Friday, May 30, 2025

Adam Carolla: Is Jasmine Crockett Playing a Character?

"Adam and Dr. Drew break down Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s blatant code-switching and explore why so many politicians shift their tone depending on the audience." 

Source:Adam Carolla with a look at U.S. Representative Jasmine Crockett (The Squad, Texas)

From Adam Carolla

I think I agree with Adam Carolla's basic point here. (Which makes me want to consult a real shrink, instead of Drew Pinsky) Whether it's Jasmine Crockett or someone else, American politicians have a habit of sounding different, depending on who they are speaking too. 

A political example of this would be when a politician or candidate is speaking to a business association and talking about how great private enterprise is and how it creates wealth, etc, and perhaps on the same day when that politician visits a much smaller, less educated, less wealthy town, they're talking about "greedy corporations" who are "destroying the workingman in America". 

If you look at MAGA, a lot of those organizers, their leaders, are some of the most educated and wealthy people in the world, including their Dear Leader. 

Whether Donald Trump's net worth is in the hundreds of millions of dollars, or he's a real life billionaire, (we'll never know what his real net worth is until he releases his financial records) he's got enough money to buy his own country (perhaps start his own country) and be the dictator over there, instead of trying to become a dictator in America. But he talks and acts like he's a regular guy, and champion of "real Americans". 

As much as MAGA trashes elite universities, a lot of them graduated there and wouldn't be where they are today (mostly likely) without their Ive League degrees: 

Senator Ted Cruz, has a degree from both Princeton and Harvard. 

Senator Josh Hawley, Stanford and Yale. 

Vice President J.D. Vance, Ohio State, which is 1 of the best state colleges in the country and then later Yale. 

And that's just for starters. So much for MAGA being a "populist movement" when so many of their members are elitists.

And if you want to get back to Representative Jasmine Crockett and the so-called Squad in the House... when she's doing mainstream media interviews and talking to actual journalists, instead of just left-wing activists, she comes off as a mainstream politician, at least in the sense as far as how she presents herself. But when she's back home, (and the Carolla video makes that clear) it's like she's "back in the hood" (or some place) just "speaking to her peeps". 

And as far as politicians playing characters and we can focus on the Democratic Left here,,, as I wrote about this 3 weeks ago: 

"And I agree with the point that both Matt Lewis and Rik Schneider we're making. I think the left-wing of the Democratic Party, looks like a real-life, Hollywood political film, or "or reality TV show", where everyone else is trying to "out viral" the other person and use that to jumpstart whatever career that they want to have for themselves. 

But could you imagine if Socialists, even in the Democratic Party ever came to power in America? I mean their whole lifestyle, their culture, their way of life, is dependent and completely subsidized by the American capitalist and liberal democratic system. And most of them know that. Most of these folks are educated. Most of these folks make good livings for themselves, even millionaires... 


My point 3 weeks ago and I think Carolla got into this as well, a lot of what politicians do and say when they're just speaking to their people, (meaning their political faction) is just a show. They're there trying to make it clear that they're "still down for the cause", (as the left likes to say) that they're still as radical as the audience that they're speaking too. Even if they don't believe a damn word of what they told those folks and perhaps are even embarrassed by how they looked at that event. 

And I think this is just what happens when government can seem so boring to people, even for people who are in government and in elected office, that they feel the way not to be seen as boring, is to put on a show, an act, for their audience. And they create their own political reality TV show for themselves. But the Democrats didn't start this. I mean Donald Trump invented political reality TV when he ran for President the first time 10 years ago. And now the Democratic Left is simply trying to catch up to MAGA on this. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Robert Reich: The Reemergence of Social Darwinism

"Cut Medicaid to give billionaires a huge tax cut. But why?

They say they want a smaller government, but that can’t be it.

Most seek a larger national defense and more muscular homeland security. Almost all want to widen the government’s powers of search and surveillance inside the United States — expunging undocumented immigrants, “securing” the nation’s borders. They want stiffer criminal sentences. Many also want government to intrude on the most intimate aspects of private, intimate life.

Many call themselves conservatives, but that’s not it, either.

They don’t want to conserve what we now have. They’d rather take the country backward — before the Environmental Protection Act, before Medicare and Medicaid, before the New Deal and its provision for Social Security, unemployment insurance, the 40-hour workweek, before official recognition of trade unions, even before the first national income tax, antitrust laws, and Federal Reserve.

Some say they want the American working class to do better. But that can’t be it, either, because they’re cutting Medicaid and other safety nets the working class depends on in order to finance a huge tax cut for the super-rich. And they support tariffs that will drive up the costs of just about everything the working class buys.

The America they actually seek is the one we last had in the Gilded Age of the late 19th century.

“We were at our richest from 1870 to 1913. That’s when we were a tariff country. And then they went to an income tax concept,” Trump said in January.

Yes, we had tariffs during that Gilded Age. It was also an era when the nation was mesmerized by the doctrine of free enterprise, although few Americans actually enjoyed much freedom.

Robber barons such as financier Jay Gould, railroad magnate Cornelius Vanderbilt, and oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller controlled much of American industry.

They corrupted American politics. Their lackeys literally deposited sacks of money on the desks of pliant legislators.

The gap between rich and poor turned into a chasm. Urban slums festered. Women couldn’t vote. Black Americans were subject to Jim Crow.

Most tellingly, it was a time when the ideas of William Graham Sumner, a professor of political and social science at Yale, dominated American social thought.

Sumner brought Charles Darwin to America and twisted him into a theory to fit the times.

Few Americans living today have read any of Sumner’s writings, but they had an electrifying effect on America during the last three decades of the 19th century.

To Sumner and his followers, life was a competitive struggle in which only the fittest could survive — and through this struggle, societies became stronger over time.

A correlate of this principle was that government should do little or nothing to help those in need, because that would interfere with natural selection.

Listen to today’s Republican debates and you hear a continuous regurgitation of Sumner. As Sumner wrote in the 1880s:

“Civilization has a simple choice [of either] liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest [or] not-liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest. The former carries society forward and favors all its best members; the latter carries society downwards and favors all its worst members.”

Sound familiar?

Trump and his Republicans on Capitol Hill not only echo Sumner’s thoughts but mimic Sumner’s reputed arrogance. They say we must reward “entrepreneurs” (by which they mean anyone who has made a pile of money) and warn us not to “coddle” people in need (for example, they want to put work requirements on Medicaid).

They oppose extending unemployment insurance because, they say, we shouldn’t “give people money for doing nothing.”

Sumner, likewise, warned against handouts to people he termed “negligent, shiftless, inefficient, silly, and imprudent.”

Trump and other Republican lawmakers are dead set against raising taxes on billionaires, relying on the standard Republican trickle-down rationale that billionaires create jobs.

Here’s Sumner, more than a century ago:

“Millionaires are the product of natural selection, acting on the whole body of men to pick out those who can meet the requirement of certain work to be done. … It is because they are thus selected that wealth aggregates under their hands – both their own and that intrusted to them … They may fairly be regarded as the naturally selected agents of society.” Although they live in luxury, “the bargain is a good one for society.”

Social Darwinism offered a moral justification for the wild inequities and social cruelties of the late 19th century — the era when, according to Trump, “we were richest.”

Social Darwinism allowed John D. Rockefeller to claim the fortune he accumulated through his giant Standard Oil Trust was “merely a survival of the fittest.” It was, he insisted, “the working out of a law of nature and of God.”

Social Darwinism also undermined all efforts at the time to build a nation of broadly based prosperity and rescue our democracy from the tight grip of a very few at the top. It was used by the privileged and powerful to convince everyone else that government shouldn’t do much of anything.

Not until the 20th century did America reject Social Darwinism. Instead of Social Darwinism, we created an inclusive society. We created the largest middle class in the history of the world — which became the core of our economy and democracy.

We built safety nets to catch Americans who fell downward through no fault of their own. We designed regulations to protect against the inevitable excesses of free-market greed.

We taxed the rich and invested in public goods — public schools, public universities, public transportation, public parks, public health — that made us all better off.

In short, we rejected the notion that each of us is on his or her own in a competitive contest for survival. We depended on one another.

But now America is in its Second Gilded Age, and its new robber barons have found the same rationale as they did in the First.

Under Trump and his lapdogs in the House and Senate, Social Darwinism is back."

Source:Robert Reich with a look at Social Darwinism.

From Robert Reich

I think this point from Robert Reich is key here: 

"Cut Medicaid to give billionaires a huge tax cut. But why?

They say they want a smaller government, but that can’t be it.

Most seek a larger national defense and more muscular homeland security. Almost all want to widen the government’s powers of search and surveillance inside the United States — expunging undocumented immigrants, “securing” the nation’s borders. They want stiffer criminal sentences. Many also want government to intrude on the most intimate aspects of private, intimate life.

Many call themselves conservatives, but that’s not it, either.

They don’t want to conserve what we now have. They’d rather take the country backward — before the Environmental Protection Act, before Medicare and Medicaid, before the New Deal and its provision for Social Security, unemployment insurance, the 40-hour workweek, before official recognition of trade unions, even before the first national income tax, antitrust laws, and Federal Reserve...

So if you take Professor Reich's full point here, the modern "Republican Party" is not conservative, not libertarian, perhaps not even nationalist in the sense that they believe in always conserving and preserving the entire nation. So what are they? Well, again if you take Reich's point: 

"Social Darwinism offered a moral justification for the wild inequities and social cruelties of the late 19th century — the era when, according to Trump, “we were richest.”

Social Darwinism allowed John D. Rockefeller to claim the fortune he accumulated through his giant Standard Oil Trust was “merely a survival of the fittest.” It was, he insisted, “the working out of a law of nature and of God.”

Social Darwinism also undermined all efforts at the time to build a nation of broadly based prosperity and rescue our democracy from the tight grip of a very few at the top. It was used by the privileged and powerful to convince everyone else that government shouldn’t do much of anything.

Not until the 20th century did America reject Social Darwinism. Instead of Social Darwinism, we created an inclusive society. We created the largest middle class in the history of the world — which became the core of our economy and democracy... 

So what is a Social Darwinist? 

"Social Darwinism is a theory, not widely accepted today, that applies Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection to human societies. It suggests that certain groups or individuals are naturally more "fit" to survive and succeed, and that societal inequalities are a natural consequence of this "survival of the fittest" process. This theory was particularly popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was often used to justify racism, imperialism, and other forms of social inequality.. 


Look, we're not Socialists and class warriors here at The New Democrat. The profile picture of this blog with a quote from John F. Kennedy, should be the smoking gun for you. We're just interested in facts and evidence, regardless of who they help and hurt and we give you our observations based on those facts and evidence. 

But when your economic plan seeks to gut Medicaid and Food Assistance, FEMA, when you are going after private universities (which are the real tickets to the middle class and upper class for most Americans, especially if they had to struggle to get through their childhoods) and you are doing this to try to pay for tax cuts that mostly only benefit people who already have a lot of money... what else can you call an economic policy and view of government like that, other then Social Darwinism? Because conservative or nationalist just doesn't fit in that political box, even by themselves.

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Thursday, May 29, 2025

President Richard Nixon: The Slime of American Bureaucracy (1992)

"RN on the Slime of Bureaucracy" 

Source:Richard Nixon Foundation with a look at President Richard M. Nixon (Republican, California) 37th President of the United States (1969-74) in 1992.

From the Richard Nixon Foundation

From Note: 

"Any change is resisted because bureaucrats have a vested interest in the chaos in which they exist.”

From Note

In case what President Nixon was talking about in 1992, sounds familiar with how President Trump is governing in 2025: 

"Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE): Trump established DOGE, led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, to spearhead government reform efforts.

Reducing the Federal Workforce: Trump implemented measures to reduce the federal workforce, including a hiring freeze, buyout programs, and a "one-in-four-out" hiring policy (hiring one new employee for every four departures).

Eliminating and Consolidating Agencies and Programs: Trump aimed to streamline government by eliminating unnecessary agencies, advisory committees, and programs, as well as consolidating others.

Deregulation: Trump pursued a "10-to-1" deregulation initiative, requiring the elimination of ten regulations for every new one implemented, to reduce bureaucratic burden.
Reclassifying Federal Employees: Trump sought to reclassify certain federal employees, particularly those in policy-related roles, to make it easier to remove them, according to the White House (.gov).
Modernizing Federal Technology: Trump aimed to modernize federal technology and software to improve efficiency and productivity, potentially through DOGE...

So if you are a political history junky like myself and you are pushing 50, (give or take) what President Richard Nixon was talking about in early 1992 with CSPAN anchor Brian Lamb, sounds very familiar. 

So go up 3 years from when this Lamb-Nixon interview was done in 1992: 

Republicans win back complete control of Congress in November of 1994, take over the Congress during the first week of 1995 (House & Senate) and are already talking about as part of their Contract With America, for the 104th Congress, about: 

streamlining this agency and that department 

eliminating this agency and department 

cutting the Federal Civil Service by this much and eliminating all these Federal jobs, as part of their plan to "return the government to the American people". 

And now that MAGA controls both The White House and Congress, they're trying to put in their own vision of the U.S. Government into place, something that President Nixon was talking about, as President, 55 years ago. 

So I guess my only question for people who believe in this chainsaw approach to government (to paraphrase Elon Musk) would be: what would you do instead? 

In a good year, Congress'a approval ratings is 20%. So you really want to make the Assistant Attorney of the Criminal Division and elected position? Perhaps not that position, just everybody who work for that person? Maybe the Ass. AG's chief of staff, or executive secretary? If you are from my generation, or are older, you remember when Republicans used to claim that America is not a democracy, but a republic. Which is like saying: 

A truck is not a car, it's an automobile. 

Beef is not chicken, it's meat. 

The Atlantic Ocean is not a lake, it's a body of water. 

Well, just like a man could be husband and a father, a country can be both a republic and a democracy. And both cars and trucks are automobiles. Both chicken and beef are meet. And both lakes and oceans are bodies of water. Hopefully these are not newsflashes for anybody who sees this. 

Since really the civil rights movement of the 1960s, we've been a democratic republic. And really since the founding of the American Federal Republic, we've been a democratic republic, according to our Constitution. And just because a country is democratic, doesn't mean that every position in the government is an elected position. 

The thing about American democracy, is accountability. Which means just because a person comes to office, even with a big victory, doesn't mean that person gets to do whatever they want, simply because they were elected. 

And I hate to say this, because I actually have a lot of respect for Richard Nixon when it comes to his intelligence, his vision, the fact that he really is the last of the Progressive Republicans, when you are talking about how he governed as President, (well, George H.W. Bush as well) but President Nixon founded out the really hard way what type of democracy with all our checks and balances, that America really is. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Chris Cillizza: Is The Senate Filibuster On The Brink of Extinction?

"Chris Cillizza discusses a New York Times piece by Carl Hulse that argues the Senate filibuster is on the brink of extinction. Cillizza explores this claim by examining a recent, largely unnoticed event: Senate Republicans, led by John Thune, overrode the Senate parliamentarian’s ruling on a California emissions waiver using only a simple majority—despite it traditionally requiring 60 votes due to the filibuster.

This, Cillizza argues, is a major signal that norms protecting the filibuster are weakening. He traces the filibuster’s history, from its formalization in 1917, to threshold changes in 1975, to Democrats and Republicans both carving out exceptions for judicial nominations over the past decade.

He predicts that with key opponents of reform like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema leaving the Senate, Democrats may finally eliminate the legislative filibuster the next time they have a majority. He also flags the upcoming “one big beautiful bill” to fund Donald Trump’s agenda—passed under budget reconciliation rules—as another key test of whether the filibuster will be honored or further eroded."
Source:Chris Cillizza with a look at the Senate cloture rule.

From Chris Cillizza

The sun is finally back out in Washington, so that means it must be another slow news day in the nation's capital, because I'm writing a piece about not just Congress, (which could put any insomniacs convention to sleep) but the Senate filibuster in particular, (which could put any convention of insomniacs conventions to sleep) and the possible future about it. But hey, I'm Congressional junky myself: so what the hell. 

So it only took Chris Cilliza about 7 minutes, or more, of his 10 minute video here, to get into what this is really about. The California environmental laws I believe was just a test, or dry run, a workout, a practice, to get to what Senate Majority John Thune and company are really considering here. The Big Ugly Debt Bomb (that MAGA calls the Big Beautiful Bill) But I have a theory that explains why I think Mr. Cilliza might be wrong here.

So, if you are not asleep yet from this, I congratulate you, because it's important, even if it dull enough to put a team of insomniacs to sleep. But if you are still trying to sleep after seeing this, maybe this will help. I'm just going to give a possible scenario for what could happen if Senate Republicans can't agree on what to cut to pay for the House Republican Big Ugly Debt Bomb and they get stuck somewhere between trying to pay for their own bill and not trying to pay for anything and just putting $3 trillion on the national debt: 

So if that happens and the Senate Parliamentarian rules that this bill violates Congressional reconciliation and the Majority Leader simply just tries to overrule the Parliamentarian with a simple majority, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer still has 1, big, play, in his playbook, that he could call, that every Senate Democrat would back him on and maybe even 2-3 Republicans as well. The Majority Leader brings his motion to the floor to overrule the Parliamentarian on reconciliation, the Minority Leader simply officially objects to that on the floor:

"The Minority Leader can object on the floor if the Majority Leader attempts to override the Senate Parliamentarian with a simple majority vote. The Senate rules, particularly those related to standing rules and cloture, are designed to protect the rights of the minority, and the nuclear option provides a mechanism for them to challenge such actions." 

From the Senate.Gov. 

And guess what: you need 60 votes to overcome any objection on the floor by any Senator, not just the Majority or Minority Leader. 

But here's why I think we may not get to this point: 

Senate Republicans, including Rand Paul, Ron Johnson, Josh Hawley, I believe even Ted Cruz (no one's moderates) are already saying that the House bill can't pass in the Senate. They don't have enough votes to even pass it with 50 senators and the Vice President. They're saying it's too big, borrows too much money. And Senator Hawley, as well as Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski, don't like the Medicaid cuts as well. 

And this could all just be political talk and they could go down faster than a deadman in a championship fight. But even if that last part is true, Chuck Schumer could just object to the overrule motion made by John Thune, to override the Parliamentarian, because their bill violates reconciliation and Thune would need 60 votes to bypass that objection.  

You can follow me on Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Wednesday, May 28, 2025

Inside Edition: Donald Trump Pardons Todd & Julie Chrisley

"The Chrisleys are going home. On Tuesday President Trump said he would pardon reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley. The "Chrisley Knows Best" couple was convicted and sentenced in 2022 for their involvement in a multi-million-dollar bank fraud and tax evasion scheme. Julie Chrisley was sentenced to serve in a prison in Kentucky until 2028, and Todd Chrisley was scheduled to serve time in Florida until 2032." 

Source:Inside Edition with a look at Julie & Todd Chrisley, the latest winners of Donald J. Trump's pay to play game. 

From Inside Edition

So Anthony Scaramucci said it best a few weeks ago, I believe on Threads, that Donald Trump gave himself a choice, or perhaps someone suggested this choice to him... that he could either have his trade war and risk ruining the American economy, on his watch, or he could keep his personal, for-profit corruption... but he couldn't have both. Well, unless you are both blind and death (life might actually be pretty good for you right now) or, you've been in a coma the last 4 weeks, (sometimes I wish I could sleep through the Trump presidency as well) the President has sort of paused his trade war, but his personal corruption if anything, has just escalated. 

Who's going to stop the President's personal corruption campaign? 

He probably won't be allowed to run for President again, perhaps doesn't even want too. 

The "Republican Party" is basically invisible right now and the party in charge in Washington, is just DJT's own, political reality TV show. 

The courts and the rest of the executive branch, will probably prevent DJT from becoming a dictator, but thanks to the Supreme Court, no one can stop his corruption and he can't be charged for it later on, because he has absolute, presidential immunity, as President of the United States. 

There really isn't a movie or fictional TV show that one could reference what the Donald J. Trump presidency is like. The closest would be from the 1997 film Wag The Dog. In that film, there was a very unpopular and corrupt President, who just had 1 scandal after another, but somehow survived each 1, until the last 1 happened and his White House thought that would be the scandal that bring the President down. So they consulted with Hollywood to produce some fictional war with Albania to try to distract the country from the President's latest scandal. 

That's Donald John Trump as President of the United States: flood the media and country with one piece of corruption and scandal after another, so no one can just zero in on 1 that could bring him down. You want this man to help you out, it will have nothing to do with you actually being innocent or not, just what you can do, or have done for him. It's his own game of "pay to play". But this is who the country voted for, so the other 51% just has to live with that. Or, I guess we could just try to sleep through it. 

You can follow me on Threads

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Ben Meiselas: Fox News PANICS On LIVE TV As Donald Trump LOSES CONTROL

"MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on Fox News losing all control has Donald Trump’s idiotic behavior makes it hard for them to try and cover up with their usual tricks." 

Source:Meidas Touch with a look the DJT Party.

From the Meidas Touch

As my colleague Ederik Schneider said yesterday on The New Democrat about the modern "Republican Party": 

"So as Yaron Brook said so himself: "The Republican Party is about nothing. There's no core there, there no principles there... That's a paraphrase, but pretty close. 

If you want me to give the most justifiable defense for why I call the modern "Republican Party" the party of nothing, I'll give it to you anyway: 

"We're all about Donald Trump now, because it's the only way we can stay in power, at all. We abandon Trump, we lose our political careers and the Democratic Left would take over and do even more damage to America". 

I think that would be the most justifiable defense for why old school Republicans, people who pre-Donald Trump, we're real-life Conservative Republicans, could give for why they back Donald Trump... if not 100% of the time, certainly in the high 90s... they don't want to lose their jobs and careers and be forced to work for a living outside of the "Republican Party". 

And perhaps they're thinking: "We just weather the storm here with Trump... he'll be gone, eventually and we can just come back in and start sounding and acting like Republicans again".


I just have a few reactions here. 

Not to Laura Ingraham's credit, but just to show that there's some consistency with her career as a right-wing-populist-propagandist... back in the 1990s, when right-wing-populist radio took off in America, as a response to Bill Clinton becoming President and his Baby Boomers took over the country, that's where Laura Ingraham got her start as a right-wing-populist commentator. I guess after she was a lawyer for a brief period of time. And in her late 20s and 30s, she goes into right-wing-populist radio. So she has a fairly consistent record here, similar with Ann Coulter. 

But for those mainstream Republicans, those people who used to be about traditional values, moral values, character, defending the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, limited government, fiscal responsibility, federalism, and our individual rights... to paraphrase Ederik Schneider: those folks are now just characters on a Seinfeld episode. I mean they're about nothing, other than themselves and keeping their careers in the Republican Party going. 

So when Donald Trump does something stupid, corrupt, looks like he's having health issues beyond just being Donald John Trump everyday, instead of the Fox News Channel covering those things, they just try to come up with another story like: 

"Remember when Joe Biden did or said this... 

Or sone media personality they don't like gives a speech about free speech and democracy being in danger in America, freakin Dana Perino (who used to be a real Republican) comes on the air and essentially calls Wake Forest graduates party animals, who just want to get through the ceremony, so they can hit the nearest bar in Winston Salem.

As Warren G. Bennis once said: Without character, there is no credibility; and without credibility, there is no trust.

That's where Fox News is right now. Everything for them is about getting the latest buck. The only people they pay attention too, are the people who are too dumb and lazy to figure out for themselves what the hell is actually going on in the world. That's the Fox News audience and that's Donald Trump's audience and party, and political reality TV show right now. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Tuesday, May 27, 2025

Yaron Brook On The Seinfeld Party: 'We're About Nothing'

"Republicans' Principles have Been Hijacked By Leftists" 

Source:Yaron Brook talking about the Trump Party of nothing.

From Yaron Brook

As Conservative columnist Kevin Williamson argued when he argued that Donald Trump is a Socialist: 

"We are a department store, and we set the price. I meet with the companies, and then I set a fair price, what I consider to be a fair price, and they can pay it, or they don’t have to pay it. They don’t have to do business with the United States, but I set a tariff on countries. … What I’m doing is I will, at a certain point in the not too distant future, I will set a fair price of tariffs for different countries. These are countries—some of them have made hundreds of billions of dollars, and some of them have made just a lot of money. Very few of them have made nothing because the United States was being ripped off by every, almost every country in the world, in the entire world. So I will set a price, and when I set the price, and I will set it fairly according to the statistics, and according to everything else...


And as Kire Schneider wrote about this last week: 

"Look, if this offends any American leftists, especially closeted Socialists... cut back on your daily capitalist coffee take by 50%. You'll relax a lot more and not be so politically oversensitive. If you want to call Trumpenomics fascist, fine. But Communists are fascists as well. 

But what Kevin Williamson is doing here and what I'm arguing as well, is this is how President Trump governs when it comes to economics: "Do things my way, or I'll bring the heavy force of the national big government, down on your ass. And I won't release my giant grip (remember, Donald Trump brags about how big his hands are) until you run your business or organization exactly the way I want you to... 


So as Yaron Brook said so himself: "The Republican Party is about nothing. There's no core there, there no principles there... That's a paraphrase, but pretty close. 

If you want me to give the most justifiable defense for why I call the modern "Republican Party" the party of nothing, I'll give it to you anyway: 

"We're all about Donald Trump now, because it's the only way we can stay in power, at all. We abandon Trump, we lose our political careers and the Democratic Left would take over and do even more damage to America". 

I think that would be the most justifiable defense for why old school Republicans, people who pre-Donald Trump, we're real-life Conservative Republicans, could give for why they back Donald Trump... if not 100% of the time, certainly in the high 90s... they don't want to lose their jobs and careers and be forced to work for a living outside of the "Republican Party". 

And perhaps they're thinking: "We just weather the storm here with Trump... he'll be gone, eventually and we can just come back in and start sounding and acting like Republicans again".

So back in the 1990s, when I was in my late teens and early 20s... I was a huge Seinfeld show fan. I mean I would catch the new episode every week and watch as many reruns as I could. I don't think the show and those characters have aged very well, but I was into that show 25-30 years ago. And the reason why I call the modern "Republican Party" the "Seinfeld Party", is because they're both about 1 thing: they're about nothing. 

If you look at the main characters of the Seinfeld show: 

Jerry Seinfeld 

George Costanza

Elaine Bennis

Cosmo Kramer,

they're all very narcissistic characters, who struggle to care about anyone else. "Struggle:" might be the wrong word... they don't care about anyone else other than themselves. And whole premise of the show is, nothing, really. There's no core to it that brings 1 entire episode together. There maybe 2-3, perhaps even 4 storylines all in the same episode. And there's nothing to being 1 episode all together. Does this sound familiar? 

What does the modern "Republican Party" actually believe in? Some might say Donald Trump. Sure, the hardcore, far-right base for Donald Trump, sees him as Jesus Christ's father. The irony being there that they don't actually understand either Christ or Trump. They're nothing but tools at the hardware store who are there to keep Donald Trump in power and keep his lights on at Mara-E-Lago. They're just his personal piggybank right now thinking that he will always have their back, even after he's broken his. 

But for the career Republicans, backing Donald Trump is nothing more than keeping their own jobs and careers going in the Republican Party. Whatever he says, it's the God's honest truth and must be 100% correct, whatever it is. Which is why "Republican Party" is now the Seinfeld Party: the party about nothing. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat
Source: U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy in 1960