War End the GOP - Nigerian Bougie argues In order to save our democracy, we must not merely defeat the Republican Party.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account


There are two figures in the Republican Party who best represent the state of the GOP in the Trump era. The first, of course, is Donald Trump. The second is Roy Moore. By the time Moore defeated Jeff Sessions’s replacement, Luther Strange, in the Republican primary for Alabama’s special election in 2017, he had already been a minor celebrity on the right-wing fringe for nearly 20 years. He had been removed from the Alabama Supreme Court twice for refusing to comply with federal rulings. He regularly made statements disparaging Islam and homosexuality. He had been a proponent of the theory that Barack Obama had not been born in the United States and had led an organization that celebrated pro-Confederate holidays. True to form, Moore would go on to make comments suggesting an ambivalence about American slavery during his campaign—America was last great, he had said in response to a question at a rally that September, “when families were united—even though we had slavery, they cared for one another.”

In the months leading up to the election, the Republican National Committee seemed entirely willing to swallow that record and more to keep Sessions’s seat in the party’s hands. But that November, The Washington Post went public with startling allegations. Moore, a fervent public tribune of conservative family values, was credibly accused of sexually abusing a 14-year-old girl and pursuing several other teenagers. This, obviously, was a bridge too far for the party. Quickly, the RNC pulled its money and field support from the campaign. “The allegations were obviously very concerning, and concerning to the degree that we pulled our resources,” committee chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel explained to conservative talk show host John Catsimatidis. “The Alabama voters are going to have to be the judge and jury on this.” Her uncle, former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, was among the voices urging the party to abandon Moore. “Roy Moore in the U.S. Senate would be a stain on the GOP and on the nation,” he tweeted. “No vote, no majority is worth losing our honor, our integrity.” At a press conference earlier in the month, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called on Moore to step aside. “He’s obviously not fit to be in the United States Senate,” McConnell told reporters, “and we’ve looked at all the options to try to prevent that from happening.” By early December, Moore had few open supporters within the party infrastructure beyond the Alabama Republican Party, which had secured Moore’s place on the election ballot.

But it had also become clear by then that Moore, who had dismissed all calls to drop out, retained plenty of supporters within Alabama’s Republican electorate—voters who defiantly disbelieved The Washington Post’s reporting and were loyal enough that polls continued to show Moore in a dead heat or even ahead of Democratic challenger Doug Jones. In an interview just over a week before the election, McConnell declined to condemn Moore again. “I’m going to let the people of Alabama make the call,” he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. President Trump, less reticent, officially endorsed Moore by tweet the next day. “Democrats refusal to give even one vote for massive Tax Cuts,” he wrote, “is why we need Republican Roy Moore to win in Alabama.” In a statement afterward, the Moore campaign boasted that Trump had personally called to offer “enthusiastic support for Judge Moore’s candidacy.”

The inevitable followed. On December 4, 2017, the Republican National Committee endorsed a credibly accused child molester for U.S. Senate. Having decided his victory would be preferable to allowing a Democrat a partial and ultimately inconsequential term, the RNC resumed its financial support for the Moore campaign. In a column for USA Today, the conservative writer Jonah Goldberg stated the obvious. “The RNC pulled its support when they thought Moore could be forced from the race,” he wrote. “They renewed it when it was clear he lacked the decency to drop out. In other words, their real problem was with a potential loser, not a possible child molester.” In defense of its decision, the RNC issued a brief statement to the press: “The RNC is the political arm of the president and we support the President.”

The Moore saga feels as though it was an eternity ago, but the episode has taken on a new resonance in the wake of Trump’s impeachment. Over the past several months, leading Democrats in Congress, the Democratic presidential candidates, and pundits across the mainstream press have denounced the Republican Party’s defenses of the president, attacks on the credibility of impeachment witnesses, and attempts to undermine the impeachment process. In a representative op-ed for USA Today in December, California Democratic Representative Eric Swalwell, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, admonished Republicans and urged responsible figures in the party to “stand up and be counted.” “Are they OK with this president’s undebatable abuse of power?” he asked. “Are they prepared for what America becomes if we accept it? Is this the conduct we want to be commonplace in our children’s America?”

A similarly beseeching New York Times column from the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s Peter Wehner in September was titled, simply, “What’s the Matter With Republicans?” “Mr. Trump’s most recent abuse of power—pressuring the Ukrainian president to do his dirty work—is the latest link in a long chain of corruption,” he wrote. “If Republicans don’t break with the president now, after all he has done and all he is likely to do, they will pay a fearsome price generationally, demographically and, above all, morally.” Vox’s Ezra Klein, one of the loudest voices condemning Republicans’ unwillingness to hold Trump accountable, tweeted in November that the impeachment process had exposed much more than Trump’s willingness to abuse power. “I’m a broken record on this, but the impeachment process isn’t revealing what Trump did,” he wrote. “We already knew that. It’s revealing what the Republican Party will accept, and even defend.”

In truth, we knew that, too. As the RNC straightforwardly informed us during the Moore scandal, the Republican Party is the political arm of the president. Defending Trump’s effort to enlist a foreign power in the harassment of a political opponent has been an utterly trivial undertaking for a party not only willing to send an abuser of children to high office on Trump’s behalf, but also willing to sidestep and deny numerous allegations of abuse and rape against Trump himself.

The capacity of our political elites to be shocked anew by the Republican Party has been more shocking than anything Republicans have stooped to doing in the Trump era. It should be no surprise that a party willing to deny the reality of a climate crisis that imperils all civilization has given the presidency to a man who denied his black predecessor is an American. It is entirely logical that a party currently dismantling the right to vote has turned itself over to a man willing to undermine faith in the democratic process. Despite what the Democratic Party’s chosen rationale for impeachment has implied, the gravest offenses President Trump has committed against our country can be found not in the White House’s call logs but in the detention centers where the president has caged the children of migrant parents—children abused and traumatized in the service of a racist mythology Trump has crafted about the impact of immigration. The Republican Party has helped him promulgate it and stands ready to help him do worse, because Donald Trump, beyond holding office as a Republican president, embodies the very soul of the Republican Party.

Every single aspect of his administration has been foreshadowed not only by fringe figures within the GOP and voices in the conservative media, but also by the last Republican president—a man now embraced, sometimes literally, by liberal and moderate conservative figures decrying Trump’s conduct. Trump’s own rhetoric of division and exclusion was preceded by the 2004 reelection campaign for George W. Bush, which took advantage of homophobia to boost turnout from social conservatives. Before thousands of Puerto Ricans devastated by Hurricane Maria were forced by the Trump administration’s shoddy recovery effort to ask themselves whether they were really Americans after all, thousands of African Americans failed by the Bush administration’s relief efforts after Hurricane Katrina posed the same question to themselves. Trump’s intimations that the federal executive is above the law may well have been bolstered by the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance of the American people. Even Trump’s efforts to integrate his companies within the processes of the state were preceded by the Bush administration’s curious keenness for contracts with Halliburton, the company Vice President Dick Cheney ran before Bush took office.

The propaganda and misinformation campaigns that characterize what some have called a new post-truth era under Trump should, in fact, be quite familiar to those who remember the denialism that characterized defenses of the Iraq War and the hundreds of thousands of casualties it produced. The two Republicans who have occupied the White House in the first two decades of the new millennium have shared not only an address, but an enthusiasm for torture and war crimes, a zeal for using fear and the threat of terrorism to quash political dissent, and near-total support from the Republican political establishment.

In the years since the end of the Bush era, we have seen figures within the Republican Party denigrate African Americans, Hispanics, Muslims, and gender and sexual minorities. We have seen the Republican Party repeatedly back cuts to critical social programs under the pretense of fiscal discipline only to pass giveaways to major corporations, the wealthy, and an already gluttonous military. The character of the GOP is not an open question. Even those who suggest otherwise know it—the American political establishment meets each fresh stain the GOP leaves on the American conscience not with genuine surprise, but with performances of disbelief. Impotent in the face of a party that defied all political convention and wisdom with its victory in the last election, and unwilling to reshape a political order that offers them sinecures, political elites have only indignation and repetition as recourse. Their pearls, too often clutched, have been crushed into a fine powder. The straw has flattened the camel.

It’s left to the rest of us to face the truth squarely: Donald Trump is not a departure from the values defining the Republican Party, but the culmination of its efforts to secure power in this country. The question before us is not how much more the Republican Party might be willing to tolerate from the president but how much more we are willing to tolerate from the Republican Party. The GOP, founded by a generation of extraordinary men more committed to human freedom and the ideals expressed by our founding documents than the Founders themselves, has had a strange and improbable history. Built in opposition to the institution of slavery, the Republican Party is now a reliable opponent of equality and a malignant force in American life—a cancer within a patient in denial about the nature and severity of her condition. It should be not only defeated but destroyed—vanquished from the American political scene with a finality that can only be assured not by electoral politics or structural reforms alone, but by a moral crusade.

This might seem a startling supposition to liberal strategists and commentators convinced the Republican Party is digging its own grave. Despite Trump’s victory in the 2016 election, numerous pieces a year are written predicting that the GOP, dependent as it is on old and white voters, is headed for an inexorable decline, given the demographic changes set to reshape the country in the coming decades. “The numbers simply do not lie,” Axios’s Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen wrote last summer. “America, as a whole, and swing states, in particular, are growing more diverse, more quickly. There is no way Republicans can change birth rates or curb this trend—and there’s not a single demographic megatrend that favors Republicans.”
 
Is this some bait-and-switch where you try to pretend to be more rational than you have been, and try to pretend that you haven't been strawmanning most everyone here?

I didn't argue that the Civil Rights movement won by lynching white people or violent retaliation, I'm (indirectly) arguing that the Civil Rights movement won because they didn't allow themselves to be taken over by people like you, who grandstand as enlightened moderates who are just so empathetic and heartbroken to the amount of hatred going on both sides, and oh can't we just get along and stop all this fighting, while the opponents of the movement, who don't care about any of that shit, take advantage of all the Kumbayas being sung to gain enough power to completely crush the movement itself.

You're not some rational centrist, you're a cuck and a faggot who's affected naivete and put-on "higher empathy" will be taken advantage of by people who correctly see kindness as a form of weakness.
Fixed that for you.
And it's a good thing that I'm not arguing for lying down and taking it: I'm arguing against the default attitude in politics must be "we must destroy the other person utterly no matter the cost". An attitude I primarily see on the Left IRL, but which a few choice Right users on this site hold as well.
 
Again, all you have to do is cite what happened to connected members of Weather Underground to see the disparity. Nobody in the KKK got anything that cushy after that kind of rep without having to disavow.
Last time anyone with confirmed KKK origins that made it big would be Hugo Black from the FDR days. And the irony is that he was a full blown progressive for this time on the court when it came to civil rights.
 
Fixed that for you.
And it's a good thing that I'm not arguing for lying down and taking it: I'm arguing against the default attitude in politics must be "we must destroy the other person utterly no matter the cost". An attitude I primarily see on the Left IRL, but which a few choice Right users on this site hold as well.
Against people who believe that "we must destroy the other person utterly no matter the cost", the only effective response is to forceful, resolute, and just as tribalistic against them, but in a more "cogent" manner. To paraphrase one guy "we aren't winning necessarily because we're better people, but because we're bigger assholes who are just a bit smarter". Anything less is effectively the same as total capitulation.

Also, please list the names of those "few choice Right users" who hold what you perceive to have extreme "us or them" views.
 
Against people who believe that "we must destroy the other person utterly no matter the cost", the only effective response is to forceful, resolute, and just as tribalistic against them, but in a more "cogent" manner. To paraphrase one guy "we aren't winning necessarily because we're better people, but because we're bigger assholes who are just a bit smarter". Anything less is effectively the same as total capitulation.

Also, please list the names of those "few choice Right users" who hold what you perceive to have extreme "us or them" views.
JohnDoe, Cpl. Long Dong Silver, and that guy with all the numbers in his name who constantly accuses both political parties of being full of pedophiles and that full-blown theocratic reaction is the only moral position rise off of the top of my head.
EDIT: 3119967d0c
 
JohnDoe, Cpl. Long Dong Silver, and that guy with all the numbers in his name who constantly accuses both political parties of being full of pedophiles and that full-blown theocratic reaction is the only moral position rise off of the top of my head.
EDIT: 3119967d0c
lmao out of the three the only one with even the most marginal chance of being genuine is John Doe. Long Dong's an obvious edgelord going by how eager he was for recognition that he posts naughty words when a jannie implied he's got a list of jew-posters he keeps handy, and 311doc reads more like a /pol/-ack's imitation of an anti-Jew Muslim than the real article.

There are easily 4-5 regulars far more prone to derailing threads whenever their God Emperor is questioned and "ruining A&H", but you fixate instead on the obvious speds who mostly attract negrates.
 
There are easily 4-5 regulars far more prone to derailing threads whenever their God Emperor is questioned and "ruining A&H", but you fixate instead on the obvious speds who mostly attract negrates.
Well, who are they?
 
lmao out of the three the only one with even the most marginal chance of being genuine is John Doe. Long Dong's an obvious edgelord going by how eager he was for recognition that he posts naughty words when a jannie implied he's got a list of jew-posters he keeps handy, and 311doc reads more like a /pol/-ack's imitation of an anti-Jew Muslim than the real article.

There are easily 4-5 regulars far more prone to derailing threads whenever their God Emperor is questioned and "ruining A&H", but you fixate instead on the obvious speds who mostly attract negrates.
Fair enough. I'd have listed CDM if he wasn't banned, and I was trying to go for the obvious examples.
 
Ah, my error. They're just blending in to me.

We really should never have banned Corbin; that guy had a personality.
The feeling's mutual, as you, @Iwasamwillbe, et. al's immediate defensive posturing any time the tone of this place moves slightly to the left of "Ongoing Trump Rally" long ago blended into one unending Frog Scream for me. The only thing separating you guys from Corbin is the modicum of self-awareness to not spam the site with TTS threads and then sockpuppets after getting banned.
 
The feeling's mutual, as you, @Iwasamwillbe, et. al's immediate defensive posturing any time the tone of this place moves slightly to the left of "Ongoing Trump Rally" long ago blended into one unending Frog Scream for me. The only thing separating you guys from Corbin is the modicum of self-awareness to not spam the site with TTS threads and then sockpuppets after getting banned.

Touched a nerve, I see.

To your credit, at least you didn't lower yourself to whining about stickers, if memory serves. However, the fact you made this about political differences yet again speaks volumes as to what your actual problem is.

Please don't be so transparent in the future.
 
The feeling's mutual, as you, @Iwasamwillbe, et. al's immediate defensive posturing any time the tone of this place moves slightly to the left of "Ongoing Trump Rally" long ago blended into one unending Frog Scream for me. The only thing separating you guys from Corbin is the modicum of self-awareness to not spam the site with TTS threads and then sockpuppets after getting banned.
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. I don't consider A&H to be a right-wing, pro-Trump hugbox in the first place, so any leftward shift is imperceptible to me, and too small for me to care about anyway.

Then again. who are the "et. al." who engage in "immediate defensive posturing any time the tone of this place moves slightly to the left of "Ongoing Trump Rally"? Either start naming names, or fuck off with this transparent projection.
 
100% agree. it would destroy the legitimacy of the dems' coalition-forming instantly because they'd no longer have an implicit unifying adversary, and they would splinter along ethno-religious lines within weeks if not days. it would unironically save the country by forcing the governmental institutions to shit their own beds to death because the institutions (including the media, NGOs, universities, state govts, etc) would become too clogged with various power grabs, people would become skeptical of each other and retreat into various forms of tribalism (not necessarily ethnic but definitely politico-religious). it would in short dissolve the implicit power-gravitational-center of washington into warring camps, forcing people to reconsider their arrangements.



$10 says this guy has a house on some tropical island he can escape to when his "multicultural paradise" inevitably becomes reality


1965
They could maintain the coalition by fearmongering about a redneck insurrection against the "ascendant" to generate enough "ends justify the means" thinking among the rank and file to rig the electoral system in their favor . Back when the Dems were pro-white they held onto the Solid South quite thoroughly for 50 years partly by fearmongering about blacks and carpetbaggers, it has happened before.

So even if whitey is reduced to slaving away for everyone else's benefit through disproportionate taxation there's still the unifying creation myth (which combines all of woke thought) of "The rich white man raped the world, and we're still trying to heal the trauma". Sure, the sub-factions would debate endlessly about how exactly this "healing" would work and might eventually split into multiple parties, but disagreeing with that premise as a politician would get you blacklisted like AfD is in Germany.
 
Then again. who are the "et. al." who engage in "immediate defensive posturing any time the tone of this place moves slightly to the left of "Ongoing Trump Rally"? Either start naming names, or fuck off with this transparent projection.

This nonsense is how you know this is actually about political differences. Notice how it is always people complaining about AnH being "too right-wing" or whatever who seem to hold some weird grudge toward shadowy and mysterious "regulars."

I don't get it. Who the hell cares about how other people post? As @Unog would say, block and move on.
 
The feeling's mutual, as you, @Iwasamwillbe, et. al's immediate defensive posturing any time the tone of this place moves slightly to the left of "Ongoing Trump Rally" long ago blended into one unending Frog Scream for me.

The only people who've bitched about the "tone" of A&H have consistently been people bitching about neon yahtzees, "racism", and "toxicity".

Nobody in the State of the Board thread came in saying that the board needed moderation because there were too many people making posts saying caustic shit about privledged whites or cis-male scum, and I haven't seen that sentiment elsewhere.

Like, it's absurd enough to say what I've quoted here that I'm actually baffled by your post.
 
demographics do matter, and you're going to find out sooner or later - for example, the next time you move out of your neighborhood because it's too, y'know, unsafe for your children. shitlibs will just brush yet another destroyed neighborhood off as "structural racism" and "inequality" which, of course, can be solved by just voting the right people into positions of power, just like how hugo chavez fixed everything and nothing bad ever happened in venezuela after he was elected. same with hitler. same with bernie. or even drumpf.

one serious problem with classical liberals and all of their offshoots, including marxists, is that people aren't all the same on the inside, which problematic when you're trying to homogenize everyone into the perfect consumer-drone, worker bee, or whatever purely materialist evolutionary endgoal the political sphere dreams up for its inhabitants. we're not all carbon copies of each other despite girardian mimicry being very real, and the more we beat out heads over with this idiot stick, the more we hurt ourselves and absolutely nobody else. nobody else on earth believes this trash except westerners, nobody else is forced to believe it or forces themselves to believe it, and it's the absolutely moronic hill the west has collectively decided to die on (i do believe spengler is right, but we're watching the tape play in fast-forward because of the rate of information exchange and global connectedness now). but i don't blame people necessarily for believing enlightenment lies still, it's hard to overnight undo ultimately disgenic beliefs that have 350 years of not being sufficiently challenged at the core. (compare: christianity since copernicus.)
Up in Canuckistan, we've taken the superficial appearance of assimilation to an art form. The CBC has lots of guys with unpronounceable names who sound exactly like the white Toronto soyboys who more commonly staff it. They even accent-coach airport security to the same degree, it's as if our government is desperate to "prove" that we're all the same inside, just like they tried in the Residential School days.
 
They could maintain the coalition by fearmongering about a redneck insurrection against the "ascendant" to generate enough "ends justify the means" thinking among the rank and file to rig the electoral system in their favor . Back when the Dems were pro-white they held onto the Solid South quite thoroughly for 50 years partly by fearmongering about blacks and carpetbaggers, it has happened before.

So even if whitey is reduced to slaving away for everyone else's benefit through disproportionate taxation there's still the unifying creation myth (which combines all of woke thought) of "The rich white man raped the world, and we're still trying to heal the trauma". Sure, the sub-factions would debate endlessly about how exactly this "healing" would work and might eventually split into multiple parties, but disagreeing with that premise as a politician would get you blacklisted like AfD is in Germany.
Up in Canuckistan, we've taken the superficial appearance of assimilation to an art form. The CBC has lots of guys with unpronounceable names who sound exactly like the white Toronto soyboys who more commonly staff it. They even accent-coach airport security to the same degree, it's as if our government is desperate to "prove" that we're all the same inside, just like they tried in the Residential School days.
BAP and a couple yootoomers named Endeavour and Clossington all made parallel points about this homogenization effect recently, weirdly all just within like 2 weeks of each other. what's happening is that we're all being implicitly or explicitly homogenized into consoomer drones by a very implicit ideological entity that's larger than any single nation-state. "ypipo man bad" is just a stair-step in this process. marxists call it capitalism, right-wingers call it globalism, libertardians and classical lolberals call it idpol, simpletons call it the either the jews or ypipo (depending on skin color), neoliberals and progressives call it progress, neocons call it the speed limit... call it whatever you want, but it's nothin' personnel kid because we're all ultimately obedient blank ledger-slates that the managerial class and their handlers can write their hopes and dreams on. so when you have two nonwhite peoplxs of cxlxr arguing about something as stupid as ending the only justification the democrats have for existing as a single political entity.... well, don't take it personally. #TimesUp #ItWasHerTurn #Bloomsperg2020

(don't get me wrong, it's not like someone masterminded this mass postnational progressive ideology. it evolved naturally.)

moreover, the implicit international sentiment is warming up to china, just take a look at the dicksucking by the WHO over china's completely fucked-up handling of what is now without a doubt a global pandemic, solely due to the CCP's complete mishandling of what could have really been a nothingburger. beijing (and others including the US) are right now flooding the markets with liquidity in an attempt to keep the boat afloat, markets are continuing to go up, and absolutely nobody in a position of power is crying foul and sounding the alarms at not only creating a global pandemic but then artificially inflating markets (right before an obvious lag in production and supply chain due to the virus) without just basically admitting that most money is now monopoly money. nobody fucking cares, or rather if they did care, would their bosses let them slam the brakes on the out of control train? really makes you think.

pay attention: if everything continues as it has before, slowly in the next decade more and more nobel prizes will be handed out systematically to various citizens of china/CCP members, and watch the academic class begin to make their homes in beijing, shanghai, and shenzhen. getting the academic class (and other sectors of the priest class) on board is one of the first steps to internationally legitimizing anything; reading the history of marxism in academic circles is a good proof of concept of this happening in the real world, and it's well-documented. china's just the next obvious choice for this postnational pure-materialist ideology (whatever it might be called) to extract wealth from and create a stronghold within precisely because the han are already heavily (pre-)homogenized and generally follow in lockstep behind the emperor/family/state because of confucian culture. then it'll attempt to homogenize the han into consumer-worker drones (not exactly a stretch lol) just like everyone before it. liberal democracy, postnational communism, global capital, whatever. it's just a giant human socio-psycho-economic blender. it didn't work in the mideast so now it'll try china. and if it doesn't work there, on to ... ? we'll find out : - )
 
Back
Top Bottom