You All Suck (Example #31b - 2020 Election Edition, The GOP)

"An idealist is one who, on discovering that roses smell better than a cabbage, concludes it will also make a better soup." -- H.L. Mencken

I took a look a the democrats prospects for 2020 earlier this week. You can read it here.

It is now time to look at the GOP.

In the earlier missive, I told you the problem the democrats have does not concern what to say to the electorate, for it is obvious they have decided to go with their trusty standbys -- fake oppression, phony racism, ersatz sexism, class warfare, socialism, more welfare, Impeachment-without-an-underlying crime, and stupidity -- in Extra-Strength doses. The problem the democrats have is in who will deliver the message, the problem being mostly of their own doing because of the ridiculous system of intersectionality and identity politics that has taken root among them.

Their problem will be in deciding which of their candidates represents the Biggest Loser, in terms of Pity Points. It goes something like this: who is "more deserving" of the nomination; a blind, Latinx homosexual (that's Pity Points for physical disability, oppressed minority, and sexual-repression. Three (3) Pity Points, in total), or female, African-American, rape survivor, Affirmative Action Hire (that's 4), with tiebreakers going to stupid and esoteric stuff like "interesting ethnic background", "inspirational story", or somesuch.

The first time the Party had this dilemma on it's hands, it wound up selecting Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton (half-black, ambiguously Muslim, metrosexual, married to a gorilla in heels, outscored fat, sexless, retarded victim of philandering husband), only to have to repeat the process in choosing the fat, sexless doormat, now with Parkinson's, over White, Male, professed Communist, and engineering a massive political loss.

They will have the same problem this time around, too.

The GOP, for better or worse, does not have that problem, for it has a standard-bearer in one Donald John Trump, who has (to date) a pretty solid record of performance. If Trump lacks in any areas, it's in social graces and modesty.

But this does not mean that all things are hunky-dory in Elephant Land; for while the GOP doesn't have to navigate a number of self-inflicted mental illnesses in regards to selecting the messenger, it does have a problem with unity regarding said messenger.

This is largely due to something I've complained about, loudly, for many years, and that is the propensity of a certain sub-section of the republican electorate to get the proverbial stick lodged in it's collective ass. This small-but-vocal minority has a nasty habit of tossing monkey wrenches into the works just as the GOP is on the cusp of setting itself up for multiple, successful White House and Congressional runs, and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

This minority within the party, broadly speaking, consists of three micro-groups:

1. Social Conservatives, or as I like to call them, Religious Bigots and Sanctimonious Fucktards. They are usually the same people. Their main problem is that they believe in an invisible man in the sky, sans evidence, and because of it are obsessed with fears about securing their place in the  Afterlife instead of focusing on the problems present in this one. They are a queer (in the sense of strange, although I'll bet a goodly number are deep in the closet) bunch in that the dictates of their Invisible Jew very often overrides their common sense and often enables them to make the most contradictory (and stupid) of choices.

For example, this is the sort that claims they want a Man of God in the White House, but then won't vote for Mitt Romney because he's the wrong denomination. They profess to believe in the sanctity of the Ten Commandments, but will then defend (and vote for) an accused pedophile because he once fought to keep the ancient texts within the confines of a courthouse. They object to Sexual Education in the schools, but would probably be okay with a condom giveaway so long as the packages had quotations from Leviticus and the Book of Psalms printed on them.

These are the sorts that balk at a Rudy Giuliani or Newt Gingrich because of their history of adultery, but then send millions in donations to televangelists who take drugs, bang gay hookers in limousines, and are eventually discovered to have offshore bank accounts and connections to organized crime.

This kind views all subjects through the narrow prism of a puritanism that went out of style 100 years ago and their own sense of propriety to the extent that if Jesus, himself, were to run for office today they'd call him a wealth-re-distributing commie who consorts with prostitutes. Even J.C.'s exhortation to "beat your swords into plowshares" would mark him as an anti-Second Amendment gun-grabber. They are obsessed with the idea of martyrdom, not surprising since they follow a religion that was founded upon the concept, so that anytime they do not get their (mentally-constipated) way they whine (like fucking bitches) about being "under attack" and "unappreciated" by the GOP.

Their problem is that they are unable to reconcile the realities of temporal governance with the mythology of a Heavenly reward (that you have to die first to obtain) , and so they are perpetually disappointed and disaffected. Donald Trump, to them, is the Devil Incarnate -- a divorced, adulterous, loud-mouthed sinner who is not worthy to wear a crown blessed by God, and whose personal behavior and manner would not pass muster with Emily Post.

You know who you are, Mike Huckabee.

You've lost the culture war; there is not enough prayer to reverse the decision, and besides, that's about as useful as Alexandria Ocascio-Cortez would be on Jeopardy! The kind of "conservatism" you're advocating sounds very close to the kind they presently experience in Tehran.

No, thank you.

2. Conservative, Inc. : This is the "professional" end of the GOP, in the sense that they are part of a system of political hacks, consultants, journalists, television talking heads, "strategists", pollsters, and inside operators. These are people who have made a very good living pushing an all-or-nothing version of a governing philosophy that is largely unpalatable to an electorate that is more than willing to take their Conservatism in small doses, so long as it is balanced out by non-Conservatism. So, for example, the average Joe likes a low-tax, low-government environment, but that doesn't mean he's also willing to be continuously lectured about how stupid he is and requiring the enlightened guidance of people who, by and large, are refugees from the opposition, who regard him with the same mild distaste for being lower-class that the "official" left does.

You know who you are, Bill Krystol and National Review.

This bunch is the sort that advocates policies that are often guaranteed losers, like tax-free "Health Saving Accounts" in place of true Insurance Reform, or "Free Market Reforms" that somehow manage to make markets less free, hurt their own country, and tie the Government's hands in the defense of national sovereignty (for example, NAFTA, WTO, "comprehensive immigration reform" that does not include sealing the border, and so forth).

They are caught between their principles and their pocketbooks; they are in the business of advocating for that which is supposed to guarantee them a modicum of power and influence, but to not go all the way, so as to bankrupt them, completely. They are in the curious position of the English Labour Party in the 1930's, advocating for a "solution" the "Indian Problem", fully cognizant that a comprehensive solution meant they couldn't continue to draw dividends from Empire. The call for "a solution" became no such thing; it was merely a means by which to stake out a popular position while obtaining the power necessary to ensure the "solution" proceeded in controlled fits and starts, if at all.

These are also the same assholes who will scream loudly in the wake of electoral defeat that the problem the GOP had was that it wasn't "conservative enough". What they mean is the GOP either lost because it rejected it's advice, or the GOP lost because it accepted it's advice in full measure and then the word "conservative" has to be redefined and we're treated to a lengthy explanation about how what Joe Schmo said today is not any different than what he said last Thursday, except that the Proles and Politicos missed the nuances. This is how lefties operate (apropos since, as I've said, most of GOP Inc. are ideological refugees from the left who made common cause with the right to retain influence in elective politics), and in homage to the Religious Bigots, it's also how Muslim Fundamentalists operate; we didn't fail because we're a collection of useless douchebags, we've failed because we've lost the favor of God, so the solution becomes a tighter, more-enthusiastic, more-restrictive, but totally re-engineered interpretation, and a more-heavily enforced doctrinaire approach.

Their problem with Donald Trump is that he has effectively taken their voice away, and so no one listens to them anymore and this has a subsequent effect on their pocketbooks. After all, who wants to hear Peggy Noonan give a speech when she was that wrong? Who wants to pay for a cruise to be harangued by and rub elbows with the Weekly Standard people? Why would anyone keep buying National Review after it fired Mark Steyn and abandoned Dinesh D'Souza, and more-and-more sounds like a freshman-year poli-sci book report? There isn't enough Victor Davis Hanson to save NatRev's waning influence, juxtaposed against it's record of dumbass (although Jonah Goldberg is probably keeping the mag afloat all on his awesome lonesome).

Guys, this is no longer Bill Krystol's father's conservatism. What puzzles me, vis-a-vis your opposition to Trump is that after decades of bemoaning the loss of the "Reagan Coalition" this guy manages to resurrect it, and you fucking hate him for it...because you had nothing to do with it. If I had to guess as to the reason why, it's most likely because the man is not welcome in your dainty social circle(jerk) because he didn't pledge the same frat as you did, appeals to the Plebs and attributes a modicum of intelligence to them.

This gaggle of morons writes glowing columns about Obama and threatens to throw it's lot in with the left. Practically every day.

You also didn't help your cause during the Clinton and Obama years of continually playing up every second-rate back bencher to the Religious Dingbats as a new GOP "Messiah" every five minutes. I can't tell you how many times "the savior" or "the Next Reagan" or the next Big Thing (see: Tea Party, a fucking joke, as it was mostly a (bowel) movement of younger GOP political operatives trying to elbow their way to the trough prematurely) were presaged by your astute political perceptions. Why, I can almost name them all -- Sarah Palin, Scott Brown, Mia Love, Mitch Daniels, Duncan Hunter, Ted Cruz, Christine O'Donnell, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Tim Scott -- why, it was as if new GOP superstars were being willed into existence on a continuous basis, only to see them all fizzle out or fail to achieve the promise you ascribed to them, only to turn around and brand  them "RINO", and you know who your are, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity.

3. "The Establishment": and here there is considerable overlap with GOP, Inc and the Pantybunched Fucktard Wing. This is a group of nasty individuals that saw (continues to see; you know who you are, Jeff Flake and anyone named "McCain") elective politics in the same way as one views a Union Job. These are apparatchiks, ticket-punchers, those who go along to get along, and who view "conservatism" in the same way as they do "classical liberalism", that is, whatever it takes, whatever you have to say, whatever you have to espouse today to check that next box to keep your present job and then to move up in the ranks.

This is the Managerialist wing of the GOP and it has more in common with the center-left than it does the center-right, as it's mission in carrying out elective politics is to control the levers of government so as to be able to dole out the rewards and perks as rewards to the people who helped you up the ladder.

This is the gang that decides John McCain should be president because it's "his turn", or that Jeb! is due the job because he's got all the right boxes checked -- governor, nepotism, enough favors due the Old Man. It's objection to Trump is that he isn't "one of them", too, in this instance the definition being "paid his dues, good party man, intimately connected to all parts of the system". This bunch has the same problem with Trump that the professional Managerial Class on the left has; these are people who are used to being rewarded for failure, celebrating their own venality, and reaping rewards they haven't earned. They have attained their jobs and prominence through advancing by fucking up by the numbers, being protected by their fellows and patrons both left and right, and no one noticing because they go about their business totally anonymous.

I said it here (and if I didn't, I really meant to; I'm too lazy to go back and check) that the problem of a Trump Presidency was never going to be the Left, per se -- he was always going to be able to counter and overcome them at all opportunities because he's smarter than they are -- but with the professional bureaucracy, and this included elements of the elected class who work hand-in-glove with that bureaucracy.

The proof is in the "Russian Collusion" bullshit: some idiots in the FBI decided they had to save their phony baloney jobs by undermining the Trump presidency before it even started on the off-chance that their previous sycophancy of Hillary failed to pay off in the form of an electoral victory. And everywhere we look in "Russiagate" we find the same thing: some nameless, faceless, anonymous apparatchik toiling away in the hidden innards of the bureaucracy is conspiring with another; is manufacturing "evidence"; is selectively leaking innuendo and lies to the Press; is text-messaging his Sidebitch about perjury traps, or actively colluding with his wife -- who took money from Hillary to run her own failed political campaign, or who works for an oppo-research outfit -- to kill Trump with a thousand cuts, and overturn the results of a lawful election.

Why should they do this?

Because Trump is poison to them; as I've said, these are people who mostly do nothing productive or useful; they are grossly overpaid; they largely owe their employment to political connections; they are routinely incompetent, careless, and ignorant of the country they supposedly serve. They thrive upon failure (because the very people who failed are, coincidentally, the very ones who get to decide how the failure is rectified) and non-accomplishment (failure to accomplish a policy goal means continued employment, since once a bureaucracy is established, it is never eliminated -- too many jobs, government offices, big budgets, and votes in it), and Trump is a businessman. This means their respective preferred methods are in opposition.

They have too much to lose. And most of them are still in place, waiting for the opportunity and means to dig yet another hole under the President's feet.

In Trump's world, if you suck at your job, you get fired. If you fail to achieve a goal, you get fired. If the end result is not profitable or beneficial to the enterprise, you get fired. If you cannot justify your continued existence, you get fired.

Trump is a threat to their rice bowl and business model; the former consists of obtaining a government position and then doing the barest minimum to keep it, while avoiding all responsibility and notoriety for failure, while the latter consists of working within a system that can operate essentially forever at a loss. The Left invaded the institutions long ago, and in greater numbers, but the right has it's infiltrated leeches, too.

These three forces need to be squashed if Trump is to succeed again in 2020. They are the barbarians inside the gates, so to speak. Their numbers are not so great, but they can still exert influence that allows them to punch above their weight. In an electorate that is as divided as this one is, the swing of 1 or 2 percentage points in the right race(s) can mean the difference between a second term, or seeing one of the (now 22) idiots falling all over themselves to outfucktard one another on the left moving into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and turning it into a combination of Red Square and Haight-Ashbury, with a dash of Attica thrown in for flavor.

A great economy,  rising popularity among ethnic groups that were once solidly democrat (small "d" intentional) and a similar number of line-crossers as in 2016 may be enough to overcome the danger that is the Cerberus within the GOP, but the margins are getting quite thin and the next year and a half could be pregnant with possibilities and opportunities to fuck up, especially since Trump has no filter and often exercises poor impulse control.

The GOP had better straighten it's shit out, post-haste, and some are taking a victory lap far too early, for my tastes.

EDITED for spelling, grammar and punctuation. Sometimes, I'm really bad working on no sleep.