. What do you think the mortgage gap, baby gap, marriage gap and dirt gap combine to mean?

If it's white ethnonationalism you want, then the good news is that white people in the business of procreating their own kind under the aegis of the institutions most known with reproduction and child rearing are the white people who are most receptive to nationalist message. "Nationalism" has its roots in the Latin word meaning "to be born," hence, white people who have/want to procreate will be receptive to ethnonationalist politics far more than the kind of white people who currently vote Democrat regularly, e.g. very young adults, LGBTQMIAPD, unmarried cohabitants, married heteros without children and without the ambition to have children, etc. The kind of white people who vote Republican are the kind of white people that will be the base of a future American or sub-American white ethnonat movement, even though the elites of the political party they currently vote for are hostile to ethnonat.

The long and short of it is that your movement is a non-starter because it's blissfully ignorant of fundamental sociological differences among whites. I would come to that same conclusion if you propose that all white people flood under the Republican tent. Same non-starter.

Anonymous said...

It’s the media - wherever you have a one party state - you have a one party media. The human mind just gives into whatever is repeated over and over again, propaganda works.

It takes a strong well educated mind to resist the endless calls of victimhood put out by the 1% owned liberal mass media.

In its decline, Rome was ruled by a 1% elite that promised bread and circuses. Isn’t that what the 1%’s liberal media is providing America?

Maxwell Power said...

"ONCE a symbol of gov't dysfunction" hahahaha

Maxwell Power said...

Covered Calif. removes erroneous doctor list

Obstetricians, ophthalmologists--what difference at this point does it make

Maxwell Power said...

James B. Shearer is correct, the Top Two voting changes don't always help Democrats *everywhere* in the state, esp. upper San Joaquin Valley area where you had at least 1 case of zero Dems qualifying for the run-off in a competitive district. However I hate the system and consider it patently inferior to the counter-gerrymandering proposals which had come up under Schwarzenegger and Wilson but went nowhere.

The hi-tech supertrain is best understood as a make-work abstraction like the ACA or electric car plant subsidies, i.e. never designed to function in a tangible sense but there'll be "stakeholders" of the Terry McAuliffe mold who make bank on the process

jody said...

"Clearly, we must elect a new people to make the trains run on time."

gotta build that 100 billion dollar high speed train, don't you know.

jody said...

"they would have another competitive advantage over a citizen."

correct. they are not citizens, so under PPACA, many employers will prefer illegal aliens to citizens. employers do not have to worry about illegal aliens working more than 29 hours per week. employers can have illegal aliens work 40 hours a week without having to comply with obamacare regulations.

Matthew said...

"You're missing the point. If all cons join the Democratic party, its platform will change, even if gradually."

Gradually - after amnesty and a huge, almost irreversible increase in legal immigration.

Republicans can be horrible, but remember that 100% of Senate Democrats voted for amnesty, while "only" 30% of Senate Republicans did so. House Republicans stopped the "inevitable" 2006 amnesty and may very well end up stopping this one. You think we'd stop it if Nancy Pelosi were Speaker?

You're right, though, that conservatives need to play the political game more shrewdly, voting in Democratic primaries either for the worst candidate (in competitive districts, to help the Republican in the general) or for the most conservative candidate (in safe Dem seats).

Matthew said...

"I beg to differ. I think that a group of wealthy patrician slaveholders in a country where even most of the free people were dirt farmers actually could contemplate a nation in which a relative few rich people had an inordinate share of the real political power."

You make a good point, but the wealth disparities of the time were far less vast than they are today, and most of the wealth at that time was illiquid (stock today vs. slaves, plantations, small factories then).

In 2007 the median family net worth was $126k. In 2010 it was $77k. Bill Gates today has a net worth roughly a million times that of the median American family. Could that be said of anyone alive in 1787, even adjusted for population?

Matthew said...

"Perhaps now it is becoming clearer that having a mostly hereditary upper class can guard against the excesses of the Men of Money by preserving some semblance of noblesse oblige."

An inherited nobility (one with real power) would not be marrying its children off to the sons and daughters of scullery maids. They would marry them off to the children of billionaires.

Orrin Hatch's son married a daughter of one of the billionaire Marriott heirs. Neil Bush's daughter Lauren is married to the son of billionaire Ralph Lauren (yes, her name is now Lauren Lauren). Etc. If political power were *more* heritable, then these types of marriages would be even more common than they are now.

Anti-Democracy Activist said...

"Could that be said of anyone alive in 1787, even adjusted for population?"

I'd say the disparity between slave and master in 1787 was in many ways greater. I'd rather be poor but free in a country with Bill Gates in it than I would be Thomas Jefferson's favorite slave.

And even if you were free in 1787, it still holds. I'd rather be "poor" in a country where most "poor" people live in their own house, own a car, and have multiple television sets, but in which there are a few multibillionaires around, than be an 18th century dirt farmer in a country dotted with occasional Monticellos. That was real, no-BS poverty, and someone experiencing it had to look at a Jefferson, attended by slaves in his comfortable mansion, with even more envy than a modern "poor" American might have for Mr. Gates.

Corn said...

"Indeed! I lived in Seattle years ago and in Washington State it is now possible to win a state-wide election while losing every county but one -- King County, which contains Seattle and its most populous suburbs. "

Similar situation in Illinois. If you look at a county red/blue map of the 2010 gubernatorial election, the winner (Democrat Pat Quinn) won only 4 out of 102 counties.
But one of those counties was Cook. (Chicago)
If Cook County was nuked/asteroided/landslided into Lake Michigan then Illinois would be about as red as Indiana.

countenance said...

Corn

The other three Quinn won, St. Clair (East St. Louis), Alexander (Cairo), Jackson (Carbondale), he won not by much. Coincidentally, ESL, Cairo and Carbondale have the biggest concentrations of blacks in Illinois south of Springfield.

Svigor said...

I find it really hard to believe that America is actually further left today than in, say, 1930. Socialism and liberalism were bright and shiny and new to Americans in 1930. Today they're old, stale, and covered in mold. Zzzzzz... Boring.

Liberalism is for addle-pated old farts, naive greenhorns, fringe America, and useful idiots.

Blacks: the dumbest demographic in America routinely serves up the highest share of its votes to Dems.

That's the Dems dumbstituency. Liberal is more of an insult these days than a marker of self-identification. Libs and their Pravda media masters have to redefine themselves as "moderates" these days.

Anonymous said...

Even if California's one party rule is permanent, the political center always readjusts. In the case of California, it will be lodged within the Democrat Party. Even if the Democrat Party in CA does not formally bust into two, what will happen is that CA will become a statewide analogue to the politics of many major cities where there are both large voting populations of blacks and whites -- There is one party on paper, the Democrats, but two parties in reality, the black Democrats and the white liberal Democrats, with other races being wild cards, if they are relevant in those cities' politics.
Blacks play a very little role in California politics since they are less than 7 percent and the highest city for blacks is 40 percent. percent black. Hispanics and Asians are a lot more influence in La, Orange and San Diego than blacks. In Orange County there is not one black politician but some Mexicans and Asians.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/strangelove-republicans/

So, 'governing' is more borrowing, printing, and spending?"

And this is the same Rod Dreher who also used to write for National Review, another magazine that was supposedly conservative, but really isn't.

I want a government that, for the most part, doesn't govern. I want a legislature that, for the most part, doesn't legislate.

ben tillman said...

Obamacare vs single-payer.

For the middle class, the latter is better.

Obamacare will be funded essentially by raising rates on the middle class to subsidize the vast and increasing underclass.

***

But if we had single payer, then the main burden for funding the system will have to come from the rich.


No. The burden would surely be on the productive middle class. Frankly, I have no idea why you think the government would not simply raise taxes on the middle class to account for the additional cost. But if we suppose you're right in that regard, we can be certain that the productive middle class will bear the burden through a reduction in the healthcare services they receive.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

I just want to say that typing a country accent on text is probably one of the most idiotic things you can do on the Internet.


Perhaps. Then again flinging simplistic invectives anonymously on the internet is rarely a sign of high intelligene, courage or sound moral character.

JN

Anonymous said...

And this is the same Rod Dreher who also used to write for National Review, another magazine that was supposedly conservative, but really isn't.

I want a government that, for the most part, doesn't govern. I want a legislature that, for the most part, doesn't legislate.


Rod Dreher is a communitarian conservative, not a libertarian.

JN

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

Rod Dreher is a communitarian conservative, not a libertarian."

He can call himself a musketeer for all I care, and it would be about as realistic as him calling himself a conservative. I maintain he is not a conservative. Conservatives don't write for the New York Times, and they don't express the kind of sentiments he has expressed.

And by the way, I am not a libertarian. I am a paternalist reactionary. And I prefer a government that doesn't do much.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Anon said...

He can call himself a musketeer for all I care, and it would be about as realistic as him calling himself a conservative.


There are several different strains of conservatism in this country. Communitarian conservatism is one of them. And Rod Dreher is that kind of a conservative. You may or may not like such a strain, but there it (and he) is.

I maintain he is not a conservative. Conservatives don't write for the New York Times, and they don't express the kind of sentiments he has expressed.

Surely you must know conservatives have graced the pages of the NYT? Writing for the NYT is not an automatic disqualifier for a membership in the conservative ghetto(s).

And by the way, I am not a libertarian. I am a paternalist reactionary. And I prefer a government that doesn't do much.

I also prefer a minimalist government, but I fully acknowledge that this is a libertarian strain. I call it my "leave me the heck alone with my guns and money -- and get the f off my property" part of my conservative persona.

I also have within me Rod Dreher's kind of conservative sentiment -- prefering small towns, nosy neighbors who care for each other, the beauty of religious ritual, the camaraderie of hunting together with family and friends and, yes, caring for the less fortunate or struggling members of my community -- arriving at some semblance of what the Catholic Church calls Caritas in Veritate via Pope Benedict (or Rerum Novarum per Pope Leo).

I suppose I am one of those folks who think distributism can and should be a part of conservatism as much as market capitalism.

JN