We Told You So, Again

1,484 words

We use case studies in law and business to learn about how rules and principles work in real life. This is apparently not so in politics — or at least Republican politics. Trump’s victory in 2016 should be the model for any Republican candidate who is serious about winning, especially since that victory was buttressed by a string of defeats both before and after it.

The special elections earlier this month continued the trend of the GOP snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Andy Beshear, the incumbent white Democrat who is the Governor of Kentucky, defeated his black Republican opponent, Daniel Cameron. This is despite Cameron being Kentucky’s Attorney General and having been endorsed by Trump. There are two lessons to be drawn from this: abortion fanaticism and anti-racist pandering are not electorally viable.

Abortion galvanizes the Left when we want them demoralized. Abortion isn’t even a real issue for most Republicans outside of the religious Right, as black women have the most abortions. Even liberal white women don’t abort their babies as often because they prefer birth control — and even when they do, they probably usually do so within the first 15 weeks. Abortion is just a contingency plan which they go into hysterics over because of “the patriarchy,” otherwise known as daddy issues.

Yes, abortion is evil, albeit it is sometimes justified in rare cases. The Left’s obsession with it is disturbing, to say the least, if not outright demonic. The Left is a death cult, but its silver lining is that Cthulhu eats his most loyal followers first. Once we apply Carl Schmitt’s friend-enemy distinction to the problem, Republicans getting worked up over abortion is similar to worrying that a rival nation such as China is destroying itself.

It is unfortunate that the Left doesn’t resort to abortion more often. We would be better off with fewer George Floyds and Gaige Grosskreutzes. At best, the vast majority of aborted babies would have been a drain on white society and a vote against our children’s interests. But there is a distinct possibility they might grow up to shoot at our children, too.

There are likewise a slew of other pro-life policies aside from abortion restrictions. According to a Gallup poll ^[2], the American preference for large families is at its highest since 1971 after decades of decadence. So why are birth rates so low? It would be reasonable to assume that economic factors are holding Americans back from reproducing, and especially in the case of whites, who are hard-wired to be more k-selective in their reproductive strategy, which favors quality of offspring over quantity. Paid family leave, Hungarian-style birth incentives, facilitating home ownership, affordable healthcare (for real, unlike Obamacare), and keeping inflation and costs of living down are all inherently pro-life policies.

These options would produce more Republican babies. They could even garner bipartisan support, a rare thing in an age of ever-increasing polarization. Yet, the GOP would never advocate for such policies.

The religious Right would never pressure them, either. Much like Zionism’s relationship with the GOP, their relationship is entirely one-sided. They demand that we pander to their pet issues, but we get little to nothing back in return. They scarcely seem to even reciprocate on mainstream conservative issues such as gun rights.

Imagine if the religious Right cared about other issues with even a fraction of the passion with which they care about abortion. Many Protestant churches have become almost as liberal, anti-racist, and touchy-feely as Wiccan covens. Pope Francis supports replacement “migration” and has declared that transgender individuals can receive baptism, become godparents at baptism, and serve as witnesses at religious weddings. And Bruce Jenner is a Republican celebrity. The religious Right has curiously surrendered every important issue except for the one that helps us and hurts our enemies.

The other lesson which cannot be stressed enough is that pandering to minorities is a losing strategy. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, then the GOP is downright deranged. Furthermore, a poll conducted by the Homeland Institute ^[5] strongly suggests that Republican candidates who cater to minority groups will not only waste precious capital trying to obtain a few extra votes, they could also lose votes if their pandering leads to a charge of being woke.

The mainstream Right, for all their well-funded policy institutes, still have no understanding of optics. Our rough history has taught us well. After Charlottesville, our guys were frequently attacked via guilt by association. Most hit pieces by the Southern Poverty Law Center and others lay out a string of associations by multiple degrees of separation, often in the second paragraph — to the point that “second paragraph” has become a meme. We are now very careful — perhaps too careful — of whom we associate with and what we say.

In stark contrast, many prominent conservative influencers have been using unhinged genocidal rhetoric since the Gaza conflict heated up. For example, Lara Loomer praised Israel’s defense minister’s statement ^[6] that “[t]here will be no electricity, no food, no fuel. We are fighting human animals and we will act accordingly” — accompanied by a #GlassIt hashtag. It doesn’t help that Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza have matched their rhetoric.

The mainstream GOP cannot closely associate with the Zionist lobby and then expect to be able to appeal to minorities by claiming that “Demonrats are the real racists.” The average voter is of average intelligence. When they look at Israel, they usually see a white state backed up by other white states that is bombing brown children. That Jews aren’t white biologically or even culturally is irrelevant. In politics, appearances are reality.

Minority pandering was always a losing strategy for a variety of reasons. But now it also has an insurmountable problem in the form of cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy. Even if GOP candidates don’t use genocidal rhetoric themselves, they closely associate with those who do, and their associations are a lot less tenuous than the ones we are attacked for. And while Zionism is bipartisan, it tends to be closer to the GOP.

To use Internet parlance, the Republicans have blown their optics. They might as well be aggressively pro-white at this point, as they have little left to lose aside from their Zionist megadonors — who wrecked their optics in the first place. Only 6.1% of white Republicans oppose preserving America’s white majority, while 14.8% of white Democrats say it is at least somewhat important (see here ^[7]). Trying to steal white Democrats was always more electorally viable than trying to steal colored Democrats. Since October 7, this is even more the case.

If a Republican candidate is serious about winning, he should drop the religious Right, or at least critically assess them. He should embrace implicitly White Nationalist policy positions. Maybe he should even become explicitly White Nationalist. He should drop Zionism, as it has become morally and economically repulsive to many voters. Support for Israel has plummeted ^[8], especially among the youth. If Zionism is now toxic, it will be even more so if the present war drags on or escalates — and it probably will.

Disregard my advice and you might as well run a meme campaign. You would probably be more successful, anyway.

Most Republicans will probably continue to follow poor strategies, which will likely result in Donald Trump taking the presidency in a landslide from Brandon while the Democrats will win in the House. MAGA shattered the old era, so the “coattails effect” by which whoever takes the presidency also takes the House may no longer apply. Trump’s electoral mandate would clash with a blue legislature that has an electoral mandate of its own.

One outcome of this might be Trump leaning into the unitary theory of executive power and becoming the Caesar he should have been during his first administration. If the House pushes back, this isn’t likely, because he is weak-willed. A second outcome is that there will merely be endless gridlock.

A third outcome is that Trump would seek to build a coalition with elements of the Democratic Party. Congressional Democrats will know that if Trump wins, the “Orange man bad” approach is not a viable strategy. For too long, there has been an artificial red-blue divide within what is in fact the same uniparty state. In Europe the parliamentary system encourages a slew of parties, which then cobble together coalitions, and at this point the various factions among the Democrats and Republicans are so different that they might as well become their own separate parties, as in Europe. Maybe we should leave the dysfunctional two-party system behind and move toward coalition building.

The end result could be Trump building a coalition of Republicans and Democrats to promote the national populist policies that voters actually want. If the GOP wants to confront reality and save itself, that’s great. If they want to destroy themselves, that’s fine, too. We have other options.