February 19, 2016

Ossified habits of mock-elections prevent Establishment from consolidating in new environment of real-election

An earlier post took a look at how the current climate of hyper-competitiveness is keeping the individual Establishment candidates from coalescing around just one of them, while the others fall on their swords for the greater good of their Establishment team.

"Why do I have to fall on my sword? You do it!" "No, you!" "No, you first!" "No, you first!"

"I'm the obvious choice for taking on Trump, my polls are better than your guyses." "Oh, those polls mean nothing this early. I've got the most endorsements!" "You two losers can't raise as much money as I can!" "C'mon folks, we're trying to stay relevant in 2016 and none of yinz guys has ever been to a gay wedding n'at? Jeez-o-man..."

Etc etc etc, while Trump sails on unchallenged.

There's something else going on, though, where the candidates have become so accustomed to the phony campaigns of the past several decades, that they can't adjust to today's environment where there's a genuine candidate running.

According to business as usual, the Establishment favors a variety of initial cucks, they duke it out in a rehearsed and ritualistic way for the Party's nomination, where nothing is really at stake because whoever wins, the Establishment wins. The only open question is which cuck will prove most popular -- or least unpopular -- with voters, since after all they do want to win the election. The empty mock-combat during the primary is only carried out to winnow the field down to the team's best chance of winning the general election.

Trump has mentioned several times how bizarre it is after the debates, where the other candidates, who have been taking shots at each other for two hours, immediately get all chummy with each other when the debate is over. It's clearly a mock-debate, and there's a sense of sportsmanship among teammates -- may the best cuck win.

Because Trump is not part of the club, does not know its ways, and does not participate in its rituals, the Establishment candidates all ignore him. It's no different than a bunch of guys playing baseball, and excluding the guy who, for some unknown reason, acts as though the game is football. In their minds, he's a wannabe and therefore not worth their attention, not worth their mock-attacks. True, he keeps interjecting his football plays into their baseball game, but that only deserves a dismissive "get off the field" response -- not an actual counter-attack. "Refs, seriously? Remove this confused wannabe player, so we can get back to our regularly scheduled game."

That was very evident during the debate that Trump skipped in order to bring Fox News to heel, and to raise money for veterans' groups at his own rally. By all accounts (too boring; didn't watch myself) it was what should have been taking place all along. With the real candidate gone, they could at long last get around to their ritualistic mock-debate.

This mindset and behavioral style has extended to their campaign trail strategies as well. Because Trump is just a wannabe who doesn't know how the game is played and isn't willing to learn, they all ignore his rallies, interviews, and so on, as though it were a mere shadow campaign by the kid who didn't get allowed into the stadium where the actual game is being played by the actual politicians.

With Trump being out of sight and out of mind, they spend most of their time, money, and effort taking shots at one another. They don't see it as friendly fire because, in their minds, there is no common enemy that puts them all onto the same team. Oh sure, there's that pseudo-candidate who hates all of us, but it's all make-believe, so we don't have to "consolidate" around a single hashtag Establishment candidate.

You see this every time they're forced to remark about Trump's campaign during their rallies, interviews, and so on. They're so irritated at having to take a time-out to deal with a streaker who's burst onto the field. It's like, "Why do they keep asking us about that pretend-campaign going on? Sigh, OK, I'll respond: he's a blustering carnival barker with no specifics who cannot insult his way to the Presidency. There -- is five seconds enough of a response? And now back to my regularly scheduled attacks on a fellow cuck."

But isn't that friendly fire? "C'mon folks, let's get POZ-ITIVE. No matter which one of us cucks wins, the Party wins."

Having been trained as puppets who engage in only sparring-campaigns for their whole careers, insulated from real challengers who hit for real, they cannot help but go through the same old motions. These choreographed wrastlers now find themselves face-to-face with a genuine tough guy in a no-holds-barred street fight, and with no experience to guide them, they fall back on their routine of dancing around with each other, while he advances and puts one after another of them in the hospital.

I think this is what got the Establishment into such deep trouble in the first place. My earlier story about their hyper-competitiveness is more relevant to what has happened after the alarms had been publicly sounded by everyone in the Establishment -- other politicians, the donors, the pundits, everyone -- and they were ordered to perform better as a team by consolidating around just one of them. Then, their overweening ambition has gotten the better of them.

And the rest is history: the unified will destroy the fragmented.


  1. Spot on. As you say, these non-entities have no training or experience to prepare for a phenomenon like Trump, and they also don't have the basic strength or wit to adapt. Whenever Jeb tries to fight back, he's revealed as even more of a brittle lightweight. Rand Paul could have swung back with regard to foreign policy, and said that he, like his father, opposed OIF and the whole neocon deal, but by the time of the debates he had so over-invested himself in playing the game on the Israel/neocon question -- along with his Detroit libertarianism -- that all he could do is petulantly fume at how Trump came in and stole whatever thunder he had. At one of the later debates he showed some fire, but too little, too late. Maybe Jim Webb would have had the gravitas to challenge Trump, but in his own debates he appeared sluggish and cranky, past his prime.

    What's also interesting about Trump is how forthrightly he's standing up to the power behind the throne. His "I don't need your money" speech to that tribal convocation a few months ago, his rejection of the whole anti-Putin schtick (which is all about VVP's interference with the Mideast regime change agenda and embrace of Christianity), and now Trump's ultimate heresy, his promise to be neutral on the Israel-Palestine question, instead of pledging unquestioned loyalty to our best friend in the galaxy. My guess is that since Trump made his fortune in the heavily tribal NYC jungle, and has dealt with a lot of Jews as either friends, foes, advisors, or employees, he doesn't have the awe, respect, and fear of the elite Jews that the cucks have. The cucks are basically philo-semitic conspiracy theorists, who believe in the near omnipotence of that clan, but instead of being digusted and demoralized by it, connive to serve it as faithfully as possible in order to advance their own sorry asses. Not so with Trump.

    There is an interesting moment in an interview he did with Howard Stern in 1997 (promoting a new book at the time...unfortunately, it appears the clip has been taken down). He talks about how he did a favor for a female friend in Manhattan -- somehow getting her dying (presumably old) husband into an exclusive Catholic nursing home, with the best care, the works, etc., where he carried on for about a year before dying. According to Trump, about one year after this, he needed a favor from the widow, and she acted like she didn't know him. I don't know if she was a Tribe member or not, but it almost sounded like it. Either way, he seemed offended at a very personal level.

    They have certainly been getting a lot more uppity in the intervening 20-30 years, and it could be that the great man has a very personal revulsion for it, hence his unintimidated opposition to them.

  2. Applicable quote from Apollo Creed: "He doesn't know it's a damn show! He thinks it's a damn fight!"

  3. "You sit there and you thump your Bible, and you say your prayers, and it didn't get you anywhere! Talk about your Psalms, talk about John 3:16... Trump 3:16 says I just whipped your ass!"

    Cruz (as oily as ever, and looking rather pale and bloated for a man in early middle age) gave a post South Carolina speech with the usual frivolous culture war cries. His first word was God. Bragging about pastor endorsements (how 'bout earning the trust of a regular American betrayed over the last 40 years?). He said, "this election will be a referendum on the Supreme Court". Sheesh, get over it. We can't be stuck endlessly bickering over the same moralistic wedge issues of which there's been so little utility to speak of. The primary task ahead is diminishing excessive individualism, elitist decadence, and commoner alienation.

    Also, talking heads are totally reading everything with antiquated eyes. Trump Doesn't represent another Reagan Revolution; it's not 1980 anymore. Terrorism was non-existent in 1980's America. PC didn't exist. There were few immigrants (particularly in the 1st half of the 80's). Boomers were demanding that the gov. get outta the way by the early 80's; nowadays some Boomers (and Gen X-ers) realize that post 1980 libertarianism has turned the West into a dystopia ruled by decadent whores.

    The private sector itself has aided and abetted the reverence of diversity. Some right wingers blame affirmative action and such on liberal big government, yet huge multi-nationals essentially call the shots on everything anyway. The free market idolators claim that the market gives everyone a fair shot absent the heavy hand of government. Fair? Big companies embrace every human variety, knowing that a diverse workforce is a weak and easily exploited one.

    The key to a successful society is one in which measures are taken to ensure stability and harmony. Drastically reducing diversity will lead to a greater sense of camaraderie (we better trust those like ourselves) and also cut down unhealthy competition (workers get better wages when immigrant strivers aren't tolerated, and when woman are not encouraged to abandon domestic duties for an oh so fulfilling career).

    Giving people a greater sense of dignity and belonging will shore up our collective psyche and moral compass. We'll see less vulgarity and ostentatious displays of emotion. Less pompous lecturing, too. At first we'll have to be forceful to drag some stragglers along. But eventually we'll turn the corner and learn to be hopeful and trusting again.

  4. I muted only the Cruz speech. Even listened to Bush (just to hear him say he's dropping out). But I knew Cruz would be the same Nineties culture war bullshit.

    Interesting that only he and Hillary are hammering the theme of THE HIGHEST COURT. Both are identity politics / culture war candidates -- Cruz with evangelicals and Hillary with non-whites. Both are doomed in a culture-free environment, thank God.

    "Some right wingers blame affirmative action and such on liberal big government, yet huge multi-nationals essentially call the shots on everything anyway."

    It's one of the most disingenuous arguments ever made -- as though the corporations were loathe to make multi-culti commercials, to introduce exotic elements in their products, and to cater to an increasingly global consumer base.

    They've obviously drunk the kool-aid on diversity, and have been the original champions of multiculturalism.

  5. Back to the topic of "politics as sport" vs. "politics as politics," Rubio usually wins with voters who say that electability is the most important thing.

    Trump is obviously the only one positioned to win a huge number of electoral votes, by stealing back blue states from the Dems, appealing to disaffected whites.

    What the Establishment voters think of as "electable" must therefore mean "most able to win the sports match according to the rules of the game," which in anyone but Trump's case means writing off the Rust Belt, New England, and the Mid-Atlantic, and struggling to eke out a narrow victory by focusing on swing states.

    Those voters who prioritize electability are also ossified in their voting habits -- battling over two counties to decide the fate of the nation. Within the rules of the game as it's been played, that's the most you can do.

    They simply cannot understand how YUGE the victory for Trump will be, because in their minds, you can't win if you break so many rules.

  6. I think this also explains why some people "on the right" are so unmoved by the Trump phenomenon. Their hope was always for their ideas and policies to win -- but under the "politics as sport" way. They wanted their longshot home town team to go all the way to the Super Bowl and win.

    When Trump comes along and stands to accomplish many of this group's most important goals, he gets a tepid response at best because he isn't winning according to the standard rules of the game. His supporters are a genuine movement who want to win however they have to, not just a crowd of fans for a team who are hidebound by notions of sportsmanship.

    For them, Trump winning the White House is just a "meh" outcome. Truly winning, for them, would have been Jeb Bush narrowly pulling off a swing-state battle by promising that all new one-dollar bills shall include the phrase "Blacks have a 1 standard-deviation lower mean IQ".

  7. I've heard some talking heads chiding Trump for not mentioning Jeb-arino during his victory speech. Why should he? They were not peers, and no "may the best cuck win" camaraderie between them.

    Only if you thought it was all a pointless sport, would you think it was unsportsmanlike for him to neglect mentioning Jeb who'd just dropped out.

    Trump isn't playing games, so he didn't take all those millions of dollars in attack ads as "just the way the game is played, no hard feelings, eh?" He was hit, he hit back, and the other guy is out for good. That's a real fight, not choreographed wrastling like the Establishment pols and voters want.

  8. Middle aged "experts"/strategists are shoving their own out-dated sensibilities into the proceedings. I saw a couple articles where Trump's success was spun as a triumph of anti-big gov sentiment among the commoners.

    Baloney. Trump isn't whining about the capital gains tax. He isn't swearing loyalty to the supreme job creators who've sold workers out over the last 30+ years. He isn't treating immigration and other important security issues as a local or individual matter. Big government? As in permitting treasonous "sanctuary" city policies?

    Correct, the career talking heads in politics/media can't grasp what's changed. Not only have the terms of running for candidacy changed (which the entitled establishment is in total denial of), but so have the parameters for what "conservatism" stands for. The post 1980 libertarianism and identity preoccupations are still gripping elite Silents and Boomers, with a few X-ers and Millennials (particularly the ones who aren't straight, white, and male) desperate to ride the gravy train.

    At what point do what we stop referring to the traitorous immigration/trade/tax policies of Reagan/Bush/McCain as "conservatism"? It's rank greed and individualism that did nothing to make America more secure and stable. Ironically, though conservatives hate "social-engineering", what else has the Republican establishment been doing over the last several decades? I guess being pro-gun and anti-abortion is supposed to make ever marginalized lower class whites feel better about things.

  9. I think sheer inertia and cynicism explain some of the reluctance to embrace Trump or Sanders. The standard practices that Silents and Boomers ingrained in the process over the last 50 years are impregnable. So they think. They (at least the elite ones) have done things on their own terms for decades. Why should the present or future be any different?

    They either don't notice, or they rationalize, or they mis-diagnose the corruption and psychosis afflicting America ("get the gov. out of our lives"). It's time they face the music that they've been selling a defective product their whole lives. Yet some will go to their graves insisting that things would get better if we intensified the very things that have destroyed us (Mexicans are "natural" Republicans).

  10. It's only the Dems / liberals who have a generational problem. Sanders is hugely popular among young people, and not very much with older age groups.

    Trump wins among all age groups, and is actually more popular with Boomers and Silents. The main division among Repubs / conservatives is class. Your blue-collar Boomer uncle who hasn't voted perhaps ever, is coming out of the woodwork to vote for Trump.

  11. I did add the qualifier of "elite" Silents and Boomers at several points. Older voters are cold to Sanders since they were told for decades that the West/America/Capitalism were sacred and in constant danger from the commies. I don't blame them for being non-plussed by a guy who volunteers for the other team.

    Too bad that in the absence of the Soviets, we've so screwed the pooch so bad that it's discredited so much to younger people.


You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."