Good analysis overall. The Democratic Party strategy has been and is to bring in enough *new* Americans to sufficiently dilute the demographic so that there is no longer a substantial white block to worry about. This extends from Sixties politics and the Immigration Reform of 1965. That is one reason they would wish to legalize millions of illegal immigrants. One has to be aware of the basic and underlying struggle here, no matter what side one is on.Prothero wrote:Hopefully our institutions and our system of divided government, checks and balances is strong enough to withstand Trumps possible excesses. One can hope for the best: a Republican house, Senate and President, something might actually get done: tax reform, less regulation, smaller federal government more local decision making and control, investment in infrastructure, putting Medicare and Social Security on a sound financial basis for the future. Under Hilary all we were going to get was more gridlock and obstruction. The Republicans are in charge let us wait and see if they can actually govern and if not, we have a chance to vote them out again in two years and a different President in four years. In Truth if all eligible voters had in fact registered and voted there would likely to have been a different result. Voting matters and real long term change only comes through the political process as messy, frustrating and slow as it may be.
Without a doubt those 'checks and balances' will do a great deal to inhibit excesses. The US is a vastly powerful country with entrenched interest of many different sorts. And they have protections at many different levels. It is not impossible that Trump engineer some sort of a restructuring. In any case he had best heed the class that brought him to power. The more that they politicize, the more the inherent social conflicts will increase. The social problems in the US, and the disempowerment of the white majority, and their apparent desire to assert themselves against aspects of the multiculturalism project, will only become more stark. Obama's presidency represents 8 years of left-activism. One would imagine this represents the reverse-trend. There is conflict inherent at all levels.
I am really pleased to know that our Lefty-Progressives have come to terms with things and will be dancing there way through it all. It will be a knife-dance though. The Left-Progressive-Marxist faction will not simply surrender the field, that must be understood.
'Fasten your seat belts boys and girls, we're in for a bumpy ride'.
The NYTs has an interesting article describing its 'journalistic shame'. This seems a pretty important moment for journalistic America. If what they say is true they are going to have to retool and come up with a very different reporting paradigm.
A WSJ article which, to my astonishment, mentions Richard Spencer, one of the main advocates of New Right positions. This is a very interesting turn of events insofar as Spencer is intellectually and ideologically informed by the European New Right. If this new interpretation of Conservatism begins to gain foothold, then it is possible that a wide-ranging social conservatism with political and economic implications may take greater shape in America. This is certainly significant. Because the Republican establishment are generally regarded as 'Cucks' by the New American Right.
But it only brings into sharper focus that there is a latent and I think also explosive political and social conflict within the landscape of America right now. The Left-Progressive camp may sulk for a week or two but already they are revving up the rhetorical engines. Amy Goodman of Democracy Now.
Fuck you.
