The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
The Remainderman
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Donald Trump won more votes in the Iowa caucuses than any Republican candidate in history.

Impressive, except Ted Cruz set the new all-time record.

And Marco Rubio exceeded all expectations by taking 23 percent.

Cruz won Tea Party types, Evangelicals, and the hard right.

Trump won the populists and nationalists who want the borders secure, no amnesty, and no more trade deals that enable rival powers like China to disembowel American industries.

And Rubio? He is what columnist Mark Shields called Jimmy Carter, 35 years ago, “the remainderman of national politics. He gets what’s left over after his opponents have taken theirs by being the least unacceptable alternative to the greatest number of voters.”

Marco is the fallback position of a reeling establishment that is appalled by Trump, loathes Cruz, and believes Rubio — charismatic, young, personable — can beat Hillary Clinton.

But there is a problem here for the establishment.

While Rubio has his catechism down cold — “I’ll tear up that Iran deal my first day in office!” — his victory would mean a rejection of the populist revolt that arose with Trump’s entry and has grown to be embraced by a majority of Republicans.

Cruz, Trump, Carson — the outsiders — won over 60 percent of all caucus votes. Their anti-Washington messages, Trump and Cruz’s especially, grew the GOP turnout to its largest in history, 186,000, half again as many as participated in the record turnout of 2012.

Most significant, 15,000 more Iowans voted in GOP caucuses than the Democratic caucuses, where participation plummeted 30 percent from 2008.

What does this portend?

While Iowa has gone Democratic in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections, it is now winnable by Republicans — on two conditions.

The party must be united. And it cannot lose the fire and energy that produced this turnout and brought out those astonishing crowds of tens of thousands.

The remainderman, however, cannot reproduce that energy or those crowds. For Rubio is not a barn burner; he is a malleable man of maneuver.

Arriving in Washington to the cheers of populists reveling in his rout of Charlie Crist, Rubio went native and signed on to the Schumer-McCain amnesty.

He voted for “fast track,” the GOP’s pre-emptive surrender of Congress’s constitutional power to amend trade treaties. He hailed the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade treaty President Obama brought home.

Now he is moving crabwise away from TPP. Shiftiness, however, does not bother the establishment, it reassures the establishment.

Rubio is “The Hustler,” the “Fast Eddie” Felson of 2016. And the Beltway is all in behind him.

He is now the candidate of the Washington crowd that a majority of Republicans voted to reject in Iowa, the darling of the donor class, and the last hope of a Beltway punditocracy that recoils whenever the pitchforks appear.

Which brings us to the antithesis of Rubio — Bernie Sanders.

Given where he started a year ago, a sparring partner for the heavyweight Clinton, and where he ended, a split decision and a coin toss, the Brooklyn-born Socialist was the big winner of Iowa.

In the Democratic race, it is Sanders who has been getting the Trump-sized crowds, while Hillary and Bill Clinton have been playing to what look like audiences at art films in the 1950s.

Sanders will likely have the best night of his campaign Tuesday — if Hillary Clinton’s surge does not overtake him — when he wins New Hampshire.

After that, however, absent celestial intervention, such as a federal prosecutor being inspired to indict Clinton, he begins a long series of painful defeats until his shining moment at the convention.

ORDER IT NOW

But just as a stifling of the Trump-Cruz-Carson rebellion, with another establishment favorite like Rubio, would bank all the fires of enthusiasm in the GOP, Clinton’s rout of Sanders would cause millions of progressives and young people who rallied to Bernie to give up on 2016.

And if both the Sanders’ revolution that captured half his party in Iowa, and the Trump-Cruz revolt that captured half of their party are squelched, and we get an establishment Republican vs. an establishment Democrat in the fall, America will be sundered.

For there is not one America today, nor two. Politically, there are at least four.

Were this Britain or France, the GOP would have long ago split between its open-borders, globalist, war party wing, and its populist, patriotic, social conservative wing.

The latter would be demanding a timeout on immigration, secure borders, no amnesty, no more needless wars, and a trade policy dictated by what was best for America, not Davos or Dubai.

Democrats would break apart along the lines of the Clinton-Sanders divide, with the neo-socialists becoming a raucous and robust anti-big bank, anti-Wall Street, soak-the-rich and share-the-wealth party.

These splits may be postponed again in 2016, but these rebellions are going to reappear until they succeed in overthrowing our failed establishments.

For the causes that produced such revolutions — Third World invasions, income inequality, economic torpor, culture wars, the real and relative decline of the West — have become permanent conditions.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”

Copyright 2016 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2016 Election, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio 
Hide 53 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Uncertain says:

    The real trick would be if you could manage to put together an alliance between Trump’s crowd and Bernie’s crowd.

    But I think even coming up with the right name for such a phenomenon would be a challenge. . . let alone getting these factions to cooperate constructively.

    But I suspect it would have more voters than either Pink Police State/Wall Street Democrats or the Job Exporter/Slave Importer Republican Establishment.

  2. I just can’t see how Marco Rubio can possibly defeat either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders in the general election, given the inherent Democratic advantage in the Electoral College. Similar observation about Ted Cruz. Trump is a wild card and GOP presidential hopes have to rest on playing a wild card. But the GOP Estabishment would rather lose than see Trump elected.

    Slightly off-topic, but I wonder how the physical demands of a non-stop campaign are going to affect the health of one man in his seventies and a man and a woman in his and her late 60s? Schedules and events like these would stress people in their 50s–look for a (concealed) physical collapse of one or more of the candidates.

    • Replies: @boogerbently
  3. Art says:

    A lot of good Americans will not vote. The Republicans could lose the senate and the house because the people who are fed up with the Washington do not have any anti-establishment candidate to vote for.

    Make no mistake, the Democrats are going to vote in big numbers to save Obama’s legacy.

    • Replies: @DCThrowback
  4. We have had one party rule ever since Clinton kicked Labor to the curb in favor of corporate bucks. A Rubio vs Clinton election will finally make this obvious to slow, distracted American voters. We used to laugh at elections in Soviet Russia. Its not so funny now.

    “Hillary and Bill Clinton have been playing to what look like audiences at art films in the 1950s.”

    Now that’s funny. Thanks Pat.

  5. @Art

    If Rubio is the nominee, then I agree with the first statement.

    I disagree with the second if the Democratic nominee is Clinton. Maintaining a legacy is a wonkish concept and does not drive people to the polls. People get out to vote where they want to be a part of history (by voting for the first black President) or where they are so disgusted by the current leadership (2008’s anti-Bush motivation and 2010/2014 midterms).

    While Clinton is a novelty with the identity politics crowd, she is far too much of an insider. She has been tainted. Obama had the benefit for being the first black presidential candidate AND being a newcomer to politics.

  6. If Rubio gets the nomination, he has an excellent chance of getting elected. He’s a charming liar. He’ll get a lot of votes by pretending to be strong on immigration. He’s pretending now and fooling a lot of people. Clinton is a charmless person, a lousy campaigner, detested by Republicans and widely disliked in her own party.

    If elected, of course, Rubio will stab us all in the back and throw open the borders, as he has tried to do before and as his billionaire patrons want him to do. Or rather, since Obama has already thrown them open, Rubio will just leave them that way.

    • Replies: @AP
  7. @Uncertain

    The real trick would be if you could manage to put together an alliance between Trump’s crowd and Bernie’s crowd.

    I have infested com boxes for about twelve years now on political sites left and right trying to advance this idea. The tribes would rather hang by their thumbs than work together. Even if they can see that they have a common enemy they will refuse to join forces. And so we, the 99%, will remain divided and increasingly impoverished and enslaved. People are stupid. They are not worthy of liberty. Not worthy of peace and prosperity.

    • Replies: @Tulip
    , @Realist
    , @Corvinus
    , @conatus
  8. Tulip says:
    @WorkingClass

    You can’t blame the People for lacking a leader, or for not organizing themselves.

    Elites run things into the ditch, and when they do, it is only a new elite that can force them out and put the cart right.

    I am trying to say that the would-be leaders of an alternative politics need to be looking at an alliance that fuses these disparate supporters into one political movement, which should be in a position to capture power through the ballot box, although it would not hurt to have some friends in the armed services and law enforcement if it comes down to that.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    , @Vendetta
  9. Tulip says:

    It is pretty clear that the modern Democratic Party has no interest in organized labor, or in promoting working class interests, except when they are not trying to use labor to help them win elections.

    It is pretty clear that the same is true of the role of social conservatives and the Religious Right types in the Republican Party.

    That means that the majority of the popular base in both political parties are at play, and could be won over by promised concessions. Let’s face it, no one really like Obamacare, whatever they say, and no one thinks the Republicans are going to stop same sex marriage or outlaw abortion or any of those other things they have been promising to do for fifty years.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
  10. Rotten says:
    @Uncertain

    An alliance between Trump’s crowd and Bernies crowd is impossible.

    Trump’s crowd is furious at Wall Street / Washington, because they are thieves. Bernie’s crowd is itself a bunch of thieves that are envious that a different group of thieves runs things.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    , @Corvinus
  11. @Tulip

    “You can’t blame the People for lacking a leader, or for not organizing themselves.”

    With respect Tulip – I just did.

    The Democrats rejected Kucinich and the Republicans rejected Ron Paul. Both truth tellers and representatives of left and right respectively. This election is a referendum on the lying scum (Clinton, Bush and Obama) who “ran things into the ditch”. Trump lacks the understanding of a Kucinich or Ron Paul. But at least he speaks the truth as he knows it. Lets see if the people will support him. If they do I will stand corrected and will become a Republican.

  12. @Uncertain

    I would vote for that ticket with the two of them in a heart beat.

  13. Tulip says:

    One thing is clear: the free market thing is done, stick a fork in it, for everyone under 45 years of age who is not a Trustafarian.

    There are several trends, income inequality, outsourcing, terrible wage growth, rise of student loan indentured servitude, disappearance of the middle class that unregulated usury capitalism can only exacerbate. The middle class will protect itself.

    This must also be combined with the demographic shifts, and the cultural assaults on the majority culture. The majority cultural group will protect itself.

    Exhibit A is Bernie, Exhibit B is Trump. The leader who can bring these two factions together will be in a position to rule from strength. But it will require instilling a higher level of self-awareness than either most Bernie supporters and most Trump supporters currently possess. We have lost a true sense of who we are.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  14. @Tulip

    “That means that the majority of the popular base in both political parties are at play, and could be won over by promised concessions.”

    So true. The entire working class and the so called middle class is unrepresented in Washington. Problem being, the party apparatus including the media is owned and operated by and for the 1% (or ruling class if you prefer). This has so far made it impossible for the leadership you want to get past the election process. Anderson, Perot, Nader, Ron Paul, all have offered leadership. All have been soundly rejected by the electorate.

    What do we see? The white working class against the black working class against the brown working class against the feminist working class against the religious working class against the gay working class against the Democrat working class against the Republican working class. Did I miss anybody. In America we are not supposed to recognize class distinctions. That would make solidarity possible. Instead we have hundreds of “demographics” to keep us forever divide against one another. The 1% invests a great deal of their power in sowing division among us. How would you suggest we counter this? Other than waiting for Godot.

  15. @Rotten

    Thank you for making my point.

  16. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Tulip

    sounds an awful lot like Weimar.

    hmm
    who was it got Germany out of that same kind of swamp and on the path to full employment, infrastructure revitalization, political coherence, social/moral discipline and national self-confidence?
    Name’s on the tip of my tongue …

    • Replies: @Tulip
  17. Tulip says:
    @anonymous

    I was thinking of Gandhi, myself. Small is beautiful don’t you know. Maybe some Ben-Gurion for good measure.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
  18. tbraton says:

    “Rubio is “The Hustler,” the “Fast Eddie” Felson of 2016. And the Beltway is all in behind him.”

    I disagree, Pat. Rubio is more the “Vincent Lauria” character played by Tom Cruise in “The Color of Money,” the 1986 update of “The Hustler” directed by Martin Scorsese. Looking out for himself with no dedication to the integrity of the game. That may explain falsely selling himself to Florida voters in 2010 during his run for the Senate as a strong opponent of “amnesty” for illegals and then turning around two years later and signing on to amnesty and legalization:

    “Eddie Felson: You’re some piece of work… You’re also a natural character.

    Vincent Lauria: [to Carmen] You see? I been tellin’ her that. I got natural character.

    Eddie Felson: That’s not what I said, kid. I said you *are* a natural character; you’re an incredible flake. ”

    If we changed “flake” to “fake,” that quote would be spot on.

  19. Tulip says:

    We can call it the English National Congress, in honor of Gandhi, and strenuously fight, non-violently of course, to remove the perfidious influence of foreign powers and their collaborators from our polity in an effort toward restoring national self-determination and our traditional way of life.

  20. Tulip says:

    This is from Wiki on Gandhi:

    An independent India did not mean merely transferring the established British administrative structure into Indian hands. He [Gandhi] warned, “you would make India English. And when it becomes English, it will be called not Hindustan but Englishtan. This is not the Swaraj I want.”[220] Tewari argues that Gandhi saw democracy as more than a system of government; it meant promoting both individuality and the self-discipline of the community.

    Adios America, hello Englishtan, the Swaraj we seek.

  21. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Why does Buchanan say Cruz is anti-establishment?

  22. @Diversity Heretic

    ” given the inherent Democratic advantage in the Electoral College.”

    The electoral college needs to change. Electoral votes need to reflect the popular vote, percentage wise.
    If Idaho voted 60% for Dem, 40% for GOP, then the electoral votes need to split that way also.
    NO “winner take all”.

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
  23. Svigor says:

    Cruz, Trump, Carson — the outsiders — won over 60 percent of all caucus votes. Their anti-Washington messages, Trump and Cruz’s especially, grew the GOP turnout to its largest in history, 186,000, half again as many as participated in the record turnout of 2012.

    This is a big deal. It’s naive to assume it’s local to Iowa. It may be just as naive to assume that the Republicrats are concerned enough with winning to care. It’s quite possible they’d rather lose the “right” (oligarch, donor class, mass media subservant) way.

    Most significant, 15,000 more Iowans voted in GOP caucuses than the Democratic caucuses, where participation plummeted 30 percent from 2008.

    Another big deal.

    So, which ticket works better? Trump/Cruz, or Cruz/Trump? I prefer the former. I don’t trust Cruz on immigration, and would rather see Trump use him and his votes, than the other way around. That said, Cruz/Trump would be better than Cruz/whomever, or, God forbid, Rubio winning because of the Cruz and Trump constituencies remaining divided. A Trump vice-presidency would not be on lockdown, he’d be a loose cannon working his mojo. But I doubt being vice-president really suits Trump. He’d probably rather go back to being a celebrity and real estate mogul.

    These splits may be postponed again in 2016, but these rebellions are going to reappear until they succeed in overthrowing our failed establishments.

    For the causes that produced such revolutions — Third World invasions, income inequality, economic torpor, culture wars, the real and relative decline of the West — have become permanent conditions.

    I tend to agree, happily. (P.S., you forgot “the democratization of the flow of information” as cause).

  24. The US has a lack of Democracy.

    When we look at the Candidates who want to become President then we see there is something wrong.A country should be ruled by the best and not with the biggest financial background.
    Because all the real players in US politics are non-elected (Banks,Corporations,Media,Councils,Leagues,Think Tanks,NGO’s,Billionairs etc.).

    Mrs. Clinton is the opinion she can rule the US because she is a woman and after waiting so long and losing against Obama gives her the right to do the Job….
    Mr. Trump has money and can buy everything.He can afford a free speach because his money gives him freedom.

    The US has changed in the last Decades more and more from a Democracy into a Plutocracy.

    In the Unz-Review Norman Finkelstein is titled as Holocaust De-Industrializer.
    The US needs a “De-Plutocratizer”.

    Because Democracy belongs and is made for all people and they are setting the rules.

    A Gouvernment is an Employee of the People.And if a Gouvernment and their media acting against the will of the People they will learn their lessons soon.

    At the moment the Gouvernment is an Employee from the Moneymen and people are only worth as much money they have in their pockets or on their account.
    No money – no identification with the State ( but still with the Country)-

    Democracy is something else.Switzerland is the only state worldwide who is practicing real Democracy,Every important decision has to be approved from the inhabitants.

    • Replies: @Realist
  25. nickels says:
    @Uncertain

    You might get this, but instead of a compromise it will be a one two punch.

    First we’ll get the socialists. This will assure complete and total government control by their extensive of government economic infiltration. This will be disguised as a ‘do goodie’ social equality program, as it always is. Socialism will lead to worse economics and everyone will be worse off than before. People will begin to realize their mistake.

    Now you get the Alt Right. A powerful, charismatic leader will step up and declare “I will solve this mess. We do not have time for Liberty anymore, I need total power to get us out of this nosedive! We will be one for America, America for the one!”

    Boom. Facism.

    That’s the compromise I forsee.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  26. Vendetta says:
    @Tulip

    Party platform for a left/right anti-establishment alliance:

    1) Immigration compromise: fully secure the border. Close down unnecessary overseas bases and deploy troops on the border to protect. Deportation for all illegals with a criminal record, amnesty the rest. I don’t like it, but you’ll never make friends on the left if you say deport every last one.

    2) Roll back free trade policy. Use tax incentives to punish corporations for outsourcing and reward them for bringing jobs back home. Rebuild our industry.

    3) Raise the minimum wage.

    4) Declare a platform for small government and small business and against big government and big business. Roll back regulations on new and small businesses but keep them tight on big corporations. Challenge monopolies with anti-trust. More federal loans, grants, tax incentives for new small businesses.

    5) Make peaceful understandings with China, Russia, Iran. Collaborate with Russia, Iran, Syria, and the Kurds to destroy ISIS and pressure Saudi Arabia and Turkey to stop assisting them.

    6) Put an end to the Saudi-American partnership. Condemn them for spreading Islamic extremism everywhere. Stop all arms sales to them, end all military cooperation.

    7) Non-interventionist foreign policy save for exceptions like ISIS, which should be destroyed in partnership with major players like Russia, China, India.

    8) Fix public infrastructure

    9) Get Keystone built, in exchange for reasonable limits on fracking.

    10) Slash wasteful defense spending on boondoggles like the F-35 but give more to veterans care.

    11) Get out of Afghanistan

    12) Crack down on tax loopholes and evasion by billionaires and multinationals.

    13) Campaign finance reform.

    14) Roll back the surveillance state.

    15) Shift towards neutrality and non-involvement on Israel-Palestine. Cut down military aid to Israel, give that money to vets instead. Hammer on them as being a welfare queen that can take care of themselves.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    , @MarkinLA
  27. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Uncertain

    American Society Party (ASP)

  28. Realist says:
    @WorkingClass

    “People are stupid. They are not worthy of liberty. Not worthy of peace and prosperity.”

    And that is one reason democracy doesn’t work.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  29. Realist says:
    @Scripted Reality

    “The US has changed in the last Decades more and more from a Democracy into a Plutocracy.”

    But this happened under a democracy. That is because most people are stupid and allowed it to happen. That is why democracies don’t last long. Our democracy is less than 100 years old.

    • Replies: @Scripted Reality
  30. Maj. Kong says:
    @Tulip

    Gandhi left India worse off because of his hatred of whites and Christianity. The British had cultivated the local elites and started industrialization*, Nehru disregarded both in the name of socialism. Despite worse governance for the majority of time since 1945, China is better off.

    *A national myth exists in India that Britain deindustrialized India starting in the 18th century.

    • Replies: @Richard S
  31. Maj. Kong says:
    @Vendetta

    Some like to say that the left/right divide is either not real, or that their pet ideology will “transcend” it.

    I consider those people wrong. The left is and has always been about equality, whatever the results. The right is supposed to be about tradition, the problem is that these days is tradition is a leftist one.

    Most of your list is not much different than what Woodrow Wilson ran on in ’12 and ’16, yet his Presidency was disastrous when his academic idealism came face to face with reality. Accepting restrictions on immigration, despite its benefits to the working class, is antithetical to the core values of the white liberals supporting Sanders. Accepting a massive retrenchment of American foreign policy, to be less interventionist than China and Russia, is equally unacceptable to the right. Even before that, recall that the left truly wants a powerful UN.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  32. @boogerbently

    Your idea is entirely logical. Nebraska and Maine do divide their electoral votes if a particular Presidential candidate gets more votes in a specific Congressional district than another, but this is obviously unusual. Trying to reform the electoral college on a national level opens the proverbial “can of worms,” the biggest one being whether we need it at all. I say yes, but plenty of other people feel differently. While I believe that states are free to allocate their electoral votes according to state law, a “winner take all” system tends to magnify the importance of particular states, so Idon’t see it changing anytime soon.

    • Replies: @boogerbently
  33. Corvinus says:
    @WorkingClass

    “People are stupid. They are not worthy of liberty. Not worthy of peace and prosperity.”

    Let me get this straight. You have promoted an idea for twelve years and it has made little progress. Then you have he audacity to characterize people as being dumb who should not have freedoms. Who are these “people”? If they are not “worthy of liberty”, what are YOU, the 1% who is not divided and enslaved, actually going to do about the situation?

  34. Corvinus says:
    @nickels

    Fascism is a compromise? Are you saying you would prefer to live under this regime?

    “A powerful, charismatic leader…”

    Are just making this up? Some individual from the shadows, a die hard al-right fanatic, is going to grab America by the throat and convince them to embrace his far-out philosophies? You have a career in science fiction.

  35. Corvinus says:
    @Rotten

    “Trump’s crowd is furious at Wall Street / Washington, because they are thieves.”

    Corrected for accuracy –> Trump, a member of the Wall Street/Washington elites, and his cronies have made their money through the machinations of capitalism.

  36. Corvinus says:
    @Realist

    “And that is one reason democracy doesn’t work.”

    Or a monarchy, or a dictatorship, or a theocracy, etc. It’s the PEOPLE who run the system, not the system itself. I take it you are running for office this year, correct?

  37. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Maj. Kong

    How would you classify Peronism? Some say left, but his good friends were not generally considered left.

    What you have in contemporary America is a usury-based system of wage slavery. The “left” amuses and distracts itself by inventing new forms of identity and discrimination to be fought by more bureaucracies and restrictions of freedom of association, freedom of speech, and property rights. But they have no real interest in challenging or restricting usury capitalism, at best they offer gimmicks.

    The “right” has no interest in “tradition”, they are committed to internationalizing usury capitalism and support for transfers of national sovereignty to international bodies. They use symbolic questions of national identity to whip the masses up, but those questions are invariably decided in our political system by unelected elites in black. They keep promising to overturn the unpopular fiats by appointing “different” bureaucrats to the Court of National Identity, but we have only to look at the votes of Reagan-appointee Kennedy to see where their true values lie.

    We have nothing but an ever expanding list of unpunished crimes against both nature and art.

  38. @Realist

    You are right.
    But I want to go a step further and ask :”Was the US ever been a real Democracy?”

    Because if you can only chose between Repblicans and Democrats you do not realy have a choice.
    Both want more or less the same and both are only tools from the “real decision-makers”.

    Both Parties should wear stickers on their clothes like drivers from car-racing.They should be honest and show who did sponsor them.Politicians would need 10 suits and all are full of different stickers on them.

    For example a speach from Mrs. Clinton is never worth the amount of several hundret thousand of Dollars. In a real Democracy you would call it what it is – corruption.

    Everyone who is voting for a “sponsored candidate” and every non-voter have no reason for complain.Everyone should vote – and if there is no”clean candidate” the voters should tear their voting-cards into pieces and show that they do not accept politicians who are not clean.
    And when there are Millions of such destroyed cards it will be a sign to change the conditions.

    Ronald Reagan has opened the gates for the Big Business and the Banks.
    Look at all the Politicians and decision-makers who were working at Goldman Sachs before they went into Politics or when they left Politics and so on.
    Look at the earnings from the CEO’s in the 80’s and today. How many salaries from an average worker did a CEO earn 30 years ago and how many average salaries a CEO becomes today.

    Politics takes care more in shareholder-value than in the country and its people.Look what big damage they have done in 2008 – in a real Democracy Politicians would have stopped this Casino.Private Banks are saved from the taxpayer (kind of Socialism) while the people and taxpayer are not too big to fail (real Economy,Capitalism).

    Everything would run very well for them if there wouldn’t be the Internet and independent media.It is only a matter of time until they use the term “hate-speach” for everything what is not “mainstream” (= embeded “Journalism”).
    Hungarians name it “Salami-Tactics”.Slice by slice the conditions become worse.

    • Replies: @Realist
  39. MarkinLA says:
    @Vendetta

    Deportation for all illegals with a criminal record, amnesty the rest. I don’t like it, but you’ll never make friends on the left if you say deport every last one.

    The people you want from the left are working stiffs. They want all the illegals deported. Why do you think Trump polls so well with blacks?

  40. Realist says:
    @Scripted Reality

    Your observations are very good.

  41. Richard S says:

    Sigh. A Buchanan presidency would have strangled some of these now-grown monsters in the crib. It can’t bring him much pleasure to have been demonstrably correct these past decades..

  42. Richard S says:

    Hillary and Bill Clinton have been playing to what look like audiences at art films in the 1950s.

    Ha ha! The shoe fits! 😉

  43. Richard S says:
    @Maj. Kong

    Are you sure that’s a myth? I seem to recall, and will look up sources if you respond, that in the C18th India produced more iron, coal and textiles than Britain (easy enough I suppose when you consider their relative sizes); but by the late C19th India was compelled to buy all sorts of finished goods from “Manchester” instead? Also, the annual famines (as many Hindus died during WW2 under the Raj as Jews did under the Reich) seem to have mysteriously ended when the Brits were finally kicked out?

    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    , @M
  44. @Richard S

    “by the late C19th India was compelled to buy all sorts of finished goods from “Manchester” instead”

    Gregory Clark in A Farewell To Alms argues in some detail that British mills were much more efficient than Indian or Chinese ones, despite their much higher wages. Not only were Indian textile mills not locked out of the UK market, British manufacturers themselves set up Indian mills using British machinery, but could not match UK productivity.

    • Replies: @Richard S
  45. @Diversity Heretic

    It just means HALF the people are ignored, and the opposition gets their votes.

  46. AP says:
    @officious intermeddler

    If Rubio gets the nomination, he has an excellent chance of getting elected. He’s a charming liar. He’ll get a lot of votes by pretending to be strong on immigration. He’s pretending now and fooling a lot of people. Clinton is a charmless person, a lousy campaigner, detested by Republicans and widely disliked in her own party

    Agree. I would add that Rubio doesn’t seem to be particularly bright relative to the position he is seeking. In that respect, he’s like a more telegenic, more articulate, younger George W. Bush. He would be easily electable, and a very effective tool for someone like Cheney acting as his mentor/guide. This could be very dangerous.

    On the other hand, optimistically speaking, if his mentor/guide as VP is someone like Kasich (who would carry Ohio), a Rubio presidency might be harmless.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  47. MarkinLA says:
    @AP

    Doesn’t Kasich also want an illegal alien amnesty?

    • Replies: @AP
  48. AP says:
    @MarkinLA

    Something like that:

    http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/John_Kasich_Immigration.htm

    Essentially he’s saying to build a wall, enforce it, but that it isn’t practical to deport 11 million people if they haven’t broken other laws. He did, in the 90s, cosponsor a bill to end birthright citizenship, though he is quiet about that now.

    In my comment I was more focused on Bush’s, under Cheney’s guidance, neocon adventures. Kasich is more like Bush Sr. on foreign policy.

  49. conatus says:
    @WorkingClass

    Yeah I saw a trailer about a movie coming out in October I hope. Maybe the tribes will watch the movie and f*ck up the elite.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_State_of_Jones_%28film%29

  50. M says:
    @Richard S

    On the myth of the “deindustrialisation of India”, the errors from the Indians I tend to see on this, based on my own knowledge, are that they often tend to think:

    1) India was exporting large amounts of textiles in the first place before Britain took over as the workshop of the world; while the scale of exports of that cottage production was small compared to the industrial age. An impressive exercise without much machinery and with preindustrial shipping but very small, and these exports contributed only to a very small degree to the wealth of India and to individual Indians (who were relatively poor).

    This was cottage production. Although you say deindustrialisation for the collapse of cottage production, it’s extremely misleading (you cannot truly deindustrialise what is not industrialised).

    Furthermore, India’s exports of finished textiles compared to raw materials declined before EIC control in India – they were already starting to decline as India was already starting to become a less efficient producer of the finished textiles (although this was falling not just to England, but also, to a quite large degree, to China, who were doubling down on Western silver coin to deal with their own monetary crises).

    2) India’s cotton fed British textile factories; again not true, the raw cotton largely came from slave plantations, in the Americas (King Cotton). The British producers largely bought it from there because it was more reliably produced and it was cheaper (cotton gins, etc.).

    3) India provided customers to Britain during industrialisation, selling India’s own cotton( see point 2 ) back to them as finished goods to allow wealth to flow from India to Britain; again, not true, Britain’s customer base for finished textiles was domestic, Europe and the Americas, where people had much higher wages and per capita income than India, so could actually afford more finished clothes being produced.

    For point 3) remember that the individual Northern English familes were not trying to produce cloth in order to drastically undercut the market price for cloth (although they did, eventually). They were producing it to meet much larger markets than could be met by cottage production, with fewer staff (lower wages), but selling at largely a similar price. And this was a price out of reach for low income Indians.

    4) The British purposefully made Indian production difficult and uneconomical to destroy their competitor; again, unnecessary, Indian cottage production was just not competitive with Northern English industry, fed with industrial know-how cheap and available iron and coal, and cotton from the Southern US. Under these conditions, cottage textile production in India went the way of the dodo, as it did in several places not under British control, with not much to replace it (since the skills and capital for industry were lacking).

    You can argue, at most, the British should’ve done more to industrialise India, and that with sufficient training and sufficient investment, Indian mills would’ve been as productive as English ones.

    But even that’s supposing that the British Raj bureaucrats would have the know-how to do it (they didn’t – they trained to be supercilious and arrogant lawgivers and administrators, not industrial development experts), that the British government would offer financing out of goodwill (and this didn’t happen in Britain – families like the Cadburys saved and pooled wealth to buy machinery and develop industrial techniques themselves) and that there was actually an incentive to do this when the main markets in Europe and America were already served by English industry, and then by rising European and American industry.

    Essentially the industrialization of India was wholly unlikely. An India like Japan, willfully independent and nationalistic, might’ve done it. But India without the British would’ve most likely been a French colonial possession (less likely to develop industrially than ex-British colonies), or set of broken states in the aftermath of a long gone fractious Muslim empire, highly corrupt and not very good at intentionally nationalistic development. (Unlike Japan, India was far from an isolated place off the beaten track, with both very high human capital, well developed internal markets and a strongly nationalist spirit.)

    • Replies: @Richard S
  51. Richard S says:
    @Anonymous Nephew

    There’s no doubt a lot of truth in that observation. When I think of order, efficiency and competence I tend not think of squalid, disease-ridden India; with its thousand-millions at an African level of socially productive usefulness, and a top racially European 5 – 10% who develop software and win global beauty pageants and so on. Pretty much what Europe itself will look like in a few generations, if the organism can’t expel or otherwise overcome the present infection..

  52. Richard S says:
    @M

    I’m not sure I’ve ever been so thoroughly, effectively or eruditely debunked. Thank you for your patient and well-reasoned reply, M.

    Ah, when you’ve been commenting at places like the Guardian for a while, it’s truly liberating to engage online with people on the “right side of the curve” 😉 Unzluft macht Frei!

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 have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
How America was neoconned into World War IV
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement