Donald Trump’s entry into the crowded field of GOP presidential hopefuls has, supposedly, “shaken things up.” Not really. Everything he offers is either vague (e.g., negotiating a “good deal” with Cuba) or fantasy (e.g., forcing Mexico to pay for a border fence). What is attention-getting is his loose cannon flamboyant style and once that is acknowledged, he hardly threatens the status quo. Indeed, no GOP candidate, declared or waiting in-the-wings—genuinely challenges politics as usual. All tacitly accept a Left-wing manufactured consensus that has been untouchable for decades.
That said, what would a genuinely shake-things-up candidate look like? One who would tap into the public’s desire for political change on emotionally charged issues?
Let me suggest that such a candidate would advance the following four policies, none of which is addressed by anybody in today’s Left dominated political landscape.
First, drop the “diversity-is-our strength” crap. It is a lie, and virtually everybody knows it is bogus and the evidence is indisputable. It’s all a fig leaf to cover racial quotas. Today’s world abounds with internecine violence and if a rich, vibrant human tapestry were so wonderful, how do you explain the millions of civil war refugees? Would McDonald service improve if the counter staff consisted of one Mexican, a Han Chinese speaker, a transgendered female and a black woman? Ask the average Frenchman how the importation of millions of Muslim North Africans has enriched France. Today’s diversity mania only provides useless, make-trouble jobs for Directors of Diversity, Deans on Inclusion and Outreach and similar parasites. Diversity is inevitably a problem to be managed, not an asset. A polyglot, multi-racial America already provided enough problems; let’s not make it worse by celebrating this fantasy.
Similarly, it’s time to junk affirmative action. We’ve had it for a half century, spent trillions trying to make it work, and it now has become a tax on the economy and has probably hurt race relations. Judging by the successes of popular initiatives to ban racial preferences in education, most Americans understand that affirmative action has become little more than extortion that terrifies businesses and schools into employing those they would prefer not to hire. Think of all the money saved by skipping futile search for those possessing the correct genitalia or skin color. Further add the costs of cleansing the workplace of anything that somehow, in some nearly invisible way, might generate a discrimination lawsuit. A visiting Martian might assume that America’s quest for fairness via affirmative action is Chinese plot to hobble the US economy.
And while we are at it, time to retire radical egalitarianism. People differ and so do groups, and differences in ability are often intractable and all the King’s Men, and all the King’s horses cannot level differences no matter how many Department of Justice consent decrees. No amount of coerced sensitivity training or Politically Correct terminology can obscure this reality. Particularly onerous is the federal government’s fixation with closing gaps in educational achievement. Policy after policy has sought to uplift the bottom all the while neglecting the smartest of the smart. Nor will we ever have a competent military, or a police or fire department that “looks like America.”
Fourth, restore shame, stigma and marginalization as tools to stamp out bad behavior. All are cheap social control techniques that have proven successful since the beginning of time, and they can certainly help in today’s troublesome world. Disruptive third-graders do not need “behavior coaches” or school nurses to prescribe Ritalin. Put them in the back of the classroom facing the wall and let the rest of the class heap scorn on them. Jeb Bush had it right the first time—time to start shaming unwed teenage mothers for their lax moral standards. And while we are at it, make dependency of food stamps a public humiliation by returning to publicly visible paper food stamps and further add separate checkout lanes for those on the public dole.
Many similar proposals can be added–How about cheaply solving our crime problem by shipping miscreants to cut-rate Mexican jails? Or fully embracing Darwin by eliminating the job-killing endangered species list? Or cutting pointless education spending by lowering the mandatory school attendance age to 15? And there are more.
For convenience, let’s call this hypothetical candidate Fred (or Fearless Fred, according to some), and further suppose that he is a middle-aged white, college-educated male with ten years of elected state and local political experience. So, what might become of such a candidacy?
Let’s begin with the upside. The initial poll numbers for Fred’s campaign are likely to be fairly high. After all, nothing he advocates is crackpot, illegal or would require massive political transformations. In many instances, a few administrative changes would be sufficient. These measures are also likely to be effective and are much cheaper than current spending. Moreover, many Republicans (including the libertarians) plus numerous Independents who oppose the racial spoils system and invasive, Utopian government regulations would love them.
Unlike many brain-numbing financial solutions to our woes (e.g., a national tax on consumption), each of Fred’s proposals is readily understood. Everybody can grasp the idea behind shaming welfare recipients to promote independence. All in all, given today’s white bread and mayo GOP field where 12% makes one a front-runner, Fearless Fred would instantly displace Jeb Bush or Scott Walker as the top dog.
The outpouring of spontaneous grass roots support would be reminiscent of the early Tea Party. Millions would agree with Fred regarding what nearly everybody knows to be true but has been made unspeakable by both the mainstream mass media and the political establishment. Fred could also skip raising hundreds of millions for his campaign. An expensive slick media campaign would be replaced by the Internet, talk radio tee-shirts and bumper stickers. Recall how in 1968 Eugene McCarthy funded his campaign on a broken shoe string thanks to enthusiastic volunteers. I can easily envision bumper stickers like “Not Even Trillions Can Get Blood from Turnips—Vote Fred.” Endorsements would come from Duck Dynasty.
Now for the bad news. Elite reaction would be vitriolic. Poll numbers aside, Fred would be likened to David Duke or, more likely, George Wallace, who wants to turn the clock back on racial progress. A cordon sanitaire would be imposed. Both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal would condemn him as a racist lacking sympathy for the poor, the disadvantaged and everybody else who had become dependent on government largess. The RNC leadership would insist that Fred was not a “real” Republican despite his past election as a Republican. As for his support in the polls, all would be dismissible as “hate,” and something to be cured. Petitions would demand boycotts of advertisers on whose program on which Fred appeared.
Indeed, pressure would be put on all the current “respectable” GOP primary candidates to sign a pledge that they would not be on the same stage as Fred or even acknowledge him other than to denounce him as a screwball threat to America. Nor would today’s respectable candidate dare poach one of Fred’s campaign planks regardless of its popularity. Yes, a self-defined Socialist is acceptable but not some crank who defends merit over skin color.
Of course all of this is hypothetical and unlikely to occur. Brave Fred types are exceedingly rare though millions share his views. Our hypothetical scenario merely to demonstrate that today’s Right, at least as embodied by the Republican Party has lost the war and does not even know it. Like dogs who have internalized the location of the invisible buried electric fence, they don’t even think about going over the line. They’ve all drunk the Left’s Kool Aid and grown to like it. As Willie Nelson would put it, Turn Out the Lights the Party is Over.