Our podcast today extends Angelo Codevilla’s recent analysis about the future of America, after the 2020 election.
We use Codevilla’s analysis to examine the future of America from the perspective of what happens to the establishment Republican Party, what happens to the Trump conservative movement, and what happens to America, as a nation.
“The instant after the 2020 elections… the real question is: What will become of us? What can we, what must we, do for ourselves?…Not even winning a bloody civil war against the ruling class could accomplish such a thing as returning the nation to its founding principles.”
Codevilla argues that restoring the country to its founding vision is “out of the question.” He says,
“Constitutional conservatism on behalf of a country, a large part of which rejects common citizenship, is impossible.”
Codevilla cites the work of F. H. Buckley, in his book, American Secession: The Looming Threat of a National Breakup, to argue that the framework of state sovereignty federalism, in the Articles of Confederation, offered a better pathway for protecting the natural rights of citizens than Madison’s centralized representative republic.
Our podcast argues that Codevilla’s analysis of the impossibility of returning to the founding principles is correct. He argues that the deep state, which Codevilla calls, the “ruling elite class,” are too far entrenched in the existing government to ever return to a government based upon the consent of the governed.
The establishment Republicans, represented by Karl Rove, are the administrative organization of the deep state, and the State Department bureaucrats who showed up in the impeachment hearings to testify against Trump, are directed by the global ruling class leaders of the deep state.
To paraphrase V. O. Key, in Southern Politics in State and Nation, the agents of the deep state do the bidding of the global elite, without prompting, because they both share a deep ideological commitment to advancing global socialism.
According to the Democrat’s interpretation of impeachment, Trump abused his power by not obeying the agents of the deep state.
In her recent book about Trump, Nikki Haley identifies Tillerson and Kelly as members of the deep state governing apparatus. She explains that Tillerson and Kelly attempted to recruit her in the attempted deep state coup against Trump.
Rush Limbaugh sees Haley as the possible leader of the Trump conservative movement, after 2024. He thinks that the Republican Party is actually the Trump conservative movement, and that Haley has been converted as a Trump protégé.
“Now, I actually believe that the Republican Party doesn’t know it yet, but it is Trump’s party.”
Limbaugh believes that Haley is not willing to have the Republican institutional establishment returned to Karl Rove after the 2020 election.
In his article, “Nikki Haley fires the first shot in the GOP’s post-Trump war,” J.T. Young, states that,
“Haley has signaled that she will not side with those desiring to return the party to its establishment. Establishment Republicans believe Trump to be just a momentary break in their political and policy continuum. After Trump, they will both purge the Trump interlopers and regularly beat a vulnerable Democratic Party now hostage to its left wing.”
Neither the establishment Republican Party of Karl Rove, nor Nikki Haley, as the leader of the Trump conservative movement, can overcome the irreconcilable differences between the socialist Democrats and natural rights conservatives.
Karl Rove’s American Crossroads and American Action Network are the defacto Republican establishment political front groups that use the Republican organizational apparatus to promote the interests of America’s wealthiest families and global corporations.
Rove, and his groups, are best seen as Republican Vichy Collaborators, with the socialists, to implement a new world order. Rove is a political operative of the deep state, and takes his orders from the global ruling class.
Trump’s conservative political movement does not have a coherent political ideology of individualism, and Haley’s recent book about Trump does not address Codevilla’s argument about the entrenched power of the ruling elite class.
Unlike the establishment Republicans of Rove, the socialist Democrats have a coherent anti-American ideology, based upon grievance and victimization.
After 2020, the Democrats will continue to advocate the transformation of America into a global socialist nation, ruled by the deep state elites.
The socialists are driven by their ideology that socialism is better than individualism, and they will never stop undermining America until they implement a totalitarian socialist regime.
There is no other side to the war over the future of America because Rove’s establishment Republicans do not have an ideology of individual freedom.
This podcast concludes that Codevilla and Young are correct in their assessment that America is over.
The obvious competitor ideology to socialism, after 2020, is to return to the revolutionary Spirit of ’76, and the restoration of the American Democratic Impulse.
The only peaceful, non-violent strategy for solving the irreconcilable differences is a civil dissolution of the nation, based upon a vote in each legislature to either join the new Democratic Republic of America, or cast their lot with the new Socialists States of America.
The Establishment Republican Party After Trump.
Political scientists have been engaged in research to determine what comes first:
Do moral values come first and then those moral values influence a voter’s political affiliation? Or,
Do political values come first, and then that ideology influences moral values?
A coherent political ideology helps voters determine how a good society should function or how a decent person should behave.
The research found that people’s moral codes don’t cause or predict their political ideology; instead, people’s ideology appears to come first, and predicts the moral foundation of voters.
As Peter Hatemi, a political-science professor at Pennsylvania State University, puts it: “We will switch our moral compass depending on how it fits with what we believe politically.”
In other words, a political ideology is an essential first ingredient to setting the moral code of the society because those moral values bind citizens together in a common national mission.
The defect for Roves’s establishment Republicans is that they do not have a coherent political ideology that competes with the Democrat socialism.
Since the time of Nixon, and Pat Buchanan’s Southern Strategy of peeling white voters in the South away from the Democrats, the Republican establishment has focused solely on winning elections.
The absence of a coherent Republican ideology allowed the Democrats to brand the Republicans as racist. In other words, the ideology of the Republicans was provided by Democrats.
The effective branding of the Republican ideology as racist had a greater effect on binding Democrats together, than Republicans, because it allowed socialists to define Trump as immoral, and to strengthen their sense of moral superiority that socialism was how a good society should function.
The socialist ideology came first, and the Democrats moral values came later.
For Democrats, the ideology of socialism helps them make their judgments of right and wrong, because Trump is a racist. And, since Trump and the Republicans are racists, the Democrats believe that any means necessary to destroy the Republicans is morally acceptable.
In contrast to the ideology of racism, the Republicans continued to brand themselves through a series of policy litmus tests that the Republicans labeled as “conservative.”
Anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, and pro-guns were the predominant so-called conservative issues, but no philosophy tied those disparate issues together, under a macro ideology.
Karl Rove continued to raise money to promote the financial interests of the elite, and used conservative issues as a front for his ultimate goal of using the establishment Republican Party to reward wealthy families and global corporations.
The effective branding of the Republicans as racists began in 1965, with the series of debates between James Baldwin and William Buckley, founder of the virulent anti-Trump National Review.
Baldwin won the debate and Buckley’s so-called conservative movement never recovered from Baldwin’s branding.
Baldwin’s arguments were easy to understand, and, 40 years later, continued to inform Obama’s mantra of victimization and grievance that “You did not build that.”
“The American Dream is at the expense of the American Negro. I picked the cotton, and I carried it to the market, and I built the railroads under someone else’s whip, for nothing.
Baldwin initiated the Democrat’s anti-American virulence by stating,
“The flag to which you have pledged allegiance, along with everybody else, has not pledged allegiance to me…the evils of slavery were not exorcised after abolition, but that rather, the country was essentially still the same for black Americans as it was during the days of legal slavery.”
In other words, the utility of racism and white supremacy, as a political ideology, will never end for the Democrats. In their social construction of reality, the Democrat’s white supremacy of 1898 is exactly the same as the white supremacy of 2019.
For socialists, the Civil War never happened, and blacks are still slaves.
For socialists, the Civil Rights Act never happened and blacks are still slaves.
If the sin of slavery can never be overcome, then the use of the ideology of racism for the Democrats will never end.
Nothing about Buckley’s conservative issues of tax cuts and smaller government served as a coherent ideology that supported an ideology of individualism, and nothing about the National Review’s conservative issues of pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and guns confronted the moral arrogance of socialists that Trump was a immoral white supremacist.
In fact, the writers at National Review share the socialist perspective that Trump is a white supremacist. Their brand of conservatism failed to articulate what aspects of the American founding principles are worth conserving.
Their brand of conservatism failed to articulate how and why the moral values of individualism were superior to the values of collectivism.
Their brand of conservatism failed to engage in the deadly battle with socialists that conservatives were not racists and that Trump is not a white supremacist.
The ideological values held dear by Trump voters in the rural 2600 counties that Trump won are irrevocably different from the ideological values of the socialist voters in the 500 metro counties that Clinton won.
It was the Trump voters’ ideology of individual freedom that came first, and those ideological values determined the moral values of what constitutes the American moral society.
The Trump voters did not have a political party that represented their ideology before Trump was elected, and they will not have a political party to represent those values after Trump, because the Karl Rove has no moral values, and Rove dominates the fund raising for the global elite.
The Republican Party, after Trump, will continue to be Rove’s political machine, without a soul.
Trump’s Conservative Movement After Trump.
Rush Limbaugh compares what happened to Reagan’s conservative ideology, in 1988, to what will happen to Trump’s conservative movement, after 2024.
“What’s the first thing that happened after Ronald Reagan left office? We’re gonna have a kinder, gentler nation. But that did not happen in the 1988 campaign. That happened after Bush secured the nomination and after the election was achieved. During the campaign, we were told that we were gonna get Reagan’s third term. Instead, we got “Read my lips: No new taxes.” Then we got new taxes and we’re gonna have a kinder, gentler nation and a New World Order.”
In other words, the establishment Republicans used Reagan’s ideology as a stalking horse to win votes from conservative voters, who imagined that Bush would continue Reagan’s ideology.
“We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it has been said if we lose that war, and in doing so lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down — up to a man’s age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order — or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
On May 6th, 2008, Newt Gingrich posted a message, “My Plea to Republicans: It’s Time for Real Change to Avoid Real Disaster,” to explain that the Democrats had successfully branded the Republicans as racists, and that the Republicans were incompetent to defend themselves.
“The Republican brand has been so badly damaged that if Republicans try to run an anti-Obama, anti-Reverend Wright, or (if Senator Clinton wins) anti-Clinton campaign, they are simply going to fail.”
Gingrich’s warning about the branding was true, but his remedy was inadequate because he focused on technocratic solutions, like a space-based GPS traffic control system, not on the re-creation of Reagan’s unifying ideology of individual freedoms.
Under Rove’s direction, the Republican Party focused on winning elections with conservative issues, without creating an ideology.
As Sean Wilentz concludes, under Rove’s direction, Reagan’s image continued to be an imaginary symbol without ideological substance.
“With the Soviet Union dissolved, inflation reduced to virtually negligible levels, and the top tax rate cut to nearly half of what it was in 1980, all of Ronald Reagan’s major stated goals when he took office had been achieved, leaving perplexed and fractious conservatives to fight over where they might now lead the country.”
Ed Rollins noted the vacuity of Rove’s electoral strategy by noting,
“Rove knew his voters, he stuck to the message with consistency, he drove that base hard—and there’s nothing left of it. Today, if you’re not rich or Southern or born again, the chances of your being a Republican are not great. As long as Bush and his party kept winning elections, however slim the margins, Rove’s declared ambition to create a “permanent majority” seemed like the vision of a tactical genius.”
Because Rove controlled the Republican fund raising, he was able to create a barrier to the creation of a coherent multi-race, working class, nationalist ideology, and thus left the Republican brand at the mercy of the vicious attacks by socialist Democrats.
After some period of time, the conservatives from the Reagan era began to catch on to Rove’s duplicity.
“Bush expanded the size of government and created huge deficits; allowed Republicans in Congress to fatten lobbyists and stuff budgets full of earmarks; tried to foist democracy on a Muslim country; failed to secure the border; and thus won the justified wrath of the American people.”
The political operation that Rove unleashed, in 2001, continues to dominate the direction of the Republican Party, and will stop the Trump conservative movement, after 2024, just like the establishment Republicans stopped Reagan’s ideology, in 1988.
In today’s language, Rove’s Republican Party is best described as global crony corporate capitalism. When Rove’s machinery wins an election, the benefits of government flow to the global corporations.
When Rove loses an election, as he did with Trump, he and the writers at National Review turn into collaborators with la resistance.
Critics of Rove, like Gingrch and Rollins agree that Rove’s wealthy corporate donors from the Business Roundtable and the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, see government not as a lean, mean guarantor of free markets but as a multitrillion-dollar bailout machine.
One GOP state director said of Rove,
“Rove does not have a philosophical mooring where he cares about restraining government growth. Rove’s interest in Tea Party fanaticism goes only as far as the ballot box.”
A Democrat operative correctly described Rove’s crony capitalism by stating,
“This is the plutocratic wing of the GOP getting together and deciding that, in the era of unlimited corporate contributions, they don’t need a formal Republican Party anymore. For crony capitalists, it’s all about the accumulation of power. McConnell and Duncan are not movement conservatives. They are establishment guys – absolutely unapologetic for that. They’ve got all the money they need – and now they don’t have to put up with those pesky, true-believing activists.”
Nothing about Nikki Haley’s opportunistic conversion to Trumpism suggests that she will confront Rove’s crony capitalist Republicans, and nothing suggests that Trump has any inclination to create an ideological political movement, after Trump, that is similar to Reagan’s ideology.
America After Trump.
Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, in their book, “Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream,” are advocating a multi-racial, working class, nationalist ideology to replace Rove’s amoral crony capitalist strategy.
In their analysis, America is divided between the black and white working class, and a “mass upper class” of the college educated, who are culturally liberal and vote Democratic.
Their analysis is an accurate explanation of the recent election in Virginia, where the 4 northern counties around DC voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, while the rural working class counties in Virginia voted overwhelmingly Republican.
White college-educated voters in northern Virginia made up a larger share of Democratic voters than Republican voters, in that region of the election.
The flaw in their book is that, after Trump, the ideological divisions between socialists, and the purported new multi-racial coalition are permanent and irrevocable.
John Edwards, the Democrat from North Carolina, was right: there are two Americas, just not the two that he identified. There is a socialist America, and a democratic republic America.
To return to Codevilla, the socialists will never stop calling Republicans racists, and Rove’s establishment Republicans will never fight back.
America, after Trump, will split into two nations, a socialist nation, and a democratic republic of America.
“The ruling class elites regard us as lower beings. No matter whether they attributed our purported inferiority to our alleged racism, sexism, etc., or just plain stupidity, they negated the possibility of common citizenship with us.”
What Codevilla means here is that rural, working-class Trump voters will never be seen as legitimate citizens by the ruling elite.
The implication is that Trump’s election should be overturned because the socialist elites know better, than Trump voters, that socialism is morally good.
The logical conclusion is that the Democrat socialist regime will be profoundly anti-democratic and totalitarian.
The 63 million Trump voters will be excluded from participation in decisions and the impeachment is simply the first concrete step to this totalitarian future.
Codevilla concludes that a civil dissolution of America is inevitable because the common ideological bonds between citizens are permanently broken.
“In 2016 and since, we have learned that our ruling class has amassed the power and developed the taste to revel in making us miserable. We have also learned that to avoid this, we must undo or separate ourselves from them, their structures, and priorities. Knowing that they regard us as illegitimate, we have no choice but to return the favor. Living as we do in revolutionary times, we—and whoever would lead us—must act accordingly.”
Acting accordingly would imply that Trump begin work on a permanent organization to advance the Trump conservative movement, after 2024, when the current nation dissolves into two nations.
Otherwise, Trump’s Make America Great will devolve into another Reagan nothing burger.
This is my Conclusion: The Restoration of the American Democratic Republic.
Left-wing demographers have been excitedly describing the changing demographics that predict a permanent Democrat socialist one-party future.
Typical of the left-wing analysis is provided by The Center for American Progress, in their report, America’s Electoral Future: How Changing Demographics Could Impact Presidential Elections from 2016 to 2032.
Essentially, the socialist researchers begin with a flawed starting assumption that 9 out 0f 10 blacks will continue to vote Democratic, and that the declining white working class voters will continue their allegiance to voting for Republicans.
“When nearly 9 of 10 blacks vote Democratic, this heavily skews the demographic makeup of the Democratic and Republican voting coalitions of a state. but this stability will result in black voters surpassing white noncollege voters by 2036 as the second largest voting block within the Democratic Party (23 percent versus 22 percent). The growth of the nonwhite population in the United States, which—since nonwhites tend to lean heavily Democratic—is typically viewed as tilting the electoral terrain somewhat toward the Democrats over time as well as increasing the weight of nonwhite voters within the Democratic Party over time.”
In other words, since blacks and minority populations are growing faster than white working class populations, demographics is destiny, leading to a one-party socialist solution.
They cite the effect of hispanic immigration as a major cause of the future Democrat majority.
Nonwhites will continue to grow as a share of both parties’ coalitions, especially Hispanics, as a result of immigration.
“We find that, by 2032, Hispanic voters will surpass black voters as the largest overall nonwhite voting group. And, by 2036, black voters will make up a larger share of the Democratic coalition than white noncollege voters.”
“In the last three presidential elections, the Democratic candidate lost among white working-class (non-college-educated) voters by an average of 22 points. The worst performance came in 2012, when Obama lost this group— once the bulwark of the Democratic coalition—by a staggering 26 points (62 to 36 percent).”
The researchers fail to note that Obama deliberately jettisoned the white working class demographic in order to focus on the future growing demographic of likely socialist voters.
Their flawed starting assumptions about the stability of the black vote, and the decline in the white working class vote, is demonstrated by a more realistic, boots-on-the ground survey, conducted by this podcast writer.
I had been standing in line, for 3 hours, at the July Trump Greenville rally with thousands of black people. It was brutally hot.
Common blacks and common whites in eastern North Carolina have an easy-going affection for each other, that encourages much social bantering and conversation.
This easy-going relationship is dramatically different than the relationship between the progeny of the plantation and blacks and whites.
The progeny of the plantation do not particularly like common folks, black or white. There were very few social elites standing in line with me.
I noted that about 30% of all people around me were black. When I bantered with them about Trump, the common refrain was that they were voting for Trump because he had worked hard to improve the lives of black people.
Two months later, at the Fayetteville rally, the conditions were the same. It was brutally hot, and I was standing in line with thousands of black people.
By the time of this Fayetteville rally, the organizers had improved the logistics for standing in line, and had created an undulating rope line, that allowed me to talk to different people, as we undulated towards the arena.
At this rally, about 40% of the people in line were black. Their reasons for standing in the brutally hot weather were the same as in Greenville.
They like Trump and intend to vote for him.
Inside the arena, thousands of people chanted and cheered, and black people were on their feet, along with white people, chanting their support for Trump.
The socialist propaganda of the Center for American Progress is belied by this boots on the ground survey and supplemented by the voter survey in November that reported that upwards of 35% of black voters intend to vote for Trump.
The Trump coalition is not a declining population of white non-college workers, it is a multi-racial coalition of black and white working class voters who are abandoning the socialist Democrats.
In historical terms, this coalition between black workers and white workers looks like the coalition in North Carolina in 1896, when white farmers formed a coalition with black voters to elect Republican Governor Russell, in 1896.
The Democrats called the election of the Republican “Negro Domination,” and vowed to never again be ruled by the party of Negro Rule. The Democrats were successful in establishing one-party rule in North Carolina for the next 80 years.
This coalition of black and white voters today will face the same kind of violence and hatred to kill it from the socialist Democrats, as the party in 1896.
The analysis by the Center for American Progress documents that the demographics describe an irrevocable split in the nation between socialists and natural rights conservatives.
“We show that the 2016 election was the most demographically divisive election in the past 36 years. The parties were more divided by age, race, and education than in any prior election in modern political history.”
On every single principle of a natural rights democratic republic, the socialists have an alien, subversive, view of America. The ideological differences are permanent and irreconcilable.
Today, nothing binds the two factions together in a common national mission. The socialists will never voluntarily obey the unwritten American rule of law because they will never share the cultural belief that all persons, institutions, and entities are subject to the equal application of the law.
The socialists are ideologically committed to imposing their brand of totalitarian global socialism on the conservatives, but they do not have any moral authority to end the natural rights of 63 million Trump voters.
The socialists are driven by their ideology that socialism is better than individualism, and they will never stop undermining America until they implement a totalitarian socialist regime.
The 63 million Trump voters did not have a political party that represented their ideology before Trump was elected, and they will not have a political party to represent those values after Trump, because Karl Rove has no moral values, and Rove dominates the fund raising for the global elite.
The Republican Party in America, after Trump, will continue to be Rove’s political machine, a political party without a soul.
America, after Trump, will never be great until, and unless, Trump leads the citizens to a new nation that breathes life into Jefferson’s Declaration.
The framework of the nation will be state sovereignty federalism, as described in the Articles of Confederation, which offers citizens a better pathway for protecting the natural rights than Madison’s centralized representative republic.
That new nation is called The Democratic Republic of America.
I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this podcast is a copyrighted production of the CLP News Network.
You can subscribe to all of the audio and text of our podcasts, for $30 per year, at our website.
You can join the political movement to create a natural rights republic and contribute our mission at CLPnewsnetwork.com
You can learn more about the federalist, state sovereignty framework of the new constitution of the Democratic Republic of America at GABBYpress.com
Thank you for joining me today and please visit our entire archive of podcasts at clpnewsnetwork.com