• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

The Arrival of the American Feminazi Movement in that Dem Party of Today!

Our America in Deep Trouble!

Why on Earth, in the world of the human being,  throughout known history, is the  supreme GOD,  MALE…..and not female?

Because the human male animal was and still  is born programmed…… to be a killer,  and curious…..a problem solver….a builder…….a hunter, an inventor……a dreamer, a protector, defender  of his brood and clan,  a seeker  exposing the unknown.  for the sake of the survival of the species.

I was born a child of the Great Depression, raised in a five room bungalow during the Second World War,  taught and  educated in our  American world of the  JudeoChristian God.

I was lucky….very lucky, for I lived in a culture which  taught me  to seek and defend Truth above all matters for my family and my country……for Truth would make me, neighbors and our country become closer to God.   Neither I nor my family were alone in those days.   Families had mothers and fathers in those days.

Guys and gals of my schooling  were taught similar manners.  They were Americans too.  Gals were also taught to be girls.   Boys were controlled to be boys…..both sexes were  taught JudeoChristian values!

Until I entered college in 1952, I sensed girls were by Nature and Culture more disciplined students than boys.    They did their homework neater, read books faster and more frequently, and until high school were rather shy about making noises causing attention.   Despite lack of discipline, I loved learning in college.  I was born curious.  I had been taught by my teachers that the more I’d learn in school, the closer to God I would become.  I had a profound reading problem, however.   My teachers knew it better than I did.

I attended K through eighth grade, during the Depression and War years, 1939-1948)  at newly built Horace Mann School in St. Paul, Minnesota.  I earned my first college degree in 1956, majoring in Geography and Russian.    I did enter the army in 1957, the year I was also married.   I returned to college in 1959 to get a degree in Education….so I could teach Social Studies, American and World History, and Russian.

My first professional career was teaching Russian at the University of Minnesota High School, the fall of 1960.    I didn’t know at the time,  that  within eight years the truth-seeking America I knew and loved, would begin its decay rotting into the Leftist fascistic nation  we now endure.    It was Betty Friedan time.

Americans have since been  told, programmed, preached, that there are no longer important differences between human  man and human woman……that women  of our modern time are equal or even better  carbon copies  in their abilities than  the human male, especially the cruel white human male,  and always have been…..that throughout the countless million, billion years of our planet past, this white man,  has abused, imprisoned, crippled, cheated, belittled,  murdered, warred against   his mate and innocent others throughout the world.

America’s current  godlessness assures fems they’ve been forever cheated….and today is their day to revolt and rise to worship the Hillarys,  Ocasio-Cortezes and fellow feminazis  of our today’s new world.   However,  there is a problem here no one dares expose……….The human female animal is born  ditsy, moody, flaky,  seeking  attention, protection, and care.  FEELINGS, not Truth, is the human female animal’s primary animal drive.  She does bear curiosity, but not the male drive kind.      It has been the human male’s curiosity that has made  nothing in life stay the same generation to generation.  Despite the rise of America’s noisy feminazism,  he keeps inventing, problem making and solving, protecting and so on by the drive  given to him by   Nature, God’s Nature, if you prefer.

Yet, in  today’s ever more  feminazified America, he and his masses are suffering because he no longer can find his room to labor, imagine, and invent and be father to his children  in our today’s American “feminazified” culture.

Learning knowledge has been disappearing from our American “learning” institutions since the 1960s.   Leftist lies now dominate as a religion at our schools and universities from coast to coast.   Today’s fascistic Democrat Party deceit is taught and preached without any reverence to Truth.  It’s goal seems to be more Soviet and Mao, than Nazi.  Hillary was and still is merely an old fashioned Crooked Liar by habit and probably by birth.    About 20% of traditional big  money-making business Republicans are fascist stimulated the leftist way these days because they can’t own Our Full Blooded American Donald J. Trump.

I became a Democrat when I got married….I wanted to please my wife.   Her folks and their kin folk  were Southerners, poor,  rural and small town Arkansans.   Her Father was college educated.   Her Mother, one of sixteen children raised in rural Pine Bluff wound up teaching  school in rural Texas until the Depression hit he rural South hard in the early 1930s when both were displaced until they wound up living in our Duluth, here in Minnesota.    My father-in-law, after a year of being jobless, was able to secure part time work as an inspector for the Chicago-Northwestern Railway in 1932.   Two boys of the sixteen offspring were in the Navy at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941……one on the Oklahoma…..and they both survived the bombing and the war.   One of my wife’s uncles did die rather young however due to his war experiences.

Our today’s Dems, especially their fems,  are far more modern in the up-to-date  than yesterday’s  Dems and fems back then.   They and their husbands  honored motherhood,  family, and country, first and foremost because of their faith in God and the JudeoChristian teachings to be Truthful and love thy father and mother, to obey the Ten Commandments for a better Life.

I knew before I went into military service I,  a human being, was an animal.   Being a child of the second world war, I wanted to know what I would do if shot at.   Could I kill another human being.    Winston Churchill was my favorite “American” during and after the second world war.    I loved his quotes…..the best being:   “The most exhilarating moment in Life is to have been SHOT AT……..(and have been missed!”)

“What would I do if shot at” came to mind many times during and after the War.   We boys in the neighborhood “played” war countless  times each Summer during school  vacation during WWII.   In winter we’d build igloos with snow on an empty lot across our alley,   and then dive bomb them with ice bombs from our toy B17 bomber planes  like we’d  see in the news reels on Saturday afternoons at our neighborhood  movie theater.

Being a potential killer, the human male animal MUST be taught religiously, profoundly to follow the JudeoChristian Ten Commandments Godfearingly.   Murders are a way of common life in far too many American neighborhoods these days.  Lefty idiots and their friends  blame guns.    I blame our Godless, 21st century LEFT WING fascistic culture,  especially the present Dem Fem Party Nazi-like chronic liars like Adam Schiff one…..and the reality that our millennials who make so much noise and trouble are close to know-nothings thanks to our left wing godless fascists at school and universities.

Fascism occurs in any culture when Truth, knowledge,  and free expression are no longer  taught and valued …hello America’s Lefty DemFem Party,  AD2019.

Today’s American Dem Party has been thoroughly  feminized for their leaders are  now  selling the human culture killer, fascistic Socialism to vulnerable Americans.

Whereas the human male animal is aware he is born programmed to carry  a killer  instinct, which is needed from time to time for the species to survive,  he must learn to Godfearing enough to control his violence potential.

The human female is not programmed to be a killer to save the species.     She KILLS THE SPECIES WHEN SHE DOESN’T PRODUCE ANY CHILDREN.  Is she then born to be perfect?

Of course not.   The human female animal is born programmed  to ditsy when adult….moody  instincts throughout her adult life when  feelings often “trump”  Truth in order to seek and receive  comfort, protection, and security.  (But,  she is usually too emotional to think about such things…..)

 

 

 

We also live in a western world of feminazism in which lefty fascist ditsy of  the Hillary and Ocasio-Cortez  and such kind seek to play God running

 

 

But, Canada Is Already A Fascistic, One Party Government, Education, Communications, & Political World

…..and one of its neighbors across its southern border,  Minnesota,  isn’t too far behind..

Dennis Prager doesn’t live very close to fascistic Canada.  He’s lucky.   He’s got Oregon sitting north of his fascistic home state, California and Washington state “polarwise” beyond that.   It’s still woodsy and mountainous there in BC.

Canadians have British Columbia as their California:   one of their leading fascistic provinces  dictating  wrong from right,  night from day,  fascism from freedom.   Unlike Manitoba, it’s an up-to-date province from the leftist prospective throughout our continent.

Dennis turned to British Columbia for a while  during his radio show this Friday morning.  (British Columbia is that large Pacific Coast Province of Canada that politically behaves a lot like fascistic Seattle, Washington, only leftier, apparently.)

A 14 year old girl wanted to be a boy, because she “felt” like it.   She apparently challenged, or had a lawyer  challenge her parents who had shamed her with a girl’s name, because the body of the little being was a girl’s body fourteen years ago……and has remained so for all of these years.  The Girl-boy, or Boy-girl won her case, because the screwball leftist Judge said so.   He warned that her  parents better pay attention to their 14 year old’s feelings or pay a hefty price for not doing as the STATE DICTATES!

More than that, the Judge lawed down the rule that the parents of the parents of the  boy-girl  would be committing a British Columbia crime if they didn’t refer to  her with  a male name as their “child” had demanded.  (Perhaps something  very butch “Tarzan” perhaps?)

The CBC is a  programmed fascistic-left feminized gang of intellectual thieves of all lefty ranges who spread their FEELINGS to their public…. all somewhat soprano  to contralto in their aural thinkings.  After all, the majority of human females really don’t give a damn about TRUTH.   Their FEELINGS DICTATE.    It is NOT in their province to PROBLEM SOLVE!! Why bother….that’s what guys do…. THE HUMAN FEMALE ANIMAL  SEEKS SECURITY whether Nazi, Soviet, or Hillaryites ABOVE ALL….it’s in her “blood”.

(Be sure to review the CBC “report” of the 2016 American Presidential Election.   Could it be that human female animal is born to be LEFTISTS who prefer feelings over reality’s (God’s) Truth?

 

Jobs!! What the Pelosi Fascistic American Press Bans from the American Brain!

Shutdown? What Shutdown? US Adds 304,000 Jobs In January

 

(Note:  Remember fellow Americans!  It is inherent in the human female animal to disdain, not practice,  seeking TRUTH!   She is born to feel, to judge, and embellish, cherish, express feelings, seek comfort and safety  for her (God given family she  by Nature or Nature’s God, is driven to bear.  Her  primary purpose in life on Earth is to secure her ability, skills, affection to bear,  deliver and protect her young  children of  the human species in order to continue that species.

The human male animal has  been, and still is  born, even trained to be  a killer, a protector, a builder, an inventor,  driven to protect his own, his family,  his tribe, his nation.    I felt that drive in its milder form that moment, being raised Christian, being married, the moment our first child was born, and repeated at the birth of the two that followed…..and have felt so about them  nearly everyday since “in rain or shine, in joy or sorrow!”

However, that American family and its culture barely  exists in our year AD2019.   There has been  no time for it, no room for it, no learning for it.  We in a Pelosi world where Truth has neither meaning nor existence.  In AD2016 the rising American  “fascistics” drove their Hillary down the American political throat……but the United States of America DID NOT SWALLOW IT!

ON THAT 8TH OF NOVEMBER, ALONG CAME DONALD J. TRUMP!!  AND  WE HAVE BECOME BLESSED!!

(Let us review the “horrors” of the five-week shutdown the fascistic Dems have perpetrated upon today’s American…its citizens and its 20,000,000 Dem invaders intended to increase the power of their  fascism for America).

The following article by Ed Morrissey occurred in HotAir:

If the five-week shutdown had any impact on the economy, employers overlooked it — in droves. In January, the US added the most jobs in nearly a year, as the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported net job creation for the month at 304,000. Unemployment rose a little higher to 4.0% as temporary layoffs surged in the public sector due to the shutdown:

SEE ALSO: Elizabeth Warren to Cherokee Nation: Sorry about that DNA test

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 304,000 in January, and the unemployment rate edged up to 4.0 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in several industries, including leisure and hospitality, construction, health care, and transportation and warehousing.

Both the unemployment rate, at 4.0 percent, and the number of unemployed persons, at 6.5 million, edged up in January. The impact of the partial federal government shutdown contributed to the uptick in these measures. Among the unemployed, the number who reported being on temporary layoff increased by 175,000. This figure includes furloughed federal employees who were classified as unemployed on temporary layoff under the definitions used in the household survey.

The labor force participation rate remained above 63% for the second straight month, demonstrating that more of the old overhang has been reversed:

RECOMMENDED

The labor force participation rate, at 63.2 percent, and the employment-population ratio, at 60.7 percent, changed little over the month; both measures were up by 0.5 percentage point over the year.

The former number had been stuck around 62.7% for five years or more. Analysts insisted that the generationally low number was the result of the leading edge of Baby Boomer retirement, but the growth in that number over the past year strongly suggests that workers are reentering the labor force as jobs open up. It matches a similar growth in the employment-population ratio that had been stuck in the 59+% range since the Great Recession until January 2017. It has grown almost a full point over the past two years.

Over the same period, wages have begun rising after years of stagnation. The BLS reports that wages have increased 3.2% over the past year after a modest rise in January. That also suggests that a labor overhang was keeping wage growth down, and that we have either eliminated or greatly reduced that overhang in the past couple of years.

Today’s results blew far past Reuters’ predictions, even accounting for a downward revision for November and December:

Nonfarm payrolls jumped by 304,000 jobs last month, the largest gain since February 2018, the Labor Department said. Job growth was boosted by hiring at construction sites, retailers and business services as well as at restaurants and hotels.

But data for November and December was revised down to show 70,000 fewer jobs created than previously reported. The economy needs to create roughly 100,000 jobs per month to keep up with growth in the working-age population.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast payrolls increasing by 165,000 jobs in January.

CNBC noted that the results are counterintuitive, especially considering the season:

https://player.cnbc.com/p/gZWlPC/cnbc_global?playertype=synd&byGuid=7000063300&size=530_298

January job growth shatters expectations from CNBC.

Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had expected payrolls to rise by 170,000 and the unemployment rate to hold steady at 3.9 percent.

In all, it was a powerful performance at a time when economists increasingly have said they expect growth to slow in 2019. January marked 100 months in a row of positive job creation, by far the longest streak on record.

It’s a bonanza of a report for Donald Trump, a solid win on the economy — and a much-needed change of subject on the shutdown. The report demonstrates that worry over the economic impact of the shutdown was mostly exaggerated, at least up to the point when it ended. Had air traffic snarled any further, it likely would have had bad impacts on job growth in February, but for the most part the shutdown didn’t have an impact outside of those directly affected by the furlough.

Can the economy maintain this momentum? Trump needs months like these in September and October 2020 more than he needs them in January 2019. But the White House will still be glad to see this now nonetheless, and they should be.

https://hotair.com/archives/2019/02/01/shutdown-shutdown-us-adds-304000-jobs-january/

CNN’s Robert Mueller’s FBI Fascists Attack, Arrest, Release a Roger Stone

ROGER STONE’S ARREST: WHAT’S SCANDALOUS, AND WHAT ISN’T

by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

Let’s start with what isn’t scandalous: the charges against Roger Stone. Scott embedded Robert Mueller’s indictment hereByron York has a good summary of the charges.

The salient point is that Mueller’s indictment of Stone confirms that the Trump campaign had nothing to do with the theft of emails from the Democratic National Committee or their publication by Wikileaks. The allegations against Stone all have to do with what happened after Wikileaks dumped the first batch of DNC emails. Stone tried–unsuccessfully–to get in touch with Julian Assange or someone else who could tell him whether Wikileaks had more emails, and if so, what they contained. As Byron points out, everyone in the political world, in the Summer of 2016, was trying to find out whether Wikileaks had more DNC emails, and if so, what they contained.

There is nothing wrong with what Stone did. Mueller charges, rather, that Stone lied to a Congressional committee about his actions. If that is true, Stone is in trouble. But the charges against him do not support the theory that the Trump campaign colluded with Russians to invade the DNC’s email system. On the contrary, the Stone story is just more confirmation that the Trump campaign had nothing to do with it.

Now, for what is truly scandalous about Roger Stone’s arrest: the manner in which it was carried out. The arrest was preserved on video because someone–presumably either the FBI or Mueller’s team–tipped off CNN, and CNN had cameras stationed in front of Stone’s residence at 5:00 in the morning. The video shows a dozen heavily armed FBI agents carrying out what can fairly be described as a paramilitary operation against Stone’s home. Why? Was there some reason to think Stone was so dangerous that it required a pre-dawn raid by a dozen agents with AR-15s to take him into custody?

No such claim has been made, nor would it be plausible. The show that Mueller and the FBI put on for the cameras of their political ally, CNN, was a disgrace. Here it is:

A few years ago, I couldn’t have imagined saying this, but the FBI has proved to be corrupt and hopelessly politicized. It needs, at a minimum, a thorough housecleaning. It might even be necessary to put the FBI out of business and start over with a new federal investigative agency.

NOTE:  Sarah Sanders reviews CROOKED HILLARY’S ARREST SCHEDULE:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2019/01/25/sarah-sanders-so-hillary-will-be-arrested-now-right-n2540240

Today’s Fascistic Dems’ a Grave Threat to Our America….

THE DNC:  UN-AMERICAN, POLITICAL CLOWNS, KREMLIN MOLES:

by Cjack:

After the assurance (“I’ll have more flexibility after the elections”) Barack Obama uttered to Putin’s envoy Dmitry Medvedev at the White House, most of America confirmed that Barack Obama was the highest “mole” the Russians had planted in the US Government. Oh yes, Comrade Putin, ex-KGB spymaster, had realized the dream of his Soviet idol Josef Stalin. Also keep in mind that the ‘patrician’ Democrat FDR was a great admirer/sympathizer of Stalin.

So let us add to Obama the two other US Soviet flunkies, and Putin’s colluding partners, Bill and Hillary Clinton the Kremlin rewarded with a $145,000.000 donation to the Clinton Foundation (“The Uranium One Deal”) and $500,000.00 ‘speaking fee’ paid to Bill Clinton by a Russian business group in Moscow. It must be understood that the Russians, since the Stalin era, had been steadily pursuing the planting of moles in our government, efforts that handsomely came to fruition under the corrupt Obama administration.

Yet the un-American Democrats and their liberal media ‘apparatchik’ are trying to spin the tale by suggesting that Trump is Putin’s mole, not Obama or Hillary or any other American politician. Nothing could be further from the truth. But Mueller’s office continues to leak falsehoods about Trump and his campaign. In fact, for two long years Mueller has been conducting a bogus investigation to cover up the bad deeds of the Obama administration, attempting to paralyze the Trump administration as they distract the American people with tabloid generated ‘hysteria’ by the ‘news jerks’ in the left-wing media.

Needless to say, if we had an honest and patriotic media, the un-American Barack Obama would have never been elected to the US Senate and much less the Oval Office. Even now we permit the treacherous Obama and his anarchists, amply funded by the anti-American ‘globalist’ George Soros, to violate our immigration laws, stymie our duly elected government, and wreak societal havoc at large.
Enough is enough, now is the time for the President to act with the full legal force of his Constitutional power and authority to put an end to all of the Democrats’ political machinations, Mueller’s unconstitutional investigation, and to declare a national emergency to effectively quell the migratory disturbances at our southern borders, and direct the US Army Corps of Engineers to build the “Wall”—No doubt the Democrats, incited by the ‘anarchists’ in the left-wing media will yell and scream rubbish about a ‘Constitutional’ crisis, but the American people is not buying into this propaganda anymore.

This past week Pelosi’s un-American political entourage was about to board a ‘taxpayer-funded’ military transport with one-hundred of her Demo-Rats aiming to gather votes by attacking the President’s withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan. Alas! The President swiftly countered such a capricious and irresponsible self-serving attempt by Pelosi and her flunkies in Congress and the media.

The last thing our battlefront troops need is a visit from self-serving political clowns. I tell you from my own experience as a combat soldier, the troops will always prefer a USO show than a visit from Count Dracula and Elvira. Doggone it, the greedy and decrepit Madam “P” and her ‘morticious’ political bagman ‘Big Shu’ are so intoxicated with power they have lost, not that they had much before, all sense of decency and respect for our Constitution and the American people. These two creeps have gone too far with their impudence and authoritarian shenanigans; their political corruption stinks to high heaven.

And what about George Soros who is funding the waves on Central-American illegal caravans in defiance of our nation’s laws? I say, arrest him for criminal acts against the sovereignty of our nation, fine him, strip him of his naturalized US citizenship, and deport him to his alpine digs in Switzerland. George Soros is an evil denizen for whom there should be no place in the US.

I have no reason to believe Bill Barr will support or act against the conspirators plotting to overthrow our duly elected President. Bill Barr and Bob Mueller are good friends! Barr strikes me like a man itching to add his footnotes to our nation’s political history. Nothing of substance will come of his work as US Attorney General.

As committed as he has been to “drain the swamp” Trump’s political naiveté has empowered his seasoned political enemies in the US government and the American left-wing media. And in all of this it has been sad to witness the deadly silence of Conservative America.

Cjack…Sentinel on the Gulf…January 19, 2019

Dem Pollster Man, Nate Silver, Features Seventeen Dems to Battle 2020 Presidential Contest’s Big Dems

How 17 Long-Shot Presidential Contenders Could Build A Winning Coalition

by Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight:

It might seem obvious that having a wide-open field, as Democrats have for their 2020 presidential nomination, would make it easier for a relatively obscure candidate to surge to the top of the polls. But I’m not actually sure that’s true. Democrats might not have an “inevitable” frontrunner — the role that Hillary Clinton played in 2016 or Al Gore did in 2000. But that very lack of heavyweights has encouraged pretty much every plausible middleweight to join the field, or at least to seriously consider doing so. Take the top 10 or so candidates, who are a fairly diverse lot in terms of race, gender and age — pretty much every major Democratic constituency is spoken for by at least one of the contenders. After all, it was the lack of competition that helped Bernie Sanders gain ground in 2016; he was the only game in town other than Clinton.1

So as I cover some of the remaining candidates in this, the third and final installment of our “five corners” series on the Democratic field, you’re going to detect a hint of skepticism about most of their chances. (The “five corners” refers to what we claim are the the five major constituencies within the Democratic Party: Party Loyalists, The Left, Millennials and Friends, Black voters and Hispanic voters2; our thesis is that a politician must build a coalition consisting of at least three of these five groups to win the primary.) It’s not that some of them couldn’t hold their own if thrust into the spotlight against one or two other opponents. Instead, it’s that most of them will never get the opportunity to square off against the big names because the middleweights will monopolize most of the money, staff talent and media attention. Rather than pretend to be totally comprehensive, in fact, I’m instead going to list a few broad typologies of candidates that weren’t well-represented in the previous installments of this series.

This type of candidate has been popular in the minds of journalists ever since Gary Hart’s failed presidential bids in 1984 and 1988 — but it never seems to gain much momentum among actual Democratic voters. In this scenario, a Western governor or senator (e.g. Hart, Bruce Babbitt or Bill Richardson) runs on a platform that mixes environmentalism, slightly libertarianish views on other issues (legal weed but moderate taxes?) and a vague promise to shake things up and bring an outsider’s view to Washington.

This platform makes a lot of sense in the Mountain West, but I’m not sure how well it translates elsewhere in the country. In theory, the environmental focus should have some appeal among millennials. (That particularly holds for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who would heavily focus on climate change in his campaign as a means of differentiating himself.) And Party Loyalists might get behind an outsider if they were convinced that it would help beat President Trump, but “let’s bring in an outsider to shake things up” was one of the rationales that Trump himself used to get elected, so it doesn’t make for as good a contrast in 2020 as it might ordinarily. The Left isn’t likely to be on board with the Great Western Hope platform, which tends to be moderate on fiscal policy. And while the states of the Mountain West have quite a few Hispanic voters, they don’t have a lot of black ones. It’s not that Inslee or former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper aren’t “serious” candidates — being a multi-term governor of medium-sized state is traditionally a good credential — but it’s also not clear where the demand for their candidacies would come from.

You might say something similar about the various mayors that are considering a presidential bid.What niche are the mayors hoping to fill, and are there actually any voters there?

Maybe in “The West Wing,” a hands-on problem solver from Anytown, USA, would make the perfect antidote to a Trumpian president. In the real world, Democrats think the country is in crisis under Trump, and there are a lot of candidates who have more experience dealing with national problems.

But Eric Garcetti and Bill de Blasio, the current mayors of Los Angeles and New York, respectively, have at least had to build complicated coalitions in big, complicated cities — and so they would probably be more viable than the mayors from smaller cities. De Blasio cruised to an easy re-election in New York in 2017 on the basis of support from black, Hispanic and leftist white voters, a coalition that could also be viable in the presidential primary. (De Blasio hasn’t taken concrete steps toward a 2020 bid, but he also hasn’t ruled one out.) Garcetti, who has what he describes as “Mexican-American-Jewish-Italian” ancestry, could find support for his bid among Hispanic voters.

Bloomberg might belong in a different group, as someone who’s not just a former mayor but also fits into the entrepreneur/celebrity/rich person category below and has some of the baggage that comes with that. And unlike de Blasio, Bloomberg wasn’t especially popular with nonwhite voters in New York.

This is a group of candidates I’m quite bullish about, by contrast — especially Stacey Abrams, if she runs. In defeating longtime incumbent Joe Crowley in the Democratic primary in New York’s 14th Congressional District last year, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (who is too young to run for president until next cycle) built a coalition of Hispanics, The Left and millennials. Not that everyone necessarily has Ocasio-Cortez’s political acumen, but the potency of this coalition seems rather obvious, in retrospect. Since The Left tends to be pretty white on its own, a Hispanic, black or Asian left-progressive candidate has more potential to build a broader coalition. And millennials, who are sympathetic to left-wing policy positions but also care a lot about diversity, might prefer a Latina or a black woman to an older white man.

In fact, it’s not clear why, other than for reasons having to do with her race and gender, Abrams isn’t getting more buzz as a potential candidate than Beto O’Rourke. (It’s true that Abrams might have designs on Georgia’s 2020 Senate race instead of the presidency; it’s also true that there wasn’t a “Draft Abrams” movement in the same way that influential Democrats almost immediately called on O’Rourke to run for president after his loss to Ted Cruz.) Both performed quite well relative to how Democrats usually do in their states, with Abrams losing to Brian Kemp by 1.4 percentage points in the Georgia governor’s race and O’Rourke losing to Cruz by 2.6 points in Texas’s Senate race. (Andrew Gillum, who barely lost Florida’s governor’s race, can’t make this claim, since Florida is much more purple than either Georgia or Texas.) Both became huge national stories. And both are lacking in the kind experience that traditionally sets the stage for a presidential run. It’s not that I’m down on O’Rourke’s chances; the opposite, really (see Part 2 of this series). But if O’Rourke can build a winning coalition from millennials, Hispanics and Party Loyalists, Abrams (or possibly Gillum) could create one from black voters, millennials and The Left.

I’m not going to spend too much on this category because, in practice, both New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe are likely to have a lot of problems if they want to ascend to the presidential stage. Party nominations are not just about building coalitions but also creating consensus, and McAuliffe and Cuomo have probably picked one too many fights with liberals and spent too much time critiquing liberal policy proposals to be tolerable to a large enough share of Democrats to win the nomination. Of the two, Cuomo would probably be the more viable as he’s shifted toward his left recently, although he’d still have a lot of work to do to repair his relationship with progressives.

Were it not for their abrasive approaches, the Cuomo and McAuliffe coalitions might be a bit more viable than you might assume. In particular, those coalitions consist of minority voters plus relatively moderate Party Loyalists. Cuomo assembled a similar coalition last September and soundly defeated the more liberal Cynthia Nixon in the Democratic primary for governor before being elected to a third gubernatorial term in November thanks to a landslide 84-14 margin among nonwhite voters.

What about the various billionaires considering a presidential run? Count me as skeptical that a CEO title will impress Democrats. Money has never been terribly predictive of success in the primaries (see e.g. Steve Forbes or Jeb Bush) — and candidates such as former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz and Tom Steyer, the hedge fund billionaire who last week decided that he wouldn’t run for president, have fared notably poorly in early surveys of Democrats. And that makes sense, because it’s not really clear what sort of Democratic voter they’re supposed to be appealing to. The Left is likely to regard the billionaires suspiciously, at best. Nor are rich white men who have never run for office before liable to have a lot of initial success in appealing to black or Hispanic voters. Finally, their timing is poor given that the president is Trump and that the last thing most Democrats will want is another billionaire with no political experience.

Want a billionaire whose chances I’d take seriously? How about Oprah. One three-pronged coalition we haven’t discussed yet is one consisting of Black voters, Hispanic voters and Millennials and Friends; a nonwhite celebrity who was able to engage voters that didn’t ordinarily participate in primaries3 could potentially win on that basis.

Finally, there are a few people running for president who don’t have anything resembling the traditional credentials for doing so, but who at least have pitches that are a little different than what voters will be hearing elsewhere. Tulsi Gabbard, the four-term representative from Hawaii’s 2nd Congressional District, was one of Sanders’s early endorsers last cycle, but she also has a heterodox set of positions, such as her frequent defenses of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and her former opposition to gay rights, that won’t win her fans among any of the traditional Democratic constituencies.

Richard Ojeda, a crew-cut Army veteran and former West Virginia legislator who says he voted for Trump in 2016 and looks the part of a (stereotypical) Trump voter, is presenting what’s essentially a left-wing set of economic policies in a very different package than voters would normally to get that message from. I’m not quite sure how the pitch would go over if, say, Ojeda makes it to a debate stage, which might never happen because the Democratic National Committee and the networks might consider him too obscure. But it’s worth bearing in mind that The Left is the whitest and most male of the Democratic constituencies, so a candidate who intentionally plays into that identity might not be the best one to build bridges to the rest of the party.

Then there’s John Delaney, who decided not to run for re-election to Congress so he could run for president instead — and in fact has already been running for president for well more than a year. He’s preaching a message of bipartisanship, which could win him plaudits from the pundits on the Sunday morning shows, but which it’s not clear that many actual Democrats are looking for. Instead, more Democrats are willing to identify as “liberal” than had been in the past and fewer say they want a candidate who compromises.


That’s all for now! As I mentioned in the first installment of this series, some things we’ve written here are surely going to seem laughably wrong in retrospect. It wouldn’t necessarily have been obvious at this point four years ago that Clinton would do so well with black voters, for example (a group she lost badly to Barack Obama in 2008), or that Sanders would become such a phenomenon among millennials. Fundamentally, however, the U.S. has “big tent” parties, consisting of groups that may not have all that much in common with one another. And so, the nomination process is a coalition-building process. Candidates such as Sanders and Joe Biden, who poll well among one or two groups, may lead in the polls initially. But ultimately the candidate who wins the nomination will be the one who can best bridge the divides between the different constituencies within the party.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-17-long-shot-presidential-contenders-could-build-a-winning-coalition/

Our America Now Ruled by Mercenaries!

Tucker Carlson: We Are Ruled By Mercenaries Who Feel No Long-Term Obligation To The People They Rule

 

Tucker Carlson delivered a monologue on how the American citizen is being exploited on the Wednesday edition of his FOX News show:

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Happy New Year. Newly-elected Utah senator Mitt Romney kicked off 2019 with an op-ed in the Washington Post savaging Donald Trump’s character and leadership. Romney’s attack and Trump’s response this morning on Twitter are the latest salvos in a longstanding personal feud between the two men. It’s even possible that Romney is planning to challenge Trump for the Republican nomination in 2020. We’ll see. But for now, Romney’s piece is fascinating on its own terms. It’s a window into how the people in charge, in both parties, see our country.

Romney’s main complaint is that Donald Trump is a mercurial and divisive leader. That’s true of course. Beneath the personal slights, though, Romney has a policy critique. He seems genuinely angry that Trump might pull American troops out of the Syrian civil war. Romney doesn’t explain how staying in Syria would benefit America. He doesn’t appear to consider that a relevant question. More policing in the Middle East is always better. We know that. Virtually everyone in Washington agrees.

Corporate tax cuts are also popular in Washington, and Romney is strongly on board with those too. His piece throws a rare compliment to Trump for cutting the corporate rate a year ago. This isn’t surprising. Romney spent the bulk of his business career at a firm called Bain Capital. Bain Capital all but invented what is now a familiar business strategy: take over an existing company for a short period of time, cut costs by firing employees, run up the debt, extract the wealth, and move on, sometimes leaving retirees without their earned pensions. Romney became fantastically rich doing this. Meanwhile, a remarkable number of those companies are now bankrupt or extinct. This is the private equity model. Our ruling class sees nothing wrong with it. It’s how they run the country.

Mitt Romney refers to unwavering support for a finance-based economy and an internationalist foreign policy as the “mainstream Republican” view. He’s right. For generations, Republicans have considered it their duty to make the world safe for banking, while simultaneously prosecuting ever more foreign wars. Modern Democrats generally support these goals. There are signs, however, that most people do not support this, and not just in America. In countries around the world — France, Brazil, Sweden, the Philippines, Germany, and many others — voters are suddenly backing candidates and ideas that would have been unimaginable just a decade ago. These are not isolated events. What you’re watching is populations revolting against leaders who refuse to improve their lives.

Something like this has been in happening in our country for three years. Donald Trump rode a surge of popular discontent all the way to the White House. Does he understand the political revolution he harnessed? Can he reverse the economic and cultural trends that are destroying America? Those are open questions. But they’re less relevant than we think. At some point, Donald Trump will be gone. The rest of us will be too. The country will remain. What kind of country will be it be then? How do we want our grandchildren to live?

These are the only questions that matter. The answer used to be obvious: the overriding goal for America is more prosperity, meaning cheaper consumer goods. But is that still true? Does anyone still believe that cheaper iPhones, or more Amazon deliveries of plastic garbage from China are going to make us happy? They haven’t so far. A lot of Americans are drowning in stuff. Yet drug addiction and suicide are depopulating large parts of the country. Anyone who thinks the health of a nation can be summed up in GDP is an idiot.

The goal for America is both simpler and more elusive than mere prosperity. It’s happiness. There are a lot of ingredients in being happy: Dignity. Purpose. Self-control. Independence. Above all, deep relationships with other people. Those are the things that you want for your children. They’re what our leaders should want for us, and would if they cared. But our leaders don’t care. We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule. They’re day traders. Substitute teachers. They’re just passing through. They have no skin in this game, and it shows. They can’t solve our problems. They don’t even bother to understand our problems.

One of the biggest lies our leaders tell is that you can separate economics from everything else that matters. Economics is a topic for public debate. Family and faith and culture, those are personal matters. Both parties believe this. Members of our educated upper-middle-classes, now the backbone of the Democratic Party, usually describe themselves as fiscally responsible and socially moderate. In other words, functionally libertarian. They don’t care how you live, as long as the bills are paid and the markets function. Somehow they don’t see a connection between people’s personal lives and the health of our economy, or for that matter, the country’s ability to pay its bills. As far as they’re concerned, these are two totally separate categories.

Social conservatives, meanwhile, come to the debate from the opposite perspective, but reach a strikingly similar conclusion. The real problem, you’ll hear them say, is that the American family is collapsing. Nothing can be fixed before we fix that. Yet, like the libertarians they claim to oppose, many social conservatives also consider markets sacrosanct. The idea that families are being crushed by market forces seems never to occur to them. They refuse to consider it. Questioning markets feels like apostasy.

Both sides miss the obvious point: culture and economics are inseparably intertwined. Certain economic systems allow families to thrive. Thriving families make market economies possible. You can’t separate the two. It used to be possible to deny this. Not anymore. The evidence is now overwhelming. Consider the inner cities. Thirty years ago, conservatives looked at Detroit or Newark and were horrified by what they saw. Conventional families had all but disappeared in poor neighborhoods. The majority of children were born out of wedlock. Single mothers were the rule. Crime and drugs and disorder became universal. What caused this nightmare? Liberals didn’t want to acknowledge the question. They were benefiting from the disaster, in the form of reliable votes. Conservatives, though, had a ready explanation for inner city dysfunction: big government. Decades of badly-designed social programs had driven fathers from the home and created what they called a “culture of poverty” that trapped people in generational decline.

There was truth in what the conservatives said. But it wasn’t the whole story. How do we know? Because virtually the same thing has happened decades later to an entirely different population. In many ways, rural America now looks a lot like Detroit. This is striking because rural Americans don’t seem to have much in common with people from the inner city. These groups have different cultures, different traditions and political beliefs. Usually they have different skin colors. Rural people are white conservatives, mostly. Yet the pathologies of modern rural America are familiar to anyone who visited downtown Baltimore in the 1980s: Stunning out of wedlock birthrates. High male unemployment. A terrifying drug epidemic.

Two different worlds. Similar outcomes. How did this happen? You’d think our ruling class would be interested in knowing the answer. Mostly they’re not. They don’t have to be. It’s easier to import foreign labor to take the place of native-born Americans who are slipping behind. But Republicans now represent rural voters. They ought to be interested. Here’s a big part of the answer: male wages declined. Manufacturing, a male-dominated industry, all but disappeared over the course of a generation. All that remained in many areas were the schools and the hospitals, both traditional employers of women. In many places, women suddenly made more than men. Before you applaud this as a victory for feminism, consider the effects. Study after study has shown that when men make less than women, women generally don’t want to marry them. Maybe they should want to, but they don’t. Over big populations, this causes a drop in marriage, a spike in out of wedlock births, and all the familiar disasters that follow: more drug and alcohol abuse, higher incarceration rates, fewer families formed in the next generation. This isn’t speculation, or propaganda from the evangelicals. It’s social science. We know it’s true. Rich people know it best of all. That’s why they get married before they have kids. That model works. Increasingly, marriage is a luxury only the affluent in America can afford.

And yet, and here’s the bewildering and infuriating part, those very same affluent married people, the ones making virtually all the decisions in our society, are doing pretty much nothing to help the people below them get and stay married. Rich people are happy to fight malaria in Congo. But working to raise men’s wages in Dayton or Detroit? That’s crazy.

This is negligence on a massive scale. Both parties ignore the crisis in marriage. Our mindless cultural leaders act like it’s still 1961, and the biggest problem American families face is that sexism is preventing millions of housewives from becoming investment bankers or Facebook executives.

For our ruling class, more investment banking is always the answer. They teach us it’s more virtuous to devote your life to some soulless corporation than it is to raise your own kids. Sheryl Sandburg of Facebook wrote an entire book about this. Sandburg explained that our first duty is to shareholders, above our own children. No surprise there. Sandburg herself is one of America’s biggest shareholders. Propaganda like this has made her rich. What’s remarkable is how the rest of us responded. We didn’t question why Sandburg was saying this. We didn’t laugh in her face at the pure absurdity of it. Our corporate media celebrated Sandburg as the leader of a liberation movement. Her book became a bestseller: Lean In. As if putting a corporation first is empowerment. It’s not. It’s bondage. Republicans should say so.

They should also speak out against the ugliest parts of our financial system. Not all commerce is good. Why is it defensible to loan people money they can’t possibly repay? Or charge them interest that impoverishes them? Payday loan outlets in poor neighborhoods collect 400 percent annual interest. We’re ok with that? We shouldn’t be. Libertarians tell us that’s how markets work: consenting adults making voluntary decisions about how to live their lives. OK. But it’s also disgusting. If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation of Americans, whether it’s happening in the inner city or on Wall Street.

And by the way, if you really loved your fellow Americans, if it would break your heart to see them high all the time. Which they are. A huge number of our kids, especially our boys, are smoking weed constantly. You may not realize that, because new technology has made it odorless. But it’s everywhere. That’s not an accident. Once our leaders understood they could get rich from marijuana, marijuana became ubiquitous. In many places, tax-hungry politicians have legalized or decriminalized it. Former Speaker of the House John Boehner now lobbies for the marijuana industry. His fellow Republicans seem fine with that. “Oh, but it’s better for you than alcohol,” they tell us. Maybe. Who cares? Talk about missing the point. Try having dinner with a 19-year-old who’s been smoking weed. The life is gone. Passive, flat, trapped in their own heads. Do you want that for your kids? Of course not. Then why are our leaders pushing it on us? You know the reason. Because they don’t care about you.

When you care about people, you do your best to treat them fairly. Our leaders don’t even try. They hand out jobs and contracts and scholarships and slots at prestigious universities based purely on how we look. There’s nothing less fair than that, though our tax code comes close. Under our current system, an American who works for a salary pays about twice the tax rate of someone who’s living off inherited money and doesn’t work at all. We tax capital at half of what we tax labor. It’s a sweet deal if you work in finance, as many of the richest people do. In 2010, for example, Mitt Romney made about $22 million dollars in investment income. He paid a federal tax rate of 14 percent. For normal upper-middle-class wage earners, the federal tax rate is nearly 40 percent. No wonder Romney supports the status quo. But for everyone else, it’s infuriating. Our leaders rarely mention any of this. They tell us our multi-tiered tax code is based on the principles of the free market. Please. It’s based on laws that congress passed, laws that companies lobbied for in order to increase their economic advantage. It worked well for those people, but at a big cost to everyone else. Unfairness is profoundly divisive. When you favor one child over another, your kids don’t hate you. They hate each other. That happens in countries too. It’s happening in ours, probably by design. Divided countries are easier to rule. Nothing divides us like the perception that some people are getting special treatment. In our country, some people definitely are. Republicans should oppose that with everything they have.

What kind of country do you want to live in? A fair country. A decent country. A cohesive country. A country whose leaders don’t accelerate the forces of change purely for their own profit and amusement. A country you might recognize when you’re old. A country that listens to young people who don’t live in Brooklyn. A country where you can make a solid living outside of the big cities. A country where Lewiston, Maine seems almost as important as the west side of Los Angeles. A country where environmentalism means getting outside and picking up the trash. A clean, orderly, stable country that respects itself. And above all, a country where normal people with an average education who grew up no place special can get married, and have happy kids, and repeat unto the generations. A country that actually cares about families, the building block of everything.

What will it take a get a country like that? Leaders who want it. For now, those leaders will have to be Republicans. There’s no option at this point. But first, Republican leaders will have to acknowledge that market capitalism is not a religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster. You’d have to be a fool to worship it. Our system was created by human beings for the benefit of human beings. We do not exist to serve markets. Just the opposite. Any economic system that weakens and destroys families isn’t worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.

Internalizing this won’t be easy for Republican leaders. They’ll have to unlearn decades of bumper sticker-talking points and corporate propaganda. They’ll likely lose donors in the process. Libertarians are sure to call any deviation from market fundamentalism a form of socialism. That’s a lie. Socialism is a disaster. It doesn’t work. It’s what we should be working desperately to avoid. But socialism is exactly what we’re going to get, and soon, unless a group of responsible people in our political system reforms the American economy in a way that protects normal people.

If you want to put America first, you’ve got to put its families first.