The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Will Democratic Rebels Dethrone Nancy?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

After adding at least 37 seats and taking control of the House by running on change, congressional Democrats appear to be about to elect as their future leaders three of the oldest faces in the party.

Nancy Pelosi of California and Steny Hoyer of Maryland have led the House Democrats for 16 years. For 12 years, they have been joined in the leadership triumvirate by Jim Clyburn of South Carolina.

If these three emerge as speaker, majority leader and majority whip, all three Democratic leaders will be older than our oldest president, Ronald Reagan, was when he went home after two terms.

By 2020′s election, all three House leaders would be over 80.

Was this gerontocracy what America voted for when it awarded Democrats control of the U.S. House?

Hardly. Some Democrats won in 2018 by pledging not to vote for Pelosi as speaker, so unpopular is she in their districts. And if all who said they want new leadership were to vote for new leaders on the House floor Jan. 3 — when the speaker will be chosen — Pelosi would fall short. The race for speaker could then break wide-open.

Some 16 Democrats vowed Monday to oppose Pelosi on the House floor, one shy of being enough to block her return to the speakership after eight years.

In a letter that went public, the 16 declared: “Our majority came on the backs of candidates who said that they would support new leadership because voters in hard-won districts, and across the country, want to see real change in Washington. We promised to change the status quo, and we intend to deliver on that promise.”

The likelihood of the rebellion succeeding, however, remains slim, for no credible challenger to Pelosi has yet announced.

What explains the timidity in the Democratic caucus?

Pelosi punishes enemies. Democrats calling for new leaders have already been branded as sexists with the hashtag “#FiveWhiteGuys.”

Yet evidence is mounting that a Pelosi speakership would prove to be an unhappy close to her remarkable career.

One week after the election, 150 protesters from the Sunrise Movement and Justice Democrats blocked Pelosi’s House office to demand action on climate change. They were joined by the youngest member of the incoming Congress, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Pelosi declared herself “inspired” by the protesters, 51 of whom were arrested. She urged police to let them exercise their democratic rights and pledged to revive the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, which Republicans abolished.

Dismissing the committee as “toothless,” the protesters demanded that Pelosi’s party commit to bringing an end to the use of all fossil fuels and to accepting no more campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry.

Not going to happen with Pelosi as speaker. For when it comes to the leftist agenda of liberal Democrats from safe districts — Medicare for all, abolish ICE, impeach Trump — Pelosi would pigeonhole such measures to avoid the party’s being dragged too far to the left for 2020.

And if the House were to pass radical measures, the bills would die in the Senate or be vetoed by the president.

Moreover, within Pelosi’s party in the House, the various factions are going to be demanding a new distribution of the seats of power, of which there are only so many to go around.

Democratic women, who won more seats than ever, will want more, as will the Congressional Black Caucus and the Hispanics. It will most likely be white male Democrats, that shrinking cohort, who will be the principal losers in the new House.

That adage about Democrats being a collection of warring tribes gathered together in anticipation of common plunder has never seemed truer.

What, then, does the new year promise?

ORDER IT NOW

As it becomes apparent that there is little common ground for bipartisan legislation on Capitol Hill — except perhaps on infrastructure, and that would take a long time to enact — the cable news channels will look elsewhere for the type of action that causes ratings to soar. That action will inevitably come in the clashes between Trump and his enemies and the media that sustain them.

Out of the House — with Adam Schiff, Elijah Cummings, Maxine Waters and Jerrold Nadler as new chairs — will come a blizzard of subpoenas and a series of confrontations with witnesses.

From special counsel Robert Mueller’s office will almost surely come new indictments, trials and the long-anticipated report, which will go to the Justice Department, where Matthew Whitaker is acting attorney general.

Then there is the presidential race of 2020, where the Democratic Party has yet another gerontocracy problem.

By spring, there could be 20 Democrats who will have announced for president. And five of the most prominent mentioned — Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, John Kerry, Joe Biden and Mike Bloomberg — are also over 70, with Elizabeth Warren turning 70 in June.

While some candidates will be granted airtime because they are famous, the lesser-known will follow the single sure path to the cable studios and the weekend TV shows — the trashing of Trump.

Trading barbs is not Nancy Pelosi’s kind of fight.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2018 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Democratic Party, Nancy Pelosi 
Hide 53 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Are you an example of gerontocracy Grandad Patrick?

    How can you fuss about perennial right wing bete noire (meme?) Nancy Pelosi, but remain remarkably silent about arch-neocons and Israel-Firsters like Bonkers Bolton occupying the Oval Office at the direction of Trump?

    Talk about dangerous distractions and preoccupations of old age…

  2. Pelosi declared herself “inspired” by the protesters, 51 of whom were arrested.

    Apparently, she was not inspired enough to go to jail with these 51 protesters. Going to jail would really show some solidarity, plus likely count as time served when we finally throw the corrupt bitch in the pokey for high stupidity and misdemeanors.

  3. Don’t let her bumbling public persona fool you: Pelosi is a tough-as-nails, old-style politico who knows how to wield power to keep power. She’ll put the rebels on an island they’ll never have expected. The Repubes should have the discipline this little old lady demands of her crew.

  4. Nancy Pelosi is, as other commentators have noted, tough as nails and will probably be Speaker of the House. I wonder, however, whether a year from now, she might privately wonder why she wanted the job. The incoming Democratic House “freshman,” composed largely of prima donnas, drama queens and attention whores, may prove ungovernable and impossible to lead. Can you imagine any of these people accepting an unprestigious subcommittee assignment without loud and public protest, let alone actually learning about the issues that are within the jurisdiction of the subcommittee, so as to cast intelligent votes on proposed legislation? I predict the only thing that the House coalition of the fringes will find unites them is their hatred of Donald Trump and the Deplorables who elected him. So the House will impeach Trump one or more times, only to have the Senate acquit him. There’ll be some government shutdowns over the failure to pass appropriations bills and resolution of the contrived crisis by an abdication-of-responsibiity continuing resolution. All this will, however, pave the way for the election of President Kamala Harris in 2020. At which point a third of Venezuela will be heading north towards the (formerly United) States.

  5. @Diversity Heretic

    You don’t have to be good or particularly bright if you’ve got the numbers.

    There’s a reason that so many great thinkers haven’t been fans of democracy, certainly not universal democracy. It’s a pretty stupid when you think about it. In what other area of life would you allow everyone to have an equal say in how things are run? Would a business run better if the employees’ vote counted as much as the owners or upper management? Would a family run better if the kids had as much say as the parents?

    The Founding Fathers sure as hell didn’t believe in universal democracy.

    I’ll admit that it’s hard to find that balance between dictatorship and universal democracy, but either of those ends of the spectrum are bad. I think that the Founding Fathers had it about right when they said only White, land-owners. They were basically saying people who create the wealth, people with a steak in this society and people who understand long-term thinking. You could do the same today by saying the vote is limited to people who pay more into the system than they take out – net taxpayers.

    That would exempt lower income people, a huge number of women and all federal workers including the military. (State and local workers would be exempt from state and local elections.)

    Yep, if we had that, we’d never have ended up in this situation in the first place. That said, it would never happen for the same reasons that the government slowly removed the other restrictions on voting. Democracy grows by its nature until it implodes on itself. It’s a natural cycle that is repeating before our eyes.

    Enjoy the ride because this train has left the station.

  6. @The Alarmist

    She’s no lady, but otherwise you’re spot on.

  7. @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Your idea makes sense, Citizen.

    Several people in my immediate family have worked for government at one time or another, one for most of his/her career. Yet I’d wholeheartedly support taking the vote away from government employees. How absurd for the foxes to vote on how to guard the henhouse (the taxpayers’ property).

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  8. @RadicalCenter

    Actually I would go one step farther and require government staffers or paid advisors above a certain grade to be castrated or sterilised … the old court eunuch thing. We’d be less likely to get generations of people, to wit the eponymous Ickes family or the McCain family, roaming the halls of power.

  9. Stick says:

    Nanzi as Speaker guarantees landslide for Trump. It also guarantees a great deal of laughs too.

  10. MUCH MORE FUNDAMENTAL AND LARGER POINT:

    The young highly RACIALIZED insurgents are waging a non-white majority Democratic Party race war against the old farty white grifters in both the Democratic Party and Republican Party…..

    AND THE LARGER OVER-ARCHING POINT:It is going to be an all out race war between The Majority NonWhite Democratic Party and millions of WORKING CLASS NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICANS…

    Partitioning America won’t prevent this….IT’S OUR LIVING AND BREEDING SPACE THEY ARE STEALING!!!!

  11. @Stick

    Keep dreaming….The next POTUS will be the Hindu-Jamaican Kamala Harris who is a creation of the passage of the 1965 NONWHITE LEGAL IMMIGRANT INCREASE ACT=THE PASSAGE OF THE 1965 NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN EXTERMINATION ACT…..

  12. It will get even worse:POTUS KAMALA HARRIS will appoint the vicious Hindu Racist Preet Bharara as her Attorney General…..Bharara is going after the Richard Spencer and the Alt Right for sure…followed by WORKING CLASS NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN MALES who resist being voted into a racial minority by the majority nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc…

    Jared Taylor said to Paul Kersey last week on his internet radio show:”Paul…I can’t for the life of me figure out why the high IQ Asians voted 72 percent Democratic in the midterms when they should be natural allies of Huwhite People…”………I have always intensely hated Jared Taylor for his Asianphilia……variation on theme of CUCKHOLDERY…..

    Paul Kersey

    You don’t get it:ASIAN “AMERICANS” are voting for the racial spoils system….enthusiastically….this is the basis of their vote for the Democratic Party….

  13. @Citizen of a Silly Country

    I agree. The United States was a more sane and stable country when the right to vote was limited to educated white property holders who could read and write.

  14. MarkinLA says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Actually, representative democracy turns in worse results than universal democracy. We never would have had our immigration policies without the ability of special interest groups and money to buy the worthless shitbags that inhabit Congress and the Presidency.

    Dictatorships work as long as the dictator identifies with the people and isn’t too nutty or starts thinking big. If Hitler had never happened, Mussolini would have been a national hero in Italy.

  15. @Citizen of a Silly Country

    The Founding Fathers may well have been afraid of universal democracy and democracy in the abstract, but their world was one dominated by it and they participated in it throughout their adult lives.

    The Founders were not immune from the ravages of cognitive dissonance.

  16. @MarkinLA

    Good points. It seems that a key to any system is that the elite identify with and feel a kinship with the people. I may not like all of my relatives, but they are family, and I wouldn’t sell them out.

    This is why I’m an ethno-nationalist.

    We not only have an elite that doesn’t identify with nor feel a kinship with the people; it openly dispises them and often indentifies with and feels a kinship with another people. And that’s only going to get worse as NE Asians and South Asians push their way up the ladder next to Jews.

    I often find the talk of civil war and a break-up of the United States to be silly and childish, but then I think of what’s coming, and I wonder if I’m the naive one. If not for modern comforts and the overwhelming power of the media to shape people’s perceptions, we would have been at war long ago. It’ll be interesting to see how far all of this can be pushed.

    Of course, I wouldn’t mind watching the show from afar.

  17. @Liberty Mike

    Quite correct. The Founding Fathers were well aware of the constant pressure to expand suffrage, and the dangers of democracy in any of its forms. Yet, that’s the system that they chose. Sure, they did their best to limit the dangers, but they had to know that it was so very easy for things to slide down a terrible path.

    The truth is that you can’t control future generations. Look at fate of so many trust-fund kids. Given everything, they often piss it all away. The same is true of cultures and peoples. The Founding Fathers gave their future generations every advantage, and we pissed it away. It seems the way of things.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  18. trelane says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    I have a steak in this society too and its not just a pigment of my imagination.

  19. @MarkinLA

    Exactly correct. Rule by plebiscite is much better than democratic republics.

  20. @The Alarmist

    I’m sure she’s “tough as nails” when it came to dealing with bumbling cucks who’d never dealt with a bossy wop/feminist rolled into one.

    But wait until she gets her first taste of an aggressive “sassy” young black woman – “you didn’t build that!” who sees her for what she is; an elderly white woman.

    The idea that any white person, let alone an old one, like Pelosi, Clinton, Sanders or Biden is going to be running the Democrats is laughable.

  21. peterAUS says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Given everything, they often piss it all away. The same is true of cultures and peoples. The Founding Fathers gave their future generations every advantage, and we pissed it away. It seems the way of things.

    It does looks that way for sure.

    It applies to all of the West.
    And, even worse, better a country had it in past better the current citizens are working on pissing it away.
    Makes you really think. Not that it helps much, unfortunately.

  22. @Johnny Smoggins

    Good comment! Black and Hispanic first-term Members aren’t likely to be intimidated by Nancy Pelosi by threats of second-rate committee assignments. They’re there to grandstand, not to govern and Pelosi can’t keep them off the floor of the House shouting diatribes during Special Orders. Also agree that John Kerry was the last non-homosexual white male the Democratic Party will nominate for President.

  23. @trelane

    I have a steak in this society too and its not just a pigment of my imagination.

    I was thinking that was Eggcorn of the Week.

    “Reign ‘em in” if they won’t “tow the line”! “No holes Bard”!

  24. @Johnny Smoggins

    But wait until she gets her first taste of an aggressive “sassy” young black woman

    Can you imagine Nancy pinned under Gabourey Sidibe? If the caning of Charles Sumner was tragedy, this would be the farce that completes Marx’s dictum.

    • Replies: @Johnny Smoggins
  25. @Liberty Mike

    The Founders were not immune from the ravages of cognitive dissonance.

    They put off immigration control until 1808, for instance.

  26. PJB once said that a country that sends its women to war is a country no longer worth defending.

    When the defense bill came up a couple of years ago, 85 senators voted for it– even though buried in its 600+ amendments was one requiring our women to register with Selective Service. Ted Cruz and Ben Sasse might be annoying people, but they were among the few who called their colleagues out on this one.

    The Republican House managed to keep it out of their bill, so it is not law. Yet.

    We now face a Democratic House. What happens if the Senate pulls this stunt again? Will Nancy go along? Or will she bury it like Ryan’s crew did?

    Cruz was the only presidential candidate to mention it without supporting it. Trump was (as far as I can tell) silent. Would he sign such a thing, veto it, or stop it by threatening to veto while it was in committee?

    A revolutionary change like that should only be voted on as a single-topic bill. Anything else is cowardice.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  27. DB Cooper says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    I forgot who but one of the founders said Democracy is two wolves and one lamb deciding what to have for dinner.

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
  28. anon[418] • Disclaimer says:

    “I think that the Founding Fathers had it about right when they said only White, land-owners. They were basically saying people who create the wealth, people with a steak in this society and people who understand long-term thinking. You could do the same today by saying the vote is limited to people who pay more into the system than they take out – net taxpayers. That would exempt lower income people, a huge number of women and all federal workers including the military. (State and local workers would be exempt from state and local elections.) Yep, if we had that, we’d never have ended up in this situation in the first place.”

    That’s well meaning but ultimately foolish and wrong. The system that you propose here wouldn’t make things better. Rather, it would only ensure the same result with a different demographic pulling the strings: wealthy upper-class and educated suburban whites – guys like Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney; don’t be surprised if they vote for open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens. It’s not so wise to base suffrage rights on things like who can make the most money. Guys like that are only interested in making even more wealth for themselves, meaning they’d support cheap labor immigration, continual wars, and devastating economic policies if they thought it would benefit them.

    Poor whites and whites with enlisted military credentials are overwhelmingly on our side. Those are the people we want voting because they are the demographics most likely to support restricting immigration. Welfare payments are small potatoes compared to the future hell this nation is going to become on its current path if something isn’t done soon: a totalitarian dictator ship (see China’s social credit system for what is to come). It’s funny how conservatives are so disorganized – and steeped in libertarian “voodoo economics” dogma – that they can’t even see who their allies are.

    A much better proposal has already been mentioned on this blog: Starship Troopers. Specifically, I am referencing a proposal to institute a system awarding suffrage rights only to those future individuals who serve a term of service in the military. This would ensure a voting base biased in our favor. We could first start the system off by banning the democrats and allowing only republicans and the military to vote, legitimizing the system and giving tens of millions of people a stake in it – a reason to fight for it. Once in power, we’d have more than enough political will to turn the country’s demographics around through policy implementation. Future suffrage rights (and rights to run for office, rights to be a journalist) would go to the military (disproportionately white male and republican), and even then we could further refine the system so that our side is more highly represented.

    Besides reserving policy making to those on our side, encouraging our side to serve a term of military service would do wonders in building a sense of community among voters. Ever wonder why Israel is so conservative and nationalistic compared to European countries? Well, it’s largely due to that nation’s compulsory service model – all able bodied people are required to serve. This builds a sense of community and instills in society a patriotic pride missing in most Americans these days.

  29. anon[965] • Disclaimer says:

    “Partitioning America won’t prevent this…”

    I see only three outcomes here.

    1. (Good) Partition. I think this is the most achievable good outcome as there are two big nations – China and Russia – that would clandestinely support the effort if it looked serious. Also, voting to leave the Union would be a powerful symbol the opposition could not merely overcome with words. Democracy is sacred in their mindset, so using it to defeat them would present a very difficult challenge. They’d have to resort to a large scale military attack to retake the territory, and it is not clear to me that the majority non-white democrats really have the heart for that. Even if they did, it would ruin their image in the world (and discredit the system in the rest of the country) while allowing China to take over the world that much faster. Personally, I’m a big fan of spite. If we can’t have a country of our own, we can at least do something to make sure they can’t have one either – destroy the empire the deep state works for.

    This is likely the best answer to your problems. Unfortunately, the dissident right is filled with disorganized black-pilled types who are either too stupid or too lazy to make it happen or even consider the option. And even some who might otherwise be receptive to the notion won’t be until long after it is too late. They are too used to the idea of being at the center of the world to consider any alternative arrangement, such as being just a normal nation again.

    If Steve Sailer, Ron Unz, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, and the rest of the blogosphere endorsed this effort leading up to the certain defeat of Donald Trump in 2020, especially if Kamla Harris or Alexandria Cortez were the victors presumptive, then this alone would get the ball rolling.

    2. (Bad) We lose. This is the most likely outcome, unfortunately. We’ll probably get something resembling China’s dictatorship. I won’t bother repeating all the terrible things to come as I have seen several other posters make detailed write-ups on the subject. But I will say things are going to get very bad.

    3. (Good or Bad – roll of the dice) Military coup. This option could present the best possible outcome should the head of such an effort be a Caesar or a Marcus Aurelius reincarnation who just so happened to fundamentally be on our side – say a guy who peruses this blog. For that to work, we’d need a guy who is intelligent, knowledgeable, worldly, patriotic, level-headed and fair-minded (and cold hearted when necessary) but also red-pilled on the major topic of interest to us: demographics; that’s a rare breed I can tell you now – besides myself, there’s maybe only a handful of others who could plausibly do the job. On the flip side, this could also end disastrously for us with the wrong guy and wrong policies. Maybe we get a war or something worse than the slow-boil dictatorship we are otherwise heading towards.

    Now, of those three options which would you go for if you had only one choice? Which do you think is most likely? If it’s number one, then perhaps you should do you little part to make it happen. You can start by merely bringing up the subject to others. That in and of itself would go long ways to making it happen.

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    , @peterAUS
  30. anon[107] • Disclaimer says:

    “Nanzi as Speaker guarantees landslide for Trump. It also guarantees a great deal of laughs too.”

    Disagree on the first part, agree on the latter. Probably the best outcome for Trump is for him to bait the democrats into putting up a nut like Alexandria Cortez. Let them have some radical who’ll scare the voters with talk of abolishing customs enforcement and the like.

  31. KenH says:

    Pelosi and the old guard pale faced Democrats might win this battle but the civil war in the Democrat party is slowly turning against them. The brown and black upstarts like Ocasio Cortez are getting very restless for “real change” which in lefty speak means they want white scalps and white wealth redistributed. Carrot and stick tactics won’t keep the Ocasio-Cortez and Keith Ellison wing on the reservation for much longer.

    Sure, Pelosi is somewhat of a tough politician but she’s also pragmatic and knows that she must allow a certain degree of hatred for Trump and his deplorables and partake in it herself or her fragile coalition of the fringes will start cracking and her base will revolt.

    We’re going to hearing a lot more from Ocasio-Cortez and her toothy smile that makes Mr. Ed green with envy.

  32. @DB Cooper

    A variation is two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for lunch.

    How can democracy be reconciled with the rule of law? To argue that it can is to plead cognitive dissonance.

  33. @Johnny Smoggins

    Pelosi will primary ACO with the guy she last defeated and give him a ton of money, just to make a point.

  34. @anon

    How about option (4)?

    (4) Continue Enjoying the Bread and Circuses. For example, let us savor the scintillating splendors of sports ball as we marvel at the magical movements of mulattos and other mongrels coached by chubby cerebral Caucasians. Let us behold the bravado of black and brown gridiron warriors, among them Brobdingnagian brutes and whirling dervishes, as they matriculate down the field, guided by pudgy palefaces. Let us deplete our disposable income in order to attend such events so that we may cheer, in ecstasy, for our heroic Hutus. Let us also dissipate our drachmas on drink delivered courtesy of the ((( stagers ))) of such spectacles.

    So, tomorrow, we have Detoilet hosting the Monsters of Murder at noon.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  35. @Reg Cæsar

    “Can you imagine Nancy pinned under Gabourey Sidibe?”

    We got a taste of this when those two young black women took the microphone away from Bernie Sanders and he was left feebly standing there covering his crotch with his hands.

  36. @trelane

    Yeah, I saw that afterward. Maybe I was Hungary.

  37. @TomSchmidt

    In a homogeneous society. In a multi-everything society such as ours, I’m not so sure.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
  38. @peterAUS

    People don’t appreciate what they don’t earn.

  39. @KenH

    There’s the rub. How controllable will this new wave of black and brown Dems be?

    The behind-the-scenes power in the Dem Party – the money, the organization types, the press (yeah, mostly Jews) – will attempt to either 1) co-opt them through promises (and delivery) of money and power if they fall in line when asked (Israel, tone down the hate Whitey rhetoric for now, leave Wall Street alone, etc.) or 2) threaten and destroy them (cut off their money, ban organization types from working for them, pump money to their primary opponents, etc.) if they don’t.

    Will this work?

    It’s certainly worked in the past, but the blacks and browns are growing in numbers, and they know it. In addition, you’re getting Asians and South Asians, who can start to create their own donors, organizations and even press pundits. (The Dem power brokers are even starting to lose control of the media, which is getting more and more female, Asian/South Asian.)

    Ocasio-Cortez won without (actually, in spite of) the Dem behind-the-scenes power brokers, so she doesn’t owe them squat. She went around them in the election. Will she go around them now that she’s in the House?

    This will be the real fight for the Dem Party. The behind-the-scenes power brokers trying to stop the new wave from creating their own money, organization and PR. Blacks and browns are pretty worthless, so I’d say that they’d lose. It’s the Asians and South Asians (plus a few radical gentile Whites) that could turn the tide.

    Indeed, here’s the name of Ocasio-Cortez’s new chief of staff: Saikat Chakrabarti. She might not be as stupid as we think.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  40. Rurik says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    PJB once said that a country that sends its women to war is a country no longer worth defending.

    very true

    The whole point of a military is to defend your hearth and home, and that means your women and children first and foremost.

    But the thing about it is that the ZUS is not sending ((its)) women, but rather is sending shiksas to the front lines. It’s a notable distinction. Shiksas have no soul, and were put here by Jehovah to serve the chosen, so it’s all good.

  41. Rurik says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    The behind-the-scenes power in the Dem Party – the money, the organization types, the press (yeah, mostly Jews) – will attempt to either 1) co-opt them through promises (and delivery) of money and power if they fall in line when asked

    popcorn theater as they begin to eat their own -

    https://capitalresearch.org/article/womens-march-leaders-fail-to-disavow-farrakhan/

    There are some hilarious bed partners in the grand coalition to ‘put it to whitey’.

    Muslims and homos, feminists and Muslims, Palestinians and Zionist Jewish supremacists…

    all gathered together to destroy a common enemy

    but they have to be inclusive!

    https://worldisraelnews.com/ben-jerrys-partners-with-group-tied-to-farrakhan/

  42. KenH says:

    There’s the rub. How controllable will this new wave of black and brown Dems be?

    That’s still an open question that probably won’t be answered for several more election cycles, but there’s growing signs blacks and browns are becoming ever more restless and willing to revolt against the long time party (((financiers))) and (((godfathers))). Current DNC chairman Tom Perez, who’s a co-opted Latino, narrowly defeated fire breathing negro Muslim Keith Ellison for that honor. Not sure if there’s a name for Latino sellouts but I’ll call them uncle Pedro’s.

    What people don’t seem to understand is that most black and browns are so simple minded that they don’t understand that Jews and white Europeans are distinct peoples with a long history of conflict. But they believe Jews are just another branch of the white race, so the Jewish plan to “abolish whiteness” and do away with white privilege could blow up in their camel faces since many blacks and browns see them as white.

    A new East Asian/South Asian overclass that supplants the Jews the in the Democrat party is a distinct possibility. Israel, the alleged holocaust and anti-semitism won’t resonate with this new overclass. The racial diversity wonderland that Jews are responsible for creating since 1965 is quickly becoming a Frankenstein that they are losing control over.

    Ocasio-Cortez is pretty stupid in some respects (thinks we have three branches of Congress….lol), but very street smart in other ways.

  43. @anon

    I am referencing a proposal to institute a system awarding suffrage rights only to those future individuals who serve a term of service in the military.

    After reasonably noting the drawbacks of limiting the vote to the moneybag class, you then propose to restrict it to another self-serving group.

    We no longer have a military draft and the consensus seems to be that we don’t need one. So our armed forces are a job or a career for those who serve in it. Its members surely include many honorable people, but their motives are as mixed as those of any other segment of society. Some join up to get out of a dysfunctional subculture or to gain skills they can later use to obtain better jobs in the civilian economy. Are they less likely to vote themselves favors financed by taxes or debt than the welfare class?

    They might be less inclined to invade the world, seeing as how their skins will do the invading, but surely the career military includes a subset who get a kick from wars they think they will win. That percentage is small as a part of the (current) citizenry as a whole; it might be a significant force in a smaller voting bloc.

    You may assume that a military-only electorate will vote the way you like. But if you limit the franchise to those who can be expected to rule as you want, you support a system that has a lot in common with a dictatorship or oligarchy.

  44. peterAUS says:
    @anon

    …it would only ensure the same result with a different demographic pulling the strings: wealthy upper-class and educated suburban whites.

    It’s not so wise to base suffrage rights on things like who can make the most money. Guys like that are only interested in making even more wealth for themselves, meaning they’d support cheap labor immigration, continual wars, and devastating economic policies if they thought it would benefit them.

    Pretty much.

    … a totalitarian dictator ship (see China’s social credit system for what is to come).

    Seems likely.

    A much better proposal has already been mentioned on this blog: Starship Troopers.

    Not bad. Israeli model too, perhaps?
    As

    Ever wonder why Israel is so conservative and nationalistic compared to European countries? Well, it’s largely due to that nation’s compulsory service model – all able bodied people are required to serve.

    But, as for

    This builds a sense of community and instills in society a patriotic pride missing in most Americans these days.

    There is much more to building community than simple serving in military.

    But, all that IS in the real of science fiction. The reality is, and most likely, save some miracle, will be quite different. As you hinted to above.

  45. peterAUS says:
    @anon

    Well…..a comment worth reading.

    Re “secession”, I have a feeling you underestimate the will of those who are against it to use hard violence. My take: they wouldn’t hesitate for a microsecond to deploy heavy armor against “secessionists”.
    For that to work a strong will of sizable portion of citizenry would be needed.
    As you say, there is, fundamentally, no interest in that idea on the alternative side.

    Re “China” model, I feel the most likely outcome is closer to Brasil model when USA (and west in general) is concerned.

    Re “coup”, I don’t see that happening due to institutional culture of US armed forces.

    And…hehe….as for this

    ….besides myself, there’s maybe only a handful of others who could plausibly do the job

    you don’t have problem with self-esteem for sure.
    I am not quite sure that attitude is effective in inspiring people to follow a person/movement.
    Just a little observation.
    I mean, if I were to get involved in anything serious (risking at least a prison for sedition…at least) I’d work for 3 star general or equal. No offense, but nobody on this site strikes me as such. Actually, nobody on the “alternative” either.
    Just me.

    So, back to the crux:

    If it’s number one, then perhaps you should do you little part to make it happen. You can start by merely bringing up the subject to others. That in and of itself would go long ways to making it happen.

    I am afraid it would not. Experience.
    I feel some other thing have to happen first and then a talk about the topic will make some traction.
    Again, just me.

  46. peterAUS says:
    @Liberty Mike

    Hehehe….you are probably onto something here.
    One of options, say:
    Continue Enjoying the Bread and Circuses. For example, let us savor a walk along beach while sipping our coffee and then settle for a long session of fishing.
    Enjoy the scent and the rhythm of sea, cries of seagulls and that tranquility around us.
    If catch something even better, but not necessary. Could pick up some fish from a market when walking back home.
    Etc.

  47. @Citizen of a Silly Country

    I still trust how polloi more than the elite

  48. anon[354] • Disclaimer says:

    “How about option (4)? (4) Continue Enjoying the Bread and Circuses.”

    There is no option 4. Option 4 leads to option 2: we lose.

  49. anon[178] • Disclaimer says:

    “After reasonably noting the drawbacks of limiting the vote to the moneybag class, you then propose to restrict it to another self-serving group.”

    And the alternative is …? Well, somebody will get to vote. Might as well be people more likely to vote in our favor.

    “We no longer have a military draft and the consensus seems to be that we don’t need one.”

    Which had nothing to do with my post.

    “So our armed forces are a job or a career for those who serve in it. Its members surely include many honorable people, but their motives are as mixed as those of any other segment of society.”

    True, but giving other classes of people a strong reason to join the military (they get to vote and run for office) might very well help to change that in our favor. You falsely assume the make-up of the military would stay the same as it is now in such a system. It won’t.

    “Some join up to get out of a dysfunctional subculture or to gain skills they can later use to obtain better jobs in the civilian economy. Are they less likely to vote themselves favors financed by taxes or debt than the welfare class?”

    Well, yes. Many of the types of people that join the military (conservative whites) are indeed less likely to want to obtain welfare. In any case, a system does not have to be perfect to be better than what we have now. Besides, who cares? Like I said, welfare is small potatoes compared to other issues. Libertardians may not understand or care because all they care about in life is taxes and arguing over welfare programs, but smart people like myself do care. Demographics >> taxes, welfare.

    “They might be less inclined to invade the world, seeing as how their skins will do the invading, but surely the career military includes a subset who get a kick from wars they think they will win.”

    As you said, they’ll be the ones fighting it in the Starship Troopers system, so war is actually much less likely. The current system has yielded a system that has made war more likely (see all the insane anti-Russian rhetoric). Your argument also makes no sense. You’re basically trying to say mine isn’t perfect, so it should be ignored in favor of the even less perfect system that we have now.

    “That percentage is small as a part of the (current) citizenry as a whole; it might be a significant force in a smaller voting bloc.”

    A significant force for voting the way we want them to. And they would according to the polls.

    “You may assume that a military-only electorate will vote the way you like.”

    I assume that the current system doesn’t work (it doesn’t) and that there is a higher probability of success with this system than with the current one (there is).

    “But if you limit the franchise to those who can be expected to rule as you want, you support a system that has a lot in common with a dictatorship or oligarchy.”

    What I support has a lot in common with how franchise rights used to be awarded when the nation was founded. Obviously, letting every idiot vote now doesn’t work. Using buzzwords like “dictatorship” won’t deter me from supporting it, and what we have already IS an oligarchy.

  50. anon[258] • Disclaimer says:

    “you don’t have problem with self-esteem for sure. I am not quite sure that attitude is effective in inspiring people to follow a person/movement. Just a little observation.”

    Perhaps, but it has also been my observation that all great leaders are assholes with rare exception. Napoleon, Patton, Montgomery, Alexander …even Lincoln, despite his reputation. This also applies to the business and entertainment industries. Most successful billionaires, directors, and actors are famously scumbags. It’s almost required to have that kind of personality if you are going to succeed in a cutthroat environment where every idiot has an idea but where only some ideas are good – where you have to bully your way towards policy implementation against those with contradictory, and often bad, ideas. Thus, the farce of democracy: we don’t have good leaders because good leaders are often weird or outright jerks and the public won’t vote for the non-photogenic. Americans have been spoiled with tales of gentlemen like Washington and Franklin. They think those men are indicative of how the world has traditionally worked and how it works now. But they are, unfortunately, wrong.

  51. anon[193] • Disclaimer says:

    “I’d work for 3 star general or equal.”

    Those types are the last people you’d want to work for, at least American generals. All are pretty much closed-minded or politically correct these days. Pro tip: if a three star general asks you a controversial question, jut repeat the dogma and move on. Assume the guy is testing your loyalty and will report you if you give the wrong answer.

  52. anon[343] • Disclaimer says:

    “I feel some other thing have to happen first and then a talk about the topic will make some traction.”

    I think it would be more effective to first raise the subject and then wait for something to happen. That way, the person who raised the subject looks like a prophet to the general public. I hate to make this reference, but this is similar to what happened in 1930s Germany with Adolf Hitler. In the 1920s, the man was seen as a fool. Then, things went to hell and the guy was reevaluated as a visionary. This is why merely broaching the subject publicly would be so effective should “something happen” … like, for instance, a devastating war launched by the deep state against Russia over an unpopular pretext – Ukraine.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.