Episode 60. Trump’s 4 Year Window of Opportunity to Replace the Crony Capitalist Republican Party With a Conservative National Sovereignty Party.

Podbean audio introduction to Episode 60

Vimeo Video of Introduction to Episode 60

Episode 60. November 6, 2020.

CLP topic: The Crony Capitalist Republican Party.
Trump’s 4 Year Window of Opportunity to Replace the Crony Capitalist Republican Party With a Conservative National Sovereignty Party.
Introduction:
Our podcast today is titled Trump’s 4 Year Window of Opportunity to Replace the Crony Capitalist Republican Party With a Conservative National Sovereignty Party.
I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this is the copyrighted Citizen Liberty Party News Network podcast for November 6, 2020.
The most recent podcast of the CLP News Network is available for free. The entire text and audio archive of our podcasts are available for subscription of $30 per year, at the CLP News Network.com.
We begin our podcast promoting a new political party by examining the logic of the Anti-Trump Lincoln Project to make our argument that the lobbyists and PR firms of the group constitute the authentic Republican Party of crony corporate capitalists.
In other words, we deny that there is some shadow conservative version of Republicans, who are in competition with the so-called RINO wing of the Party.
There is only one institutional Republican Party, and that is the RINO Republicans, who represent what Angelo Codevilla describes as America’s ruling class.
We argue that there is a slight window of opportunity for Trump to replace the crony capitalist Republican Party with a new national sovereignty party that represents the interests of working and middle class citizens.
We place our analysis of the Lincoln Project into the bigger analytical framework of 5 distinct American social classes, defined by their source of income and their political ideology.
Following Codevilla, (The Ruling Class, 2010), and William Domhoff, (Who Rules America? Power and Politics in the Year 2006), we argue that the characteristics and attributes of the ruling class constitute a distinct social class awareness of their power and privilege, represented by the type of Republicans who make up the Lincoln Project.
The ruling class is engaged in a gigantic global financial scheme to use the Republican Party, in conjunction with the agencies of the U. S. government, to skew income from the global economy to themselves.
In our earlier articles, we identified the Marxist Democrat social class as earning income from skimming revenues from government spending, similar to the activities of the Biden family.
We allege that this Marxist Democrat social class is developing a class consciousness of envy. (Vass, Laurie Thomas, The American Left’s Emerging Social Class Consciousness of Envy In Collusion With the Existing American Ruling Class Consciousness of Greed. CLP News Network, October 16, 2020).
The ideology of the Marxist Democrat social class is based upon the concept of social justice, and that new allegiance is so strong that it overrides the prior Democrat emphasis on policies that favored the working class.
The ideological commitment to Marxism is one explanation of why Democrat voters ignored the flaws of Biden. It was not the (D) behind Biden’s name, it was the (S) behind the names of 70 million Biden voters.
The main voting block of constituents for the Marxist Democrats constitute the third social class of non-working poor who earn their income from government welfare payments.
In the prior, traditional two party framework, before the advent of Marxist Democrat ideology, the Democrats claimed to represent the working class.
The prior faux representation of the working class by Democrats would be called a false class consciousness, by Marx, which was effective in keeping Blacks and white working class voters voting for Democrats.
Their social class awareness, now, is based upon grievance against the capitalist system, which is a class antagonism promoted by the elites in the Democrat Marxist social class.
We explained that the Democrat Marxist have formed an alliance with the Ruling Class to promote a one-world global system of totalitarian rule. (Vass, Laurie Thomas, BLM Marxism and the Emerging Alliance With Global Corporate Crony Capitalism. CLP News Network. July 26, 2020).
The logic behind this alliance, for leftists, is that their own ideology of envy is defective in producing economic value from production, and that they must be able to share profits with the large global corporations, in order to have the tax revenues they need to implement their communist ideology, similar to the big business/socialist collaboration model of China and Europe.
The essential key to understanding the logic of the Lincoln Project is their hatred of Donald Trump, because Trump opposes globalism, and totalitarian globalism is the end goal of both the ruling class crony Republicans, and the Marxist Democrats.
Trump represents the financial and political interests of both the working classes, and the middle classes, in American society.
The ideology of the American working classes is to be left alone by government elites, in order to pursue the working class idea of happiness. They derive their income from skilled trades, service sector jobs, and manufacturing production.
The American working class does not have social class consciousness.
The ideology of the middle classes is upward occupational mobility, as represented by the “American Dream.” They earn their income from small business ownership and professional occupations.
Codevilla suggests that the middle class has a budding social class awareness that can vaguely be seen in the “resistance” of their vote against ruling class elites, in favor of Trump, in 2016.
Unlike the empirically identifiable social class consciousness of the ruling class and the Marxist Democrats, the American working and middle classes do not currently have a political party that represents their interests, based upon a social class consciousness of their own social class.
And, while Trump represents their economic interests in his Make America Great policies on immigration and taxes, Trump does not have a coherent political strategy, after 2020, that would lead to the formation of a political party, designed to protect the working class and middle class, after he is gone.
We conclude that the last 4 years of the next Trump administration offers a small window of opportunity for working and middle class voters to create a new political party.
The first step in creating that new political party is the development of a social class consciousness that unites, or fuses, the economic class interests of working and middle class citizens with Jefferson’s philosophy in the Declaration.
That potential new political party would be anethma to the anti-Trump Lincoln Project, because it would disrupt their sources of income derived from the crony corporate Republican Party.
In the absence of the new political party, the legacy of the Trump presidency will end just like the administration of Reagan, as a cult of personality, with the restoration of the hegemony of the ruling class Republicans.
The mission of the Lincoln Project is to keep the institutional Republican organization operational in order to resume operations, after Trump.
And, in the absence of creating working and middle class consciousness, America, as you know it, will be over.
This podcast is the introduction, available at podbean, of a much longer podcast,
The other sections of the podcast include:
Section 1. The Logic of Hate of the Lincoln Project Republicans.
Section 2. Trump, The Man and Trump, the Movement.
Section 3. The Restoration of Ruling Class Republicanism.
Section 4. The New Populist Fusion of a Working/Middle Class Conservative Political Party.
Conclusion: The 4 Year Window of Opportunity to Replace the Crony Capitalist Republican Party.
The full text and audio of the most recent podcast is available for free at clpnewsnetwork.com. The entire text and audio archive of all the CLP News Network podcasts are available for an annual subscription of $30.
Section 1. The Logic of Hate of the Lincoln Project Republicans.
Alex Shephard, a socialist writer for New Republic, raises the issue of the goal or mission of the Lincoln Project.
He speculates that the members of the Lincoln Project may create a public relations media company, after the 2020 election, to resume their work as political consultants to the ruling class.
He writes,
There are still giant questions about what, exactly, this group of former Republican operatives believes. What’s the point of an anti- Trump group when Donald Trump is gone?…The group is thinking about becoming a media company.”
Shepard notes, approvingly, of the savage public relations media ads and videos intended to portray Trump “as a deranged loser.” But, for Shepard, it is not clear who, or what, the public relations effort is designed to influence.
Shepard speculates that the Lincoln Project members yearn for a return of the presidency of George Bush.
Another socialist writer, Lee Moran, writing in HuffPost, quotes Max Boot, an anti-Trumper, who suggests that the Republican Party needs to be, “detoxified and de-Trumpified.”
Boot spent most of his adult professional life giving political and foreign policy advice to 3 globalist Republican presidential candidates. He uses the standard socialist media talking points about Trump being a racist, as a cover for his real mission of promoting global crony capitalism.
Boot writes, that under Trump’s presidency, the GOP has turned into a racist political machine.

He states,
“It’s true that the party had long-standing problems — conspiracy- mongering, racism, hostility toward science — that Donald Trump was able to exploit. But he has also exacerbated all of those maladies, just as he made the coronavirus outbreak much worse than it needed to be.”
Stuart Stevens, another lobbyist/political consultant member of the Lincoln Project, claims that Trump has ruined the GOP to such an extent, that it must be destroyed, and rebuilt, from scratch.
Stevens states,
“Trump has no coherent theory of government. There’s no moral center to it… The GOP has had a “complete collapse” of the Republican Party during the presidency of Donald Trump… the only way forward for the party was to “burn it down and start over.”
Like Boot, Stevens yearns for a return of the crony corporate capitalist ideology of the Bush GOP, not Trump’s policies of Make America Great for the working and middle classes.
Writing in Vox, the socialist writer, Peter Kafka, notes the impeccable credentials of the past Republican Party leaders of the Lincoln Project.
Kafka writes,
“Here’s what we know about the Lincoln Project right now: It is led by several “Never Trump” men who have many years of credentials at the top tier of Republican politics. Rick Wilson, for instance, worked on presidential campaigns for George H.W. Bush; Steve Schmidt worked for John McCain; John Weaver worked for both candidates. George Conway is a conservative lawyer who helped Paula Jones pursue a sexual harassment suit against Bill Clinton; now he is best- known as a high-profile Trump critic married to Trump adviser/surrogate Kellyanne Conway.”
Kafka hints that there is a hidden motive behind the Lincoln Project. He writes that there is something else on their minds, other than attacking Trump.
“The group’s founders, acknowledge their previous role in building a Republican Party they no longer identify with, and have said they’re not solely concerned with Trump.”
The hidden intent of the Lincoln Project is partially revealed in their editorial to the New York Times, where they write,
“But this president’s actions are possible only with the craven acquiescence of congressional Congressional Republicans have embraced and copied Mr. Trump’s cruelty and defended and even adopted his corruption. Mr. Trump and his enablers have abandoned conservatism and longstanding Republican principles and replaced them with Trumpism, an empty faith led by a bogus prophet.”
Their intended target of attack is a philosophy called “Trumpism” aka, American economic nationalism, as opposed to crony corporate globalism. The common theme of all the members of the Lincoln Project is a preference for a one-world government globalism.
They couch their deep-state foreign policy in the language of national defense and security.
For example, 70 former senior Republican national security officials, and an additional 60 senior Department of State officials stated,
“We are profoundly concerned about our nation’s security and standing in the world under the leadership of Donald Trump. The President has demonstrated that he is dangerously unfit to serve another term.”
According to Paige Williams, writing in her New Yorker article, “Inside the Lincoln Project’s War Against Trump,” the way the Lincoln Project members state their preference for globalism is with a benign sounding phrase, “a judiciously interventionist foreign policy.”
In other words, the Lincoln Project members yearn for the restoration of the never-ending wars of John Bolton and George Bush, who would use American military might to protect the privileges of American global crony corporations.
The logic of hate of the Lincoln Project is to sabotage Trump’s policies of economic nationalism by using media propaganda to claim that the former version of the Republican Party was more “conservative” than the current version of the Republican Party, under Trump.
Their key propaganda tool is the allegation that Trump is a racist, an epithet designed to repel traditional Republican voters. In their logic, the former non-racist Republican Party of Bush is more “conservative” than the current version of the Republican Party because it was not racist.
Paige Williams cites Kathleen Hall Jamieson, the director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, at the University of Pennsylvania, who explained the logic of the Lincoln media propaganda,
“Jamieson stated that the Lincoln Project ads were intended to remind older voters of the difference between what a Republican used to be and what this Republican is, and you couldn’t do it more effectively than that.”
Before Trump, the Republican Party used to be a reliable shill for global corporatism, of the John Bolton neo-conservative war-monger variety. Trump upset that status quo with his Trumpism, and the members of the Lincoln Project hate him for that change.
As we noted above, we perceive a budding alliance between the Marxist Democrats and the ruling class Republicans.
Part of the evidence we cite about this alliance is the source of funding for the Lincoln Project.
Williams, in her New Yorker article, states,
“From December, 2019, to the end of June,2020, the Project received about twenty million dollars. (Third-quarter data isn’t yet available.) Hollywood names show up on the donor roll—Rob Reiner, Goldie Hawn—as does the occasional former politician, such as Senator Bob Kerrey. The group sometimes takes in large donations: Stephen Mandel, the founder of a Connecticut hedge fund, gave a million dollars; Joshua Bekenstein, the co-chair of Bain Capital, the Massachusetts investment firm co-founded by Romney, donated a hundred thousand; the Walmart heir Christy Walton has given thirty thousand.”
The members of the Lincoln Project embrace the Marxist Democrat philosophy of deriving income from their political connections.
As Williams notes,
“The Lincoln Project has been criticized for channeling most of the group’s spending through two of the founders’ consulting firms. Galen, who owns one of the firms, told me that some of the Project’s collaborators are Republicans, such as former RNC. chairman Michael Steele, who don’t want to be publicly identified.”
Julie Kelly, writing in The American Mind, also documents the close collaboration between former Republican Party officials and Marxist Democrats.
She writes,
“Recent FEC filings show the Lincoln Project raked in nearly $40 million in the third quarter 2020, alone, nearly all from leftwing interests or individual contributors. What’s striking, and always to be remembered, is that the money behind The Lincoln Project and Defending Democracy Together comes not from donors on the political Right but those on the hardcore Left… Since 2018, Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire founder of eBay, has poured millions into Kristol’s NeverTrump front groups.”
The common philosophy of both the Lincoln Project, and Marxist Democrats, is globalism, in contrast to national sovereignty and the interests of the working and middle classes, which they describe as “nativism.”

As Bill Kristol writes in his mission statement of Defending Democracy Together,
“The Republican Party finds itself entertaining some of the same unsettling nativist and authoritarian impulses that characterized Europe throughout the 20th century. These ideals are antithetical to what it means to be a Republican, and what it means to be American.”
In other words, in Kristol’s twisted Lincoln Project logic, what it means to be an American is to be a globalist, and what it means to be a Republican is to support global crony capitalism, which, in their language, is free trade with China, and open-border immigration.
Section 2. Trump, The Man and Trump, the Movement.
Trump, the man, came to Washington with a set of skills earned in the construction trades and real estate development sectors. Those skills emphasize getting things done on time, on schedule, and on budget.
Trump, the man, is a pragmatist, not a traditional politician. He speaks the language of a New York street fighter, who hits back when he is hit.
As Victor Davis Hanson notes in his American Greatness article, Trumpism: Then, Now—and in the Future? Trump, the man, “hit on a great truth that no country can write off its vast industrial interior, destroy its borders, or prefer managed decline over renewal, and meanwhile call itself moral.”
Hanson suggests that it was Trump’s personal moral philosophy that prompted his shift from the politics of race, to the politics of economic class.
Hanson writes,
“The second pillar of Trumpism was a shift in Republican orthodoxy to reemphasize (economic) class. One reason why Trump is libeled as a racist (by both the Lincoln Project and Marxist Democrats), is that he saw through the white elite con of blaming those without advantage for bias and prejudice, in order to win psychological exemption for the elite’s own near- monopoly on blue-chip university admissions, corporate, media and academic old-boy access and cultural influence.”
In other words, the con job that ruling class elites use to keep conservative voters voting Republican, is similar to the con job that Marxist Democrats use to keep Black people, and non-working poor, voting Democrat.
Both con jobs deploy the tool of racism to herd their voters into the two party straight-jacket. For Republicans, Trump is a racist, and traditional Republican voters do not want to be associated with a racist.
For Democrats, Trump is a racist, and social justice demands that Democrat voters not vote for a racist.
Trump’s shift in emphasis, from racism to economic class, attracts both working class and middle class voters, and traditionally Democrat Black and Latino voters, which threatens the effectiveness of the tool of racism.
Consequently, according to Hanson, Trump does not fit into the existing two-party structure, that depends on fermenting racial animosity to keep their voters in line.
Hanson writes,
“Trump was orphaned from the hard-Left Democratic Party and the Republican establishment and seemed either to welcome the ostracism (of being called a racist) or not be fully cognizant of the cost that it entailed.”
Neither of Hanson’s explanations of Trump, the man, is accurate. Trump, the man, is a New York street fighter, and being called a racist by the Lincoln Project is something that goes with the territory of the pragmatic psychology of getting construction projects done.
Because Trump is a pragmatist, he hit upon the two key economic class policies that would benefit the working class and middle class, regardless of skin color: ending illegal immigration and ending central government control over small business.
Political scientists and pundits have tried to place the Trump movement into a conventional political paradigm that would explain his philosophy.
The closest they can come is to mildly associate Trump with populism, defined in academia, as the populism of the racist Democrat George Wallace, who the academic community calls a “populist,” in order to shield the fact that Wallace was a racist Democrat.
For example, Charles R. Kesler, writing in the Claremont Review of Books (CRB), writes,
“In most of the world, populism is associated with distrust of business, with hatred of capitalism. In the U.S., it’s more common to find populism linked to an admiration for the farmer and small businessman, for the entrepreneur who has pioneered new products and markets, or for the independent businessman who has fairly earned his own fortune.”
Because Trump shifted the focus of the Republican voters from race to economic class, the populism of Trump, is not the populism of George Wallace, and does not fit into the two party political framework.
Kesler continues,
“Trump has plenty of vision, but in all likelihood his political party, or at least a large segment of it, will be estranged from him. He may come close to being a president caught between two parties, each suspicious of him and hostile to him to varying degrees.”
Kesler makes the same point about Trump that Hanson makes: Trump, the movement, does not fit into either party, because Trumpism is based upon promoting the economic class interests of working and middle class voters.
The logic of the Lincoln Project is to return the Republican Party back to the policies of racial animosity, as a cover for promoting crony corporate globalism.
The specific form of economic class that Trump advocates is a popular movement of working and middle class policies that appeals to the thousands of deplorable Trump voters who show up at his campaign events.
Kesler goes on to explain that the American tradition of populism was based upon the unfair economic outcomes obtained by farmers, from the neo-slaveocracy/Big Business political alliance, after the Civil War.
Trumpism connects to the historical continuity of the original populist movement in his support of common citizens against the ruling class.
Kesler writes,
“When the original American populists organized the People’s Party in time for the 1892 election, (with Leonidas LaFayette Polk, of North Carolina, as their presidential candidate), their rallying cry was the people versus “the interests,” meaning the railroads and large corporations that were squeezing farmers and small businessmen, and that allegedly dominated the two main political parties…In the (ruling class) administrative state there is little room for populism because there is no room for an independent people. The “people” has been broken down into claimant groups, (based upon racism) and every group has been organized, the better to mesh with the gears of the state…The only populism that could make a difference, (today), has at its heart a return to constitutionalism.”
Kesler gets the history of southern agrarian populism right, but links the history to the wrong document.
Kesler correctly notes that Trump’s version of populism means,
“Equal opportunity, which means a chance for anyone, male or female, black or white, to prove up to the job. But that requires the same standards for everyone. Like these prominent (Democrat Marxist) black thinkers, Trump doesn’t mind that that makes him politically incorrect.”
The right ideological historical document of populism is Jefferson’s Declaration, not Madison’s constitution. which is not connected philosophically to the Declaration.
America’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, written by Thomas Burke, of North Carolina, is connected to Jefferson’s Declaration, because it is based upon the supremacy of 13 state constitutions.
Madison’s constitution, does not cite either Jefferson, or Burke, and created rules of civil procedure which permanently elevated the interests of the natural aristocracy over the common citizens.
Southern agrarian populism, after the Civil War, is a result of the enduring class conflict unleashed by Madison’s flawed document, and returning to that flawed document does not solve the ideological conflict between national economic sovereignty and globalism, in the two party framework.
Madison’s flawed document is responsible for the current ideological split between crony globalists and national economic sovereignty of Trump.
William Voegeli, another CRB writer, explains the essence of the irreconcilable conflict between Trump’s national economic sovereignty and the globalism of the ruling class Republicans.
He writes,
“Trumpism is especially forceful in upholding the nation-state as the best, most workable, basis for (citizen) sovereignty in the modern world. The growing liberal challenge to this belief treats the nation- state as both dangerous and irrelevant. In its stead, the political attachments (of the ruling class Republicans) that do and should matter are either transnational, the core tenet of globalism, or subnational, the core tenet of multiculturalism.”
Trumpism has a coherent political philosophy of citizen democracy, in a state-sovereignty framework, with Trump as their elected leader. Trumpism, as a popular citizen political movement, does not have a political party.
But, in contrast to Kesler’s prediction that Trump is “taking over the Republican Party” we argue that no political force in America will ever dislodge the ruling class grip on the Republican Party organizational apparatus, after Trump.

Kesler writes,
“But with his (2016) victory, the Trump movement is now in the process of taking over the Republican Party, displacing the “Republican establishment,” which was partly the conservative establishment, he enjoyed vilifying so much… Donald Trump may be in a position, paradoxically, to reconnect conservatism and the GOP to their American roots, and to renew them for the next generation. Much depends, therefore, on how he, his administration, and the people come to terms with his Republican patrimony.”
Trump’s Republican patrimony is a Republican sleeper cell called the Lincoln Project.
Section 3. The Restoration of Ruling Class Republicanism.
Writing in The Atlantic, the socialist writer, Peter Wehner, makes the common pundit-class mistake of confusing the Lincoln Project Republicans, with the Trump movement of middle and working class voters.
In his left-wing analysis, the Lincoln Project Republicans had a “positive vision,” before Trump, but those forces have now been beaten down and broken by Trump.
Wehner writes,
“The party of Lincoln and Reagan has now become, in every meaningful sense, the party of Trump. He has imperiled the future of the party he leads. And those who think the GOP will simply snap back to the best of what it was pre-Trump—who think the worst elements of Trumpism will vanish once he leaves the White House—are kidding themselves.”
We partially agree with Wehner’s analysis, that after Trump, neither Trumpism, the crony capitalist Republicans, or the Marxist Democrats, are going to be vanquished from the field of battle.
Another Democrat socialist writer for the Atlantic, Norm Ornstein, dons a type of political transvestite persona of a Republican, to explain the damage Trumpism has wrought on the ruling class Republican Party.
In his article, “I’ve Witnessed the Decline of the Republican Party Over five decades, the GOP has transformed into something I no longer recognize,” he writes,
“I had strong relationships in years past with a number of Republicans currently in the Senate… But when pushed, they put country first— that was the basis on which they could forge bonds across the aisle”
Like the members of the Lincoln Project, this Democrat is nostalgic for the days of the Republican Party of Bush, reaching-across-the-aisle, and hopes that, after Trump, that older version of Republicanism will return.
For Ornstein, putting “country first” means putting the ruling class first, not putting working and middle class citizens first.
He writes,
“But restoring the Republican Party to its traditional values (before Trump) is absolutely essential to preserve the core of our system of governance… A reshaped GOP (after Trump) would be very conservative, (conservative = non-racist globalist) but not radical. (populist). It would believe in limited government, but a government run by professionals, (the deep state bureaucrats) respecting data and science, and operating efficiently and fairly. (not populist). It would believe in genuine fiscal discipline. It would try to apply free-market approaches (trade with China) to solving difficult problems, such as climate change. It would believe in the integrity of institutions (the media) and insist that those in office adhere to high ethical standards. It would respect the sanctity of alliances (global) and the fundamental values of decency and equal treatment. It would work to broaden its base across racial and ethnic lines, not use division and voter suppression to cling to power.”
In his slur of Trump, the anti-Trump writer at National Review, Jim Geraghty, makes a similar point about the potential return to normal Republican politics after Trump.
In his recent article about the future of the Republican Party, after Trump, he writes,
“But Trump is not a traditional Republican, and no matter how 2020 shakes out, Republicans will face the question of just how “Trump-y” they should become and how much this unlikeliest of figures — the constantly-tweeting, twice-divorced casino owner and reality- television star — should shape the GOP moving forward… Trump may well turn out to have been a political unicorn or he may turn out to be a more durable phenomenon.”
Heather Cox Richardson in her recent book, How the South Won the Civil War, explains why Trumpism may not survive, in the Republican Party, after Trump. She writes of the enduring power conferred upon the ruling class in Madison’s constitution.
Her term for the ruling class is American oligarchy, and her point is that the American two party framework has always rested on combining elite domination with racial and economic inequality.
She maintains, that Madison’s American republic allowed its elites to conflate “class and race,” thereby giving them “the language to take over the government and undermine democracy.”
Trump broke the linkage between the ruling class’ strategy of combing class and race, and emphasized economic class, which has the potential to threaten the power of the oligarchy, if working class and middle class voters form a new party.
We disagree with Molly McCann, in her Federalist article, There’s No Going Back To ‘Normal’ After Trump. The Republican Party Is Changed Forever. McCann makes the same mistake that socialist writers make about Trump taking over the Republican Party.
Going back to normal, for Republicans, is going back to Bush’s globalism, and political partisanship with Marxist Democrats.

McCann writes,
“Donald Trump is not a Republican. He never was before, and he is not one now. (The Republican crony capitalist) leaders lost the GOP’s soul by following globalist policies and pursuing their personal wealth at the expense of the American people.”
We argue that Trump is not a Republican, and that the crony capitalists will reassert control of the party after Trump is gone, just like they did after Reagan.
Unless, Trump spends the next 4 years creating a new conservative national sovereignty political party that replaces the crony capitalist Republican Party.
We argue that Trump’s economic nationalism and democratic citizen movement could be durable force, after he is gone, with the creation of a new color-blind political party, which depends on both Black workers and White workers developing a class consciousness, similar to the fusion in North Carolina, in 1892.
Section 4. The New Populist Fusion of a Working/Middle Class Conservative Political Party.
In his CRB article, Re-fusing Politics: “Fusionism” for the 21st Century, Michael M. Rosen evokes the historical era of fusion between Black citizens and White farmers, under the banner of the Republican Party, after the Civil War.
In North Carolina, their fusion was called southern agrarian populism, or the People’s Party, led by Leonadis Lafayette Polk, of North Carolina.
Rosen cites The Conservatarian Manifesto by Charles C.W. Cooke, as an example of a conservative modern day fusion. Like the earlier farmer populist ideology, Cooke suggests that the modern fusion between the middle/working class and conservativism consists of an ideology of state sovereignty.
Cooke writes that the mission of the new conservative fusion is,
“to decentralize power, returning the important fights to where they belong: with the people who are affected by their conclusions and who are therefore best equipped to resolve them…based upon an alliance grounded in federalism and constitutional originalism.”
Yuval Levin, of the journal National Affairs, also sees a new form of populist conservatism.
He writes,
“The premise of (the new) conservatism is that what matters most about society happens in the space between the individual and the state—the space occupied by families, communities, civic and religious institutions, and the private economy.”
Trump’s new conservatism is a national sovereignty populism, which champions the interests of working class citizens against the entrenched power of Codevilla’s ruling class.
It is a fusion that re-connects Lincoln’s original ideals to Jefferson, not to Madison, or to Justice Marshall.
Heather Cox Richardson, cited above for her book, How the South Won the Civil War, has written a second book, To Make Men Free: A History of the Republican Party, which explains how Lincoln’s original populist philosophy went awry in the ensuing years, after 1858.
Richardson explains that the original philosophy of Lincoln connected to Jefferson’s natural rights conservatism that “all men are created equal.”
“Lincoln offered opportunity or social mobility to average Americans…the Republican Party was formed “to make sure that all hardworking Americans could rise.”
At the same moment in history, Richardson notes the original orthodoxy of Madison’s natural aristocracy reasserted itself within the Republican Party.
“a contrary impulse favoring “[r]ich men who sought to monopolize land, money, or the means of production.” This struggle matters because its outcome has often determined whether America has charted a progressive course or one that is not simply reactionary but destructive, given that the ambitions of the wealthy “were undermining the natural harmony of economic interests and endangering the entire country.”
This second Republican impulse evolved, beginning with the era of robber barons, into Codevilla’s Republican ruling class.
The barrier to fusing the Jefferson philosophy of “all men created equal,” with the populist version of Lincoln, is Jefferson’s concept that state sovereignty is the basis of the American government.
David F. Forte, in his CRB article, Securing the Constitution and Union Without Marshall, would have been impossible for Lincoln because Lincoln did not believe that the nation was a compact between states.
Forte writes,
“Without Marshall, the Jeffersonian notion of the Constitution as a compact of states would have taken root, leaving the Union without any principled basis to resist secession and disintegration.”
Forte cites the work of Beveridge, who praises Marshall’s rulings to uphold the doctrine that the constitutional basis that the Union was not a compact between states.
Forte writes,
“Beveridge’s overpraise of Marshall comes very close to saying that by deliberately distorting the understanding of the Judiciary Act of 1789 in order to assert judicial review, Marshall made the Court the “ultimate arbiter as to what is and what is not law under the Constitution.” In this reading, Marshall’s opinion was, as Jefferson would claim, actually a usurpation: “Thus, by a coup as bold in design and as daring in execution as that by which the Constitution had been framed, John Marshall set up a landmark in American history so high that all the future could take bearings from it, so enduring that all the shocks the Nation was to endure could not overturn it.”
The barrier to connecting Jefferson’s Declaration to Lincoln’s populist version of the Republican Party is that Lincoln’s logic for the civil war was based upon Marshall’s interpretation that the Union was not a compact between states.

Forte continues,
“Time and again, Marshall disputed the wrongheaded notion—launched by Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798—that the Constitution was a compact of states. Even in the age of Jackson, Marshall upheld the rights of the Cherokee Indians against Georgia’s predatory claims, while affirming national control over Indian affairs. Having feared that the Union was on the verge of dismemberment, Marshall rejoiced, however, at Andrew Jackson’s strong opposition to South Carolina’s Ordinance of Nullification.”
We argue that the state sovereignty framework of Jefferson, as codified in Burke’s Articles of Confederation, is the correct interpretation of the American founding, and agree with Jefferson’s interpretation that Marshall fermented the Nation’s first coup by eviscerating the constitutionalism of state sovereignty.
After the Civil War, the second version of Republicanism gained unchallenged power over a powerful centralized government. The centralized government then became the target of graft and corruption of the spoils system, ultimately leading to the formation of the political party of the ruling class.
The Nation’s second coup was launched by the ruling class Republicans, in 2016, against the populism of Trumpism, and the second coup is kept alive by the guerilla forces of the Lincoln Project, in collaboration with the Democrat Marxist Party.
Conclusion: The 4 Year Window of Opportunity to Replace the Crony Capitalist Republican Party.
We agree with Codevilla, in his CRB article, After the Republic, that the Nation established by the founders is gone.
In contrast to Codevilla, we place the founding of the Nation in 1775, created under the Articles of Confederation, not 1787, under Madison’s constitution.
Codevilla correctly notes the alliance between the ruling class Republicans and Democrat Marxists.

Codevilla writes,
“This election (2016) is about whether the Democratic Party, the ruling class’s enforcer, will impose its tastes more strongly and arbitrarily than ever, or whether constituencies opposed to that rule will get some ill-defined chance to strike back. Regardless of the election’s outcome, the republic established by America’s Founders is probably gone. But since the Democratic Party’s constituencies differ radically from their opponents’, and since the character of imperial governance depends inherently on the emperor, the election’s result will make a big difference in our lives. ..the ruling class blurs the distinction between public and private business, connection to that class has become the principal way of getting rich in America.”
As we noted above, Codevilla sees a potential class consciousness developing in Trump voters, but concludes that Trump voters have not revealed what it is that they want to replace the ruling class Republican Party.
Codevilla writes,
“There’s the hazy possibility of something else… This majority (of Trump voters) see no one in the political mainstream who shares their concerns, because (Trump voters) lack confidence that the system can be fixed, (Trump voters) are eager to empower whoever might flush the system and its denizens with something like an ungentle enema… What they want, beyond an end to the ruling class’s outrages, has never been clear.”
We disagree with Codevilla about not knowing what Trump voters want. They want a permanent, durable Conservative National Sovereignty Party, after Trump, that reflects their working and middle class consciousness of who they are.
The Trump voters do not have much time to create this new party. If they ever lose any future election, America’s democracy, as you know it is over, replaced with a one-party global totalitarian government, with illegitimate vote counting.
We agree with the analysis of Attorney General William Barr regarding the coalition between ruling class Republicans and Marxist Democrats.
Barr writes that the collaboration is made up of people who,
“Identify the national interest with their own political preferences, (the ruling class Republicans) and feeling that “anyone who has a different opinion” is somehow an enemy of the state. (Marxist Democrats). They now support the (Democrat) party in seizing power, convincing themselves that what they’re doing is in the higher interest, the better good.” (Lincoln Project Republicans).”
We conclude that there is a slight, 4 year, window of opportunity for Trump to replace the crony capitalist Republican Party with a new national populist sovereignty party that represents the interests of working and middle class citizens.
The formation of that new party is entirely contingent on Trump voters developing a social class consciousness that argues that crony corporate Republican globalism is not consistent with Jefferson’s founding national principal that “all men are created equal.”
The only person in America that can make that happen is Trump.
I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this podcast is a copyrighted production of the CLP News Network
Our constitutional principles of government are on our Democratic Republic of America website.
You can follow our daily commentary on twitter https://twitter.com/ltvtoo and at Parler https://bit.ly/2C3NgWf
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