How America’s right wing is becoming a lot more like Britain’s

Today’s Republicans talk less about God and more about fighting illegal immigration

22 November 2014

9:00 AM

22 November 2014

9:00 AM


 Washington DC

Amid all the commentary about the Republican party’s triumph in America’s midterm elections, a remarkable fact was ignored: in style and substance, the American right is rapidly becoming a lot more like Britain’s. And that might be the key to its success.

In the last generation, American right-wingers have stood proudly apart from their counterparts in Europe, Britain, Canada and Australia. They were more religious, and more supportive of mass immigration. But that is changing.

Exhibit A is the dwindling influence of the religious right in the US. Its power peaked in the late 1980s, when Protestant evangelical pastors like the Reverends Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were power-brokers in the Republican party; the latter even ran in the 1988 Republican presidential primary. In recent memory, conservative politicians were compelled to talk about the importance of God and Jesus to their personal lives and their political views in ways which would be unthinkable on the part of conservative politicians in other western democracies.

But the religious right is a casualty of the increasing trend toward European levels of secularism and liberalism in matters of sex and reproduction. Americans still remain more religious than Europeans — but American society is converging into Europe’s post-Christian pattern. A vague belief in a God of some sort remains widespread, but organised religion in the US is haemorrhaging members to the ‘unchurched’ — a group of unaffiliated individuals which, if it were a denomination, would be the fastest-growing in America. The trend is most pronounced among younger Americans under 30, one third of whom have no religious affiliation, compared to one fifth of the population as a whole.

The gradual but steady decline in religious affiliation in America has been accompanied by increasingly permissive attitudes to extramarital sex and homosexuality. In America, as in Britain, these trends are most pronounced among the young. Nearly three out of four young millennials support same-sex marriage, for example, and are less concerned about unmarried parents than their elders. It may be a while before an American conservative leader welcomes gay marriage, as David Cameron has done. But the Republican establishment has gone from opportunistically supporting state-level bans against gay marriage a decade ago, in the hope of political gain, to fearing that opposition may hurt them more than it helps.

The American right is also coming to resemble the British right in the growing hostility towards the idea of amnesty for illegal immigrants, and to mass immigration in general. In the late 20th century, opponents of mass immigration like Patrick Buchanan were marginalised. The mainstream conservative movement, like the business community, supported President Ronald Reagan’s amnesty for millions of mostly Latin American illegal immigrants. The late editor of the Wall Street Journal, Robert Bartley, declared his support for a constitutional amendment with five words: ‘There shall be open borders.’

But within a decade, anti-immigration sentiment has moved from the fringes to the centre of Republican conservatism. The US is now replicating a pattern that can be seen in Britain, in which a resurgent populist and nationalist Ukip seeks to restrict immigration in the interest of protecting native wages and cultures. We can also see a strange-bedfellows alliance of employer interests, intellectuals, and left-liberals who seek to maintain or expand immigration, partly to counteract their loss of native white working-class voters.

In fact the Tea Party activist movement, who were widely described as libertarians, look increasingly like an American version of Ukip — but without a Nigel Farage. In June Eric Cantor, a House Republican whip widely viewed as a potential Speaker of the House, lost the Republican primary for his congressional seat from Virginia to an unknown professor, Dave Brat. A libertarian on many other issues, Brat won his surprise victory in part by denouncing Cantor for supporting amnesty for illegal immigrant children and illegal immigrants in the military.

The changing American right faced a test in the midterm elections this month — and passed it with flying colours. In earlier electoral cycles, Republican strategists blamed the loss of some seemingly winnable congressional and Senate seats on weak candidates associated with the declining religious right. In 2012, for example, the Republican Richard Mourdock, an evangelical Protestant candidate for one of the two US Senate seats from the state of Indiana, described pregnancies caused by rape as a ‘gift from God’ — a remark that helped his Democratic rival, Joe Donnelly, win the contest in an upset.

This year, however, the Republicans went to considerable lengths to present themselves as diverse and modern, just as David Cameron’s Conservatives did in opposition. This year’s Republican intake included Elise Stefanik, the youngest woman ever elected to Congress and Mia Love, the party’s first black congresswoman. The Republican candidate for the open US Senate seat from Colorado, Cory Gardner, distanced himself from his earlier support for anti-abortion measures — and publicised his support for over-the-counter ‘morning after’ contraceptives. He duly went on to defeat his Democratic opponent, Senator Mark Udall, whose unsuccessful attempt to portray Gardner as part of a Republican ‘war on women’ led opponents to mock him as ‘Uterus’ Udall.

By projecting a more moderate image, the Republicans helped turn a predictable midterm setback for a sitting Democratic president into a rout. Before the election in 2010, Obama had a Senate majority of 60 out of 100 and a House majority of 256 out of 435. Following the 2014 midterm election, Democrats have been reduced to a minority of 45 in the Senate and 192 in the House. To compound the damage, the Republican party will have complete control of 29 legislatures, the largest number since 1928, and will also hold 32 of 50 governorships, including some in traditionally Democratic states like Massachusetts and Maryland.

These victories were not prevented by Latino resentment of the Republican Party’s restrictionist turn in immigration — mainly because Latinos accounted for only 8 per cent of the vote in 2014, while non-Hispanic whites made up 75 per cent of the voters. Latino voters moreover are concentrated in a few states, such as California and Texas. The midterm electorate is older and whiter than the electorate in presidential years, with its greater turnout. Over time Republicans will have to win over more Latinos, if not blacks. But the Republican candidate for governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, won with 44 per cent of the Texas Latino vote, indicating that, unlike African–Americans, Latinos cannot be counted on as a reliable Democratic voting bloc.

The gradual evolution of the Republicans into a British-style socially moderate, anti-immigration party of the native white working class may force the Democrats to change as well. Without shared fear of the religious right to hold them together, Wall Street-friendly neoliberal ‘New Democrats’ have little in common with the banker-bashing populist left. If national populists challenge those in favour of free trade and open borders for labour, America’s political future may resemble Britain’s present.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

Michael Lind is a fellow at the New America Foundation and author of Land of Promise: An Economic History of the United States.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments
  • Mike

    There’s one factor in the swing to right wing policies that commentators have ignored over mass immigration is that its more than just one single majority who are against it, as all non Islamic ethnic groups are against it as well. Many ethnic minorities in the UK & USA who have immigrated and more importantly integrated into western culture have also woken up to the dangers created by those who refuse to integrate. They don’t want to see their hopes and dreams dashed by benefit tourists and certainly not the extreme elements of Islam that has been imported into both countries along with the sort of obscenities we have seen in Rotherham as well as cities in America.

    Just today, we see a CoE church school for goodness sakes in East London (below) brain washing kids with extreme Islamic teachings. Exactly the same sort of brain washing that has been going on in liberal progressive states like California and the electorate of many ethnic groups are slowly waking up to this fifth column of Islamic social engineering that has been happening under socialist governments.

    This cancer of corrupting young children started in the UK a good 10 years before the US and its only now after Rotherham, the Birmingham schools brain washing, the public naming of ‘Asian’ men ‘preying’ on young girls and now this School in Tower Hamlets that everyone has woken up and immigration is top of the political agenda for all groups bar Muslims. I suspect America is waking up quicker to the threat as it can see the results in the UK and wants to halt that slide into total political correctness & multiculturalism that is an enabler for preaching hate, divisions and creating Jihadists.

    Hopefully, the Republicans will reverse whats happened in the USA long before it gets to the state that the UK has become. UKIP has a much harder job to cleanse the country of the socialist cancer Labour created and Cameron ignored but give it time, I’m confident we can reclaim our culture and heritage as the Republicans will try and accomplish.


  • yes, although in part this is about cultural evolution, these can be quite tactical changes – if taking a socially conservative position is not going to win you an election, you have to work out if it’s worth having it on your list. so we’re left fighting the main economic battle: how much does the government screw the rich to hand out to the poor (or however they all dress that up).

  • Hugh1

    Interesting analysis and I agree with the parallels and alignments made in the story between America’s white, anti-immigration Republican Party and its British counterpart. The US version is more dynamic however. Grass roots level animosity against immigrants is generally much more entrenched in the British street than in the US where opinion is malleable and the demographics are rapidly changing. This week, Obama will push through immigration reforms and contrary to the admonitions and dire predictions for the Democratic Party by the Republicans, it is the only road to the White House in 2016.

    Why did the Republican right gain so many congressional seats in the latest rout? Interestingly, it is largely a factor of money, and the recent Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United (unlimited corporate participation), and a strange coalition of voters. Basically, Republicans are packaging up voters who will vote against their economic interests. These voters are focused on opposing same-sex marriage and are pro-God, pro-gun, and anti-immigrant. They vote against their economic interests because of the billionaire/corporate buy-out of mass media. However, billionaires are only interested in economic policies that favor them and have only
    secondary interests (if any) in the ‘values voters’ interests. This has proven to be a difficult coalition to hold together over time.

    Since the billionaires funding the Republican Party will demand an end to Obamacare, and the privatization of Medicare/Aid and Social Security, it is unlikely that social issues like guns, gays and god will be the glue that can bind success in 2016 or even 2020. The American people want these programs (Obamacare being the weakest) and will not trade them off in a presidential election year. It’s not a guarantee, but the next presidential election will likely realign to the Democratic center. Gay marriage and immigration will be Democrat’s strengths and Republicans can’t find enough white voters – the die has been cast. Some good news for the Republicans though, since it is easier to buy/influence state elections, Republicans will retain dominance there.

    • Louis Thorndon

      In fact, the Democrats had more “independent” expenditures for them than the GOP, this cycle. I do not agree that the religious right are marginalized. When Reagan was in office, the courts ran a campaign against religion. Today, the Supreme Court has been in moderate conservative hands for decades. Gay marriage is a shock, but support for abortion continues to decline.

      • 9cfleet

        Gay marriage isn’t a “shock”, because the public doesn’t support it. Yes, the young do, but hey we all did stupid crap we regret in college.
        No, it’s being pushed through by judicial activists.

    • Laguna Beach Fogey

      As demographics continue to be manipulated in the US–rendering Whites a despised minority in their own country–we can expect public opinion to become solidly anti-immigration (illegal and legal).

      Immigration (illegal and legal) was a major reason for the GOP victories in the recent mid-term elections. Americans are beginning to realise there are far too many immigrants in the country. Not only that, but they know there are far too many of the wrong kinds of immigrants here.

      Like it or not, the future is going to be about nation, identity, and race.

      It does not bode well for peace and stability.

      • jesseventura2

        America has mainly hard working christian Latino immigrants while Britain and Europe are being infested by mostly uneducated uncivilized non working unwanted muslims.

        • Mo Khan

          Jesse we will be coming over to your country soon.:- ) Now I suggest you run along and play with your toys.

    • ShiningStar00

      The GOP landslide was powered by the influence of the billionaire corporate media, controlled by Rupert Murdoch and his minions.

      Lunatic right-wing screamers virtually control the radio airwaves and much of the teevee programming in the USA.

    • Actually the Democrats get a least as much money as the Republicans – and have the “free” media (most of the newspapers – plus PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN) as well. And many of the billionaires are ardent big government people in their politics. Class based political analysis (which assumes that someone like George Soros is going to have the same political opinions as someone like Jon Huntsman Senior – because they are both billionaires) is Marxist drivel. Also your idea that the “economic interests” of poorer people are for big government (more taxes, more government spending, more regulations, more ENVY based Class War politics) is also false.
      I would politely suggest that you go to North Korea, where you belong.

  • Jake Turk

    It’s always helpful to read an intelligent foreign analysis of our politics, but I still can’t seem to figure out whether or not Europe’s new right (Farange, Le Pen, etc.) have the same virulent anti-science streak that defines our Tea Party. Even old-school evangelicals seem less consistently hysterical about “fat-cat climate change scientists” than teabaggers. I despise the Bible-thumping bigots who dominated the GOP of my youth, but I would rather coexist with sane people of faith than with apathetic, willfully ignorant rednecks as they pillage my country and planet, even if these happen to be secular rednecks. Even our corporate/bankster apex predators seem to be facing reality on that front, although populist bottom-feeders still pander to the do-nothing deniers. Added to this are (what should be) fringe niche-groups like vaccination-skeptics and these psychotic doomsday-prepper types who seem sincerely enthusiastic about civilization collapsing. All told, the GOP is still a logic-free zone.

    Worst of all, plain old bigotry shows no sign of fading as quickly as evangelical dominance did. If anything, it’s getting worse as white America succumbs to demographic panic about a white-minority future. Politics will be marked for the rest of my life by angry, terrified, shrinking white America clinging to its whitewashed dream of a ’50s America that never really existed in the first place and was vastly more unjust and flawed than how they choose to remember it.

    Bigotry and science-denial work well together. Both are outlets for adults to live out their fantasies and avoid the responsibility of dealing with this world or, Ayn Rand forbid, with a future they won’t live to see anyway. This is a wonderful time to be middle-aged and childless.

    • CraigET

      Climate change has got nothing to do with science; in science you create a hypothesis based on logical reasoning, compute the results, and then compare with reality. If your results do not align with reality then you scrap your hypothesis. Climate ‘Science’ does not follow this process.

      It is a cargo cult science like economics and psychology.

      • “Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.”

    • Andrew Dock

      There is nothing wrong in christ its just anti-christanity has replaced anti-semetic politics in europe today; hate god love, group sex like in the Daily Mail newspaper.

    • Andrew Dock

      The country you desire sounds like the biblical Hell, odd for someone whom hates God.

  • UnionJihack

    22 years after the 1992 race riots in LA the US are finally catching up and beginning to exercise introspection. This was previously not possible as the first and second Gulf War clouded the mind.

  • Paddy S

    If America loses religion. God help us all.
    Will America be another neo Europe? An immoral, dying demographically, cultural marxist infested, state obsessed (anything but God) society? We’re screwed.

    • Samson

      Folks staying at home might have a better chance of understanding and living up to the ideas and example set by Christ than they would in a megachurch run by bonkers fundamentalists with barely an IQ point between them.

      • Paddy S

        Most Americans are not evangelical Christians of that variety. I stand by earlier point though, lack of religion in Europe has led to cultural marxism, state obsessed, demographic decline, immorality (abortion, lack of individual charity, hedonism,) and general decline. To made worse in 21st century by dominance of one religion foreign to Europes shores.

        • mariandavid

          Nonsense – a pathetic attempt to correlate two utterly detached trends; on the one hand the refusal to accept time-worn fairy tales as a basis for morality and on the other change in science, culture, art and reason.

          • Richard

            He is correct, you know. I am not a religionist or theist, but I can see a correlation between the type of decline he mentions, and atheism. Most people do not have the intelligence to understand that giving up religion does not mean you have to abrogate morality in favour of the state. It is really the case that once people stop believing in religion, they believe in anything. I find it depressing, but just because I don’t like it, doesn’t mean it isn’t true. People find peer groups in religion, and reasons for living. It isn’t just pure theism. That is what Islam understands, and why it is on the ascendant.

          • Paddy S

            Richard its that kind of honesty that I appreciate and thank you. There is a brilliant book and youtube interview with Bruce Thornton Suicide of Europe. It backs up what we know well.

          • luke sampson

            Europeans will outlast European-Americans:your demographics are worse than ours.

          • luke sampson

            If religiosity is a great driver of morality why is the US,in terms of individual behaviour , so much worse than Europe?

          • Richard

            It may not drive individual morality (perhaps something to do with an external locus of control) but it does unite people into a sense of purpose, and create more commonality. But in many ways Americans are more polite than Brits, it is a mixed-bag.

          • mariandavid

            Perhaps – I will admit that I objected to the certainty with which Paddy made the connection when there are endless other theories put forward for the ‘collapse of morality’. My suspicion is that the change is largely due to the more vapid nature of social groups today, ever changing and ever ending. Paddy could have validly said that the joint community of church-goers helped to retain the ‘old morality’ implying that it was not Christian belief but a Christian community that did the trick. Of course others have made the same point over the change in other social institutions, whether policing or pubs or politics, all encouraging new approaches. My theory is that is was the change in the licensing laws – when fixed there was a quasi-permanent and socially active grouping which tended to emphasis commonality!

          • Richard

            I agree about the licensing laws. I think they destroyed the fabric of Britain in many ways. Many people to whom I have spoken will say they are not theists, but rush to church or go to the synagogue for a variety of reasons. One Jewish woman I know, who is very anti-religion, regularly attends the synagogue on high holy days. When I asked her why, she said that it was support the Jewish community and see her friends. Afterwards, there might be tea and cakes. She rolled her eyes at the mention of the religious texts. Many look askance on the religious members, but use the religious institution nonetheless. For some reason I cannot really fathom, people see the religious institution as the closest of the “in-group”, the people to whom they are closest, even if they don’t believe a word of what they hear in the service. Is it because these are the places at which they commemorate the rites de passage of life, from birth to death? Or because of a fear of death, and the promise of an afterlife? I don’t really know.

          • Sean L

            Yes it’s back to front to regard religion as a matter of mere *belief* rather than *belonging*. Even etymologically its root is tied to “ligere” to bind together. Thus Burke, who wrote that without religion “society will crumble into the dust and powder of individuality”. Catholic and Protestant, any less than Shia and Sunni aren’t fighting over belief as such, any more than West Ham and Millwall, however such matters of doctrine might offer formal justification. Ultimately it’s about *allegiance*: whose side you’re on – the primary political question: its starting point. Morality is also an expression of group identity, ” the instinct of the herd in the individual ” as Nietzsche put it, relying on the primal human fear of being ostracised from the group.

          • Paddy S

            Again no attempt to challenge what I stated – just abuse. But there is nothing off with what I said. By the way most of the greatest art, culture, literature, building, music have been by devout Christians. Science is not some atheistic reserve either. And judging by the article in todays spectator reason rarely enters into the lefts worldview.

          • mariandavid

            I did challenge it – I challenged your assumption that it was the collapse of religion that led to Marxism, immorality and decline among an extended list. I do not challenge the artistic and musical triumphs of Christianity – I revel in them -but I cannot agree that the collapse in Europe of organized religion has led to universal decay.
            For ‘proof’ – in the last 60 years there have been wars everywhere except in the one place where Christianity has been minimized – Western Europe. Lots of wars where it still holds power, especially in the Balkans and Central America. And I hold that gaining peace is far more important than retaining a moral structure laid down with dubious authority by religious figures themselves capable of dubious behavior.

          • Paddy S

            The only reason there hasnt been war in Western Europe is due to NATO.

          • mariandavid

            And the only reason why a NATO continued is that the Europeans gave up their old, embittered distinctions of race, nation and religion.

          • Paddy S

            No because they were threatened by an atheistic marxist superpower bent on world domination, they united then.

          • mariandavid

            I said it ‘continued’, long after a kleptocratic dictatorship (Russia was not Marxist) had long stopped being a menace – though of course Russia has now become the most Christian state in Europe.

          • Shane Warne

            Europe is going down the drain. As much as I love Europe, things honestly aren’t getting better there, they are getting worse. Even just look up the economic data you can see that from the 1970’s the EU-15 (top 15 EU economies) have declined massively relative to the rest of the world once adjusted for inflation and population (the US surprisingly is actually up over that same period). Europe still has / has had conflict in recent times, i.e. Serbia, Ukraine, lots of terrorist attacks (UK, Spain, France attacks etc), ridiculous amounts of race riots (that honestly make the US ones look amateur, including muslim led anti-jew riots, anti-muslim riots, Nazi riots etc along with anti-EU riots, anarchist riots, specific race led riots etc etc).

            The only reason the EU itself hasn’t commenced war with one another is because they’re in NATO now. Declaring war on one member means declaring war on all including The US, Canada and Turkey. This coupled with the EU is why they aren’t declaring war left, right and centre.

          • mariandavid

            All Western states have declined compared with the rest of the world since the 1970’s, including the US: It is a statistical trick – the ‘rest of the world’ has gone massively up because of the rebirth of finance and commerce in China and, to a lesser extent, India.
            As for conflict – none of the conflicts are within the EU and the race riots are pale to insignificant compared with the problems faced by the US today.

          • Shane Warne

            That’s not entirely true though. From an absolute GDP point of view it is, bit I’m talking from an economic output adjusted for inflation and population pov and over that period the US is actually stable, and is ever slightly up as a proportion of global share (adjusted). The EU-15 is down by a large share however. And Asia is up, roughly equal to the decline among the EU-15.

            I’m not from the US or EU but I can say without a doubt the EU riots put the US riots to shame. You should do more research into them to see the actual damage they have done. The EU is in a much more dangerous and volatile position politically, socially and economically. I actually arguably like Europe more than the US (although I have nothing against the US at all) but that doesn’t blind me from seeing how things really are. Europe is only going to decline further given its awful demographics and current positioning. I just say it how I see it, and try and make money from it via trading. Idealistically I’ll love Europe to recover and thrive. Realistically, as per current data and trends, it just isn’t going to happen though.

          • mariandavid

            I also am from neither but admit there may be some bias when it comes to ‘intensity of riot’. I suppose it is also fair to say that those of the US are largely if not wholly racial in origin and those of the EU social.

          • Please read the entire book called Guns, Germs, and Steel. It puts the lie to claims of Eurocentric male superiority.

        • luke sampson

          On pretty much every indicator you Americans are less moral than Europeans-you have more violent crime,bastards,drug abuse,obesity etc.

          • Paddy S

            Am not american am Irish.

        • Paddy S
    • CraigET

      The US is already all of those things you describe. Placing your faith in a god to save it is a waste of time, imploring people to emulate Jesus would be a better idea.

      • Laguna Beach Fogey

        Imploring people to fight back by any means necessary would be an even better idea.

    • Rocksy

      I was interested and hopeful (well as hopeful as anyone can be with what any politician says) to hear David Cameron comment on his Christian beliefs. Maybe we can move to a time when religion or the lack of it can simply be one part of a person’s makeup and not the only part of it.

    • paul davis

      see, your response is the sole reason why Americans need better education,,, get over yourself, you live in this world of self denial, there’s nothing good or great about America. ruled by the gun, controlled by the drugs, run by morons…. you think your this great power, the world laughs at you, the world knows your a joke, you think solving problems is to throw thousands of troops at it, or billions of dollars… the most racial, bigoted splintered country on the planet, and having lived there for 6 years, I know… over 70% of Americans have never even left the country, to busy getting fat and watching TV, when they not shooting each other… and don’t get me started on the police force, the most hated, racial force on the planet, and that includes the south African government of the 70s… you have a lot to learn about the world, and infact even about your own country, America is and never was great, its just bullshitttt Americans love to roll out all the time… and in 30 years time, when the national lauguage is Spanish, and not English, youll all be saying the same crap, but in a different language

      • Andrew Dock

        Nobody is laughing at the U.S. the only people who do; are fools who think America is the most evil country on earth; when in reality, its the moral bankrupt western Europeans who are pathetic.The rise of china as a superpower of the future will destroy the uk and most of the west anyway by economic power and productivity out stripping the west.

        • paul davis

          and the economic crisis was caused by the American banks, and mortgage companies, who have very little regulation there… like all things that cause issues to the world, they start in America….and if you believe that china will strip the west, your more deluded than you sound, stop believing all the hype surrounding china, they depend on exporting, and the west can halt that, it may take a few years, but it can and would be done

      • Paddy S

        Am not an American, although looking at modern europe I wish I was sometimes. By the way you come across as really Anti American, with all textbook lies and bs too.

        • paul davis

          lies? you need to go check some facts.. you sure your not American?

  • Jeff Traube

    The law of unintended consequences. If declining religion leads to greater opposition to (third world) immigration which leads to strife, it is a plus to the Republic. If churches re-assess open borders, it is a further gain.

  • CraigET

    The Republicans are just the right wing of the one party system that is the Republicrats. There is almost no distinction between the two parties with the exception of their rhetoric. The republicans speak of economic freedom, but don’t practice it, and they oppose social freedom. Whereas the Democrats speak of social freedom, but do not practice it, and they oppose economic freedom.

    It is the same here in the UK with Labour and the Conservatives. As I have heard George Galloway say many times they are “two cheeks of the same arse”.

    The tribalism whipped up between themselves, and perpetuated by the media, simply distracts from the glaring debt problems facing both countries (which no parties want to solve), the production deficit with the eastern world (which is never emphasised), and the accelerating erosion of individual freedom.

    • Bruce Lewis

      I was going to write something else, but I so completely agree with what you’ve written that I’ll refrain, except to predict that this Republican victory will not be replicated in 2016. Why not? Because once in power, the modern Republican Party do not know how to govern.

      • jack

        The republicans are not “in power” at the moment. They have only the legislative branch after all. The question is, can they continue to put the blame for the ongoing dysfunction of our government on the democrats. The last election shows that the public buys their line up till now. Obama meanwhile, is flailing. The sophomoric petulance now on display in his reaction to this defeat, is will further alienate the voters. It will convince them that democrats are deliberately creating this mess and dragging the whole country through the pain of collapsing wages and government services as part of a gigantic power grab by ethnic and business interests that benefit from illegal immigrants. They are trying to blackmail and pressure the republican voters into granting amnesty to the invaders. They neglect the crying needs of millions of actual, honest and legal americans, even while they pander to a bunch of foreigners who have raped our motherland. They have plenty of money in the budget to support children from Honduras with a sob story. Yet where is the money for routine childcare, education and medical care of our own poor? My guess is that the combined hatred of the ACA and illegal aliens, will destroy the democrats in 2016.

        • Bruce Lewis

          My guess is that the combined hatred of the ACA and illegal aliens, will destroy the democrats in 2016.

          No, Jack, this is only what you hope for. America is increasingly dark-skinned; in fact, ethnic Caucasians of a certain age will soon be a minority in America WITHOUT any “illegal migration.” It doesn’t show up in Congressional elections, but, believe me, it WILL in 2016. I don’t know a single one of my students or former students in America–not a single one–who subscribes more than half-heartedly to the ideology of the modern Republican Party.

          • “my former students” – i.e. an academic, one of the collectivist indoctrination specialists whom the taxpayers are forced to subsidise (via government backed “student loans” and so on).

          • Bruce Lewis

            Actually, I teach OUTSIDE of the U.S., and, in my experience, Americans and Brits are the only people on earth who hate educators.

          • Aberrant_Apostrophe

            What about fanatical Islamists and their ilk, like the Taleban, who detest the idea of educating females, so much so that they kill their teachers and blind young girls who wish to better themselves?

          • jack

            You mean state paid propagandists. It is fatal to confuse, indoctrination and education.

          • finzi_holst

            Then you should try teaching in Pakistan or Afghanistan, and parts of Mexico and Central America, parts of Africa. You can start by seeking to educate girls. Good luck to you.

            Your experience is obviously myopic. And perhaps the reason so many Americans and Brits “hate” educators is because the union-subsidized members are not really interested in education but more so in using dues for political means, forcing its members to support ideologies and candidates against their will, and indoctrinating children as opposed to educating them. And many of the worst school districts have teachers who hate teaching and their students.

          • grattaevinci

            Maybe they just do not like educators like you…..I would not call you an educator either…..but nowadays they give degrees and Ph.D.s for free….so I am not surprised to see that on paper you are an educator while in reality you are simply an un-educator.

          • Shane Warne

            Perhaps if you were educating students on mathematics, physics, chemistry, engineering, I.T. / software eng, medicine, accounting, finance/economics etc then people will respect you. But chances are you’re just teaching brainwashing political science or other such rubbish? This might be why you have such a jaded view of others towards your profession? Nothing to do with you being an educator per se, but more to do with you being a specific type of educator that garners little respect, and arguably for good reasons.

          • jack

            So we are doomed to a racist minority status. Do you suppose the Blacks will seek revenge for the centuries of persecution to which we subjected them? It is going to e interested. Each racial grup with its own super pac and its own political caucus in the congress. All except the congressional white caucus that is. Too bad. There was once hope for a republican nation where men lived in equality. Gone forever.

          • Lacombe57 .

            We? Suffer false white guilt much?

          • jack

            is that not the whole object of the exercise? Get a clue.

          • Lacombe57 .

            Exercise? Maybe you have some false sense of guilt or maybe you’re just the submissively masochistic type,I don’t know. But that editorial “we” should be replaced with the personal pronoun “I”,because there are very many people that don’t include themselves in that thinking.

          • jack

            Sincerity raises its ugly head.

      • ShiningStar00

        The modern Republic party does not WANT to govern — it suscribes to the simple-minded Reagan mantra “all government is bad” and wishes to dismantle the mechanisms of public government. They spend years campaigning on the platform “government is not working,” then if they get elected to positions of responsiblity, they set out to prove it.

        While the Dems are in control, the Reps do everything they possibly can to monkey-wrench the workings of government so they can keep up their drumbeat that “government does not work.”

        Of course, when government is taken out of the picture of providing vital public services, the citizens are left at the mercy of the ever-charitable mega-corporations.

    • I see so there is “no difference” between someone such as Governor Brownback of Kansas – who has cut taxes and got the government out of such things as subsidising the arts, and a Democrat who wants to do the exact opposite. Certainly Governor Brownback should have cut government spending more – and he wanted to do so, but the “Progressive” courts (who insist on unsustainable levels of government spending) are hardly his fault.
      And we should believe there is no difference because George Galloway (a radical socialist with his own propaganda show on Mr Putin’s “Russia Today”) says so.

      • CraigET

        I’m speaking more holistically rather than about particular individuals. Just look at the record of the most recent republican presidency for example.

        And I just really like that quip by George Galloway. If a radical socialist told you the sky was blue, would you say he is wrong just because he is a radical socialist?

    • R.D

      CraigET, this is very true. How nice it is to hear from an educated individual.

  • celtthedog

    Yes, but that’s because mass immigration is one of these issues that turn the previous political calculus upside down. In American terms, it’s a game changer.

    If the mass migration of Latin Americans continues unchecked, the United States will no longer be the United States, it will be a Latin American nation. A larger Brazil, if you like.

    Similarly, if the mass migration of Muslims continues unchecked, Britain will no longer be Britain, it will be a Muslim nation. An island version of Turkey (if we’re lucky).

    There simply is no issue in the present-day West that is more important and which will have greater long-term consequences.

    Of course the political parties have to respond to it (despite trying not to for several decades now).

    • Richard

      The Labour Party, especially, made hay while the sun shone. They were able to dupe their voters into giving tacit support to the mass importation of Labour Voters. Only now that it is having an effect on the pockets of the Labour Voters, do they react. Generally, by the time things reach that point, it’s too late. But I think the Ideology of Human Rights has destroyed Europe. It removes from the indigenous people any particular connection with their countries. A child born in Pakistan, reaching Britain, is exactly the same as people who have been living here since the Ice Age. Their culture has no real pre-eminence, their history no claim either. In fact, in modern Britain, the cultural power lies with the immigrants; it is up to the indigenous to fit in with them rather than the other way round. Rights trump responsibility, narrow legalism wins the day. The very idea of a nation-state is anathema in modern Europe, not so elsewhere in the world. There is no real question that we will disappear, because even talking about this has been forbidden for decades by dint of the notion of Human Rights. We are simply returning to a very primitive society of who breeds, wins, like it was millennia ago.

      • Bruce Lewis

        Don’t you think that “mass immigration” into Britain has something to do with the form of brain-washing imperialism that you folks practised for several hundred years? I’ve known Indians and Sri Lankans whose idea of “heaven on earth” is to move to Britain, but I haven’t known ANY South Americans or Mexicans who wanted to move to SPAIN or PORTUGAL.

        • Richard

          No, it has to do with the peculiar nature of Britain. People have no ethnic identity here, and so non-Europeans are able to move here and live here with great ease. There were Indian Members of Parliament even in the 19th Century. Spain and Portugal are different, in that they have a much stronger ethnic identity. Britain not only is easy to move to and live in, but offers incredible welfare benefits. If you are from a Third World country like India or Pakistan or every country in Africa (and increasingly South Africa, as that country deteriorates), Britain is like heaven. Brits are passive-aggressive, and if you are thick-skinned, it is quite easy to form your own enclave and ignore them. I speak as somebody of British ancestry who has moved to Britain from southern Africa. I am at once within and without.

          • Bruce Lewis

            OK, what you say makes sense, and as a non-Englishman, I should defer to it.

  • Humanity First

    Well at least in the US, we don’t have the EU to deal with 🙂

  • In all honesty, using honesty to differentiate between the candidate, and Obama, doesn’t mean that God has been shuffled to the sidelines.

    It’s basic theology that choices matter, and people make choices; which leads to those who blame everyone else (except themselves), do themselves no favours.

  • Laguna Beach Fogey

    Well, that’s the problem. That’s all they do about illegal immigration: talk about it.

    Empty words.

  • “in style and substance, the American right is rapidly becoming a lot more like Britain’s”

    So largely fungible with the left then, eh?

    • 9cfleet

      Yep! Narcissistic and irresponsible fools, all of them.

    • Andrew Dock

      No the american right are not as awfully left wing as in the uk

    • Hello Perry – I have put in a couple of comments of my own.

  • Jack2

    Over time the black and latino population growth will slow down and age, already (US Cencus Births Data) their fertility rates are declining. Will an increasingly older (over the next 20-30 years) black and latino population shift from Democrat to Republican? Age is a demographic factor influencing elections in both the UK and US.

  • carl jacobs

    So, a couple of points. I live in a battle ground state which had a highly contested Senate election. The Democratic candidate flooded the airwaves with attack ads, one of which attacked his opponent on abortion. It was repeated endlessly. You couldn’t escape it. If you turned on the NFL, it was there. If you turned on Hulu, it was there. I practically broke the mute button on my TV remote in the month of October. That Pro-Abortion ad was ubiquitous. Didn’t help. He lost.

    That said. The Republican party has been shining on the “Religious Right” for 30 years. Its only real influence on the National level has been in the Primaries of specific States. Republican presidential candidates make some kind of pro forma genuflection in its direction, and then run away from it in the general election. But did they ever expend political capital on its behalf? No. It was simply a matter of motivating the base during the election. So this isn’t some kind of new revelation. The leadership has been much more secular than the base for decades. The Christian “threat” has been largely a Democratic creation to motivate its own base.

    The interesting question however is whether there is such a thing as sustainable secular conservatism. People who cast aside belief in God are immediately confronted with their existential vulnerability. They will comprehend the massive void that exists beneath the fragile boards on which their life is built, and most will fear the drop. They will look around for something to replace the God they have rejected – something to which they may cry out “Save us, lest we fall.” And the only replacement they will find is the Gov’t. That is the seed corn of Leftism.

  • SolidBro

    Religions are all pure baloney. The future of American politics is libertarianism, either within the Republican party or as an emerging Libertarian third party composed of defectors from both other major parties.

    Religions were powerful before the Enlightenment, before science demythologized the illogical religious “explanations” for the way the universe works and provided predictive, reproducible, and testable real explanations.

    • Laguna Beach Fogey



    • Bruce Lewis

      Ah, what’s a “test”? Dependent upon the five senses, no? The “five senses” tell us that two parallel lines will never meet, don’t they? And yet modern physics, depending upon data that REASON sort of provides but that the “five senses” will not provide for eons, tell us that they DO bend toward each other eventually. You need a course in the International Baccalaureate’s “Theory of Knowledge” wherein “knowledge” is called “justified true belief,” and the “justifications” don’t merely include data based on the “five senses.” Science-obsessed atheists of this modern age are thoroughly lacking in the modesty of Lord Rochester:

      Huddled in dirt the reasoning engine lies,
      Who was so proud, so witty, and so wise. (“A Satyr Against Reason and Mankind”)

  • John Mitchell

    It’s difficult to differentiate on the Democrats and Republicans other than in terms of social issues. This sort of strategy would appeal to the moderates within the Republican party (at least on the de-emphasis of stricter conservative values).

    I think it would be a mistake for the Republican party to veer too far away from a social conservative outlook. That’s basically what the Conservatives in the UK are doing which for all intents and purposes (at least in terms of current leadership) are moving towards a liberal party. If that happens then the two parties in America are going to converge even more than they have already which is going to leave voters with even less of a choice.

  • Simon_in_London

    Hmm, interesting analysis. Americans in general remain far more pro-immigration than any other nation, though. In most countries most indigenous voters of both left & right oppose mass immigration, legal or illegal. In the USA a very substantial minority of indigenous (ie not recent immigrant) voters support legalising illegal immigrants, but more importantly only a minority (albeit a large minority) seem to support ending mass *legal* immigration into the USA – in stark contrast to any other Western nation.

    • Mrs Josephine Hyde-Hartley

      Let’s not forget America is an absolutely massive place. (Unlike The UK). Surely there’s plenty of space for a few more people. I don’t know what they’re moaning about..

      • Niko Belic

        I’ve heard the same argument about Australia too-the massive place thing.

        Do you have any awareness that a large part of the surface area of USA/Australia is covered with uninhabitable deserts? This pushes the bulk of populations towards ever-more saturated urban centres and the problems encountered are the same as you would in any UK city.

        Mass migration is only the symptom of the genuine issue, which is uncontrolled birth rates in poor/developing countries.

        • Bruce Lewis

          I agree with your last statement about “uncontrolled birth rates in poor/developing countries,” but you are wrong about the preponderance of “uninhabitable deserts” in the continental United States. I’d invite you to drive through Northern New Mexico, Southern Colorado, Wyoming, Oregon and other parts of the West and Midwest. We’ve still got LOTS of room in the United States, and the problem with our “uninhabited” spaces is agro-business, not lack of arable land.

      • Simon_in_London

        I think the issue is more whether they want to keep an Anglo type culture, which the US still is in many respects.

    • Bruce Lewis

      You’re absolutely right, and that’s why the GOP is digging its own grave–at least in terms of Presidential politics–by so vociferously opposing Obama’s rather modest “immigration reform.” I’ve known New Mexicans whose families have been in America for FOUR HUNDRED YEARS who’ve called Republican opposition to immigration reform “anti-Catholic and racist.” The Republicans seem hell-bent on antagonizing most brown-skinned people living in America.

    • Richard

      The US will be fine as long as it remains capitalist. The moment it embraces socialism like Europe, it is doomed. The US allows its upper classes to set the agenda (whilst allowing the rest to indulge in trash culture) whilst in Europe, and especially the UK, it is the lower classes who set the agenda, which is why we are headed for Palookaville (to use an Americanism of which my New World friends are very fond). We will disappear under a swarm of locusts, make sure you don’t.

  • cartimandua

    The Republicans are still anti women. The war on women is very real , ongoing and women notice. Women are also more than 50% of the population and they vote.
    There are now places where the hospital is not obliged to treat a life threatening condition of pregnancy and they are not obliged to transfer the patient either.

  • This article shows the danger of inviting a non conservative to write about conservatives. First the use of the term “right wing” – it is a useless term as it tries to lump together people want to roll back the state, such as Calvin Coolidge, with ardent collectivists who want to replace Civil Society with the state – such as Mr Mussolini and Mr Hitler. A political term that tries lump together political opposites, such as Mr Coolidge and Mr Mussolini, is useless – and efforts, from the old Soviet NKVD and so on, to try and pretend that the socialists Mr Mussolini and Mr Hitler were “really” servants of “big business” (the “capitalists”) are absurd – although they have become orthodoxy with Hollywood, academia and the rest of the, moronic, “intellectual” class.
    Being against racial persecution is nothing new for Republicans – for example Warren Harding (the most libelled President in American history – almost everything people think they know about Warren Harding is wrong), cut Federal government spending in half (from a peacetime 1920 total), he was deeply conservative in his economic policies – not just cutting government spending, but also cutting taxes, and opposing calls for government intervention to PREVENT the labour market clearing by allowing prices and wage (a wage is a price – the price of labour) to adjust to the end of the World War One credit money bubble (in all this Warren Harding was the opposite of Herbert “The Forgotten Progressive” Hoover). “But” (actually there is no contradiction at all) Warren Harding was also the leading anti lynching campaigner of his day – indeed nearly all the people who opposed the persecution of blacks (and others) were Republicans. And the leading racists were ardent “Progressives” and “Populists” in their economic opinions. People such as Governor Bilbo of Miss hated “big business” and “the capitalists” just as much as they hated blacks and Jews. The KKK, and so on, was based on hatred of all these things.
    As the socialists (sorry the “Progressives”) control the universities, and so on, they have rewritten history to suppress knowledge that the racists of the past were ardent statists in their economic opinions and supported “Progressive” stances on some social issues also – such as “gun control”, the KKK supported gun control (especially as regards blacks – even as late as the 1960s people such as the father of Condi Rice would not have had the rifle with which he drove off a Klan attack upon his home in Alabama had the “gun control” crowd had their way) which made it the deadly enemy of the (Republican dominated) NRA. And the two sides physically fought each other (killing each other) – but this has all been put down the “memory hole”.
    The closest the “Progressives” get to telling the truth about the past is to stay that once the Republicans were against race based politics and the Democrats were in favour – but that the two parties “switched places”. This would come as news to, for example, the people of Eastern Tennessee (First and Second Districts and parts of the Third District). These areas have been Republican since the Civil War – when did the “switching” take place? The same families have opposed the politics of race and the politics of CLASS (trying to turn “the poor” against “the rich” – ENVY and Class War based politics), the stock-in-trade of the Klan and so on (see Senator Byrd in West Virginia who died only a few years ago) for one and half centuries.
    Fascists and National Socialists are supposed to be the “opposite” of Marxists, but this is not true (as such works as Mises’ “Omnipotent Government” and Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” made clear long ago) – all are based upon collectivist “Social Justice” (the opposite of justice – which is to-each-their-own) and group politics based on “class” or “race” (or, now, “gender” and other group “oppression” based politics of the Frankfurt School of Marxism – i.e. “P.C.” and “Critical Theory”).
    The Democrats (and I mean collectivist Democrats not moderate Democrats – still less the Classical Liberal New York State Democrats of the 19th century, Grover Cleveland and others) have changed – but only from favouring whites as-a-group to favouring blacks as-a-group. Politics based upon the rights of the INDIVIDUAL (such things as the Bill of Rights) is still alien to them – they think in terms of “Class” (like the writer of the article of the article with his blather about the “working class” even the “white working class”) and “Race”.
    This is utterly alien to a conservative (or Classical Liberal) way of thinking about politics – which is why Michael Lind (whose mind is dominated by “group politics” the supposedly opposed interests of “class” and “race”) can not possibly understand conservatives or Classical Liberals.

  • Niko Belic

    Hmmm, the pals of the Republicans in the world of business are not going to be happy about that. After all employers and corporations are the main proponents of illegal immigration as a source of cheap labour for them. And in the US even more than elsewhere in the world, those stakeholders are the ones that usually dictate policy.

    Also the USA is not the UK. It has a long history of immigration and was built upon that. This does not mean that immigration brought only positive developments in the US but their experience with it was by far better to that of Europe. So an anti-immigration stance is unlikely to have as much power as in the UK, especially when so much of the electorate is itself from a recent migrant background.

  • As for “Gay Marriage” and immigration – again Michael Lind shows himself incapable of understanding the conservative (or the Classical Liberal) position.
    There is no legal objection to private ceremonies (if two men want to call each other husband and wife, and their friends want to organise a ceremony for them, it is nothing to do with me). The objection is to the use of power of the government to FORCE other people to “recognise” such unions (in violation of their religious, or other, beliefs) – slavery, being forced to rent rooms, bake cakes, take photographs (and on and on) when they do not want to, this is what is objected to. Official “government Gay Marriage” – FORCING people to be involved who do not wish to be involved. If Michael Lind wants to “recognise” a “Gay Marriage” that is up to him – but he has no right (under the natural law principles that are the foundation of such things as the Bill of Rights) to FORCE me (or anyone else) to do so – or to get the government involved to force me (or anyone else) to “recognise” such unions.
    As for immigration – there is no objection to “immigration”, to people who sincerely want to embrace the limited government principles of the Bill of Rights, there is an objection to an illegal and unconstitutional influx of people who reject these principles. To people who, for example, reject the American flag in favour of the Mexican flag (not a “racial” point – nothing to do with having brown skin) and reject the principles of the American Revolution (of rolling back government – of support for private property rights) with the diametrically opposed principles of the Mexican Revolution of 1910 (it was no accident that Mr Obama stresses Mexican “Revolution Day”) – the un American (indeed ANTI American) principles of “Social Justice” and general collectivism (to the evil people who dominate the universities and schools – and most of them are “white”).
    People who think of “Civil Rights” not as opposition to the PRINCIPLE of “Jim Crow” (i.e. that government should tell people who they can employ and who they can trade with), but as benefits-from-government, whether in terms of “anti discrimination laws” (Jim Crow in reverse is still Jim Crow, it is still government telling private business people how they MUST behave – a point that Barry Goldwater made in 1964 but that someone like Michael Lind is incapable of understanding, as he assumes that government policy must serve the interests of groups), or in terms of cash payments, or “free” services.
    People whose first thought is “free” education (such as those illegals who sued the State of Texas leading to the Supreme Court turning the Constitution on its head in 1982) or Medicaid (like all those illegals that are signing up under Mr Obama’s expansion of the scheme) or “Food Stamps” (a program that did not even exist in 1960 – where people starving in the streets then?), or the “earned income tax credit” (an Orwellian name for what is really welfare), and on and on…….. are not really “immigrants”, they have not come to the United States because they wish to become Americans (to embrace the limited government principles of the Bill of Rights).
    And it is nothing to do with blather about “the white working class” – or other such stuff from Michael Lind.
    As for there being no difference between Republicans and Democrats (as some comments have maintained), then why are States that have been controlled by Republicans over time much lower in term of taxes, government spending and regulations, than States that have been controlled by Democrats over the same period of time.
    A rather basic empirical test that the “both parties are the same” crowd tend to ignore.
    Indeed when one checks out the funding of “Libertarian” and “Independent” candidates at State level (for Governor or for the U.S. Senate and so on) it, surprise-surprise, tends to come from the “Progressives” (from the big government collectivists) now why would that be?
    Why would should the collectivists fund people who are, supposedly, their opposites?
    The answer is as simple as it is brutal – to split-the-vote. Fortunately in such places as Kansas (whatever the legal place of birth of the Republican party – its real birth in battle place was “Bleeding Kansas” and Republicans were called religious fanatics and tools-of-the-capitalists even back then) the voters understood that claims that there was “no difference” between someone like Governor Brownback, who fights against expanding government, and Democrats, who support expanding government, were false.
    Libertarians, real Classical Liberals, should work within the Republican party (opposing bad things within in it – such as historical Protectionism and support for government “infrastructure” schemes and other Corporate Welfare), not put up rival candidates – who can only split-the-vote and aid the collectivists.

  • Andrew Dock

    I find it strange that people dont understand that the west is in decline with the rise of china and the east; and yet no one sees to comment on the 120 million converts to christanity in china: Pew institute. The fact that china will soon replace the U.S. as the most Christian society on earth.

    • Andrew Dock

      120 million converts to christanity in china today; Pew research is wonderful, strange people in the west, don’t seek to understand it.

  • “How America’s right wing is becoming a lot more like Britain’s”

    You mean Marxist? Yeah, we all know that. Where have you been?…

    Notice that not one political party in the West demanded verification of the collapse of the USSR, and the media failed to alert your attention to this fact, including the “alternative” media. When determining whether the “former” USSR is complying with arms control treaties, what does the United States do to confirm compliance? Right, the United States sends into the “former” USSR investigative teams to VERIFY compliance, yet when it’s the fate of the West that’s at stake should the collapse of the USSR be a ruse, what does the United States do to confirm the collapse? Nothing!

    It gets worse–the “freed” Soviets and West also never (1) de-Communized the Soviet Armed Forces of its Communist Party officer corps, which was 90% officered by Communist Party members; and (2) arrested/de-mobilized the 6-million vigilantes that assisted the Soviet Union’s Ministry of the Interior and police control the populations of the larger cities during the period of “Perestroika” (1986-1991)!

    The fraudulent “collapse” of the USSR (and East Bloc) couldn’t have been pulled off until both political parties in the United States (and political parties elsewhere in the West) were co-opted by Moscow & Allies, which explains why verification of the “collapse” was never undertaken by the West, such verification being (1) a natural administrative procedure (since the USSR wasn’t occupied by Western military forces); and (2) necessary for the survival of the West. Recall President Reagan’s favorite phrase, “Trust, but verify”.

    There can be no collapse of the USSR (or East Bloc nations) without…

    Verification, De-Communization and De-mobilization.

    The West never verified the collapse of the USSR because no collapse occurred, since if a real collapse had occurred the West would have verified it, since the survival of the West depends on verification. Conversely, this proves that the political parties of the West were co-opted by Marxists long before the fraudulent collapse of the USSR, since the survival of the West depends on verification.

    The above means that the so-called “War on Terror” is a USSR & Allies-tasked operation being carried out by the co-opted governments of the West, the purpose being to (1) destroy the prominence of the West in the eyes of the world, where the West is seen (i) invading nations without cause; (ii) causing chaos around the globe; and (iii) killing over one-million civilians and boasting of torture; (2) close off non-Russian supplies of oil for export, thereby increasing the price of oil, the higher price allowing oil exporting Russia to maintain economic stability while she modernizes and increases her military forces; (3) destroy the United States Armed Forces via the never-ending “War on Terror”; the ultimate purpose of the aforementioned to (4) bring about the demise of the United States in the world, opening up a political void to be filled by a new pan-national entity composed of Europe and Russia (replacing the European Union), a union “From the Atlantic to Vladivostok”; which will (5) see the end of NATO.

    The failed socialist inspired and controlled pan-European revolutions that swept the continent in 1848 thought Marxists and socialists a powerful lesson, that lesson being they couldn’t win overtly, so they adopted the tactic of infiltration of the West’s political parties/institutions.

    Now you know how Bolshevik Russia survived in 1917; how the West “lost” China to the Communists in 1949; why the Eisenhower administration turned a deaf ear to the anti-Communist Hungarian uprising in 1956; why the Eisenhower administration in 1959 was indifferent to the Castro brothers’ Communist fidelity, actually used the CIA to overthrow the Batista government; why the Nixon administration abandoned Taiwan for Communist China, and signed treaties/provided economic aid to the USSR; why the Nixon administration refused to tell the American People that over 50% of North Vietnamese NVA regiments were actually Chinese People’s Liberation Army soldiers (attired in NVA uniforms), thereby (1) ensuring the Vietnam War would be lost; (2) destroying the prominence of the United States abroad and at home; (3) breeding distrust between the American people and their government; and (4) securing Communist victories in Southeast Asia. Working in the background within the political parties of the United States and Great Britain were Marxist agents doing their best to (1) ensure the survival of Communist nations when they popped up; and (2) sabotage any policies that would bring down a Communist nation. That’s why after the fake collapses of the East Bloc nations and USSR there was no mandatory Western verification process to ensure the Communists weren’t still in control.
    *A verification process would have entailed hundreds of teams from the West going into the USSR and having unqualified access of all government files, searching for (1) indications that the collapse was a ruse; (2) secret Communist party agents/non-Communist Party agents placed into positions of authority; and (3) Russians to bring back to the West for questioning (with their families if deemed necessary, which would in itself be deemed an indication that the “collapse” was indeed a ruse), where the questioning can take place without fear of retribution should the collapse be a ruse.

    A de-Communization of the Soviet Armed Forces would have seen the former USSR republics joining NATO and requesting the assistance of NATO to supervise a de-Communization process, the first stage of which would be the pensioning out of General officers, and full Colonels within the land combat regiments; and all Admirals, and Full Captains assigned to ships, pensioned out. The pensioned out officers would be replaced by NATO officers. NATO would take over schools that educate military officers, until such time that non-Communist Party native instructors were available.

    The Russian ICBM Triad would have been de-operationalized (until the necessary number of non-Communist Party member nuclear forces officers had graduated and attained ranks necessary to operate such nuclear weapon systems), pursuant to which the United States would have cut its nuclear ICBM Triad forces by at least two-thirds, since the only major threat now would be China. Russian Intermediate/Medium ballistic nuclear systems would fall under NATO operation, again until the necessary number of non-Communist Party member nuclear forces officers had graduated and attained ranks necessary to operate such nuclear weapon systems.

    Then we have to deal with the five-six-million vigilantes the Soviet Ministry of Interior used to control the population. The vigilantes would need to be de-mobilized and its leaders interned until the Russian economy came back to life via real free market policies. As the economy improved, those vigilantes interned and not serving sentences for serious crimes such as murder or rape, would be released on a staggered basis, where lower-level leaders are the first to be released into society…

    “On the initiative of the KGB, an army of Soviet vigilantes five million strong, the so-called ‘druzhiny’, was recruited from among the Komsomol activists. They have been patrolling and policing the streets of all the Soviet cities. Their primary task has been to prepare the Soviet people to ‘behave’ during the forthcoming ‘liberalisation’.” — KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn, March 1989.


    • “The gradual but steady decline in religious affiliation in America has been accompanied by increasingly permissive attitudes to extramarital sex and homosexuality. In America, as in Britain, these trends are most pronounced among the young.”

      The purpose for marriage is to (1) socialize the child into the worlds of BOTH men and women; and (2) teach male and female children, via 24/7/365 sensory/visual absorption of opposite-sex parents’ behaviors, how to behave in civilized society towards the opposite sex when adults. As such, homosexual marriage is a ludicrous concept that will contribute to the destruction of Western civilization, which its Marxist intellectual proponents know very well.

      Civilization is dependent on heterosexual marriages/unions, which is why civilization has always encouraged the integration of the sexes via male/female unions, not encourage segregation of the sexes via same sex unions.

      The conditioning aspect of heterosexual marriage for children is paramount for reasons that both sides to this issue not only refuse to debate, both sides fail to even see the issue: And the issue has to do with the primary purposes for marriage: The socialization of children into the worlds of men and women, and the transmission to the child of adult behavior patterns, to be mimicked by the child when an adult. A child reared in same-sex marriages/unions naturally lacks these critical sex-specific inputs.

      Children need the 24/7/365 interplay between the mother and father that only heterosexual marriages offer, which enables the child to (1) learn how the sexes are to behave towards one another; and (2) encourage children to want to associate with the opposite sex (there are those children that can go either way towards wanting to associate with the opposite sex when adults).

      There is no argument to the FACT that children are not born with genes that acculturate them into the civilized worlds of both men AND women, let alone a “specialized socialization gene” attuned specifically to adjust a child to the specific requirements for gender relations within Western Civilization.

      Consistent with the evidence we see in inner city neighborhoods, where a critical mass of fatherless homes is the norm, children are not pre-wired with a “civilization gene”, nor a “specialized socialization gene”. Children learn those skills from observing their parents 24/7/365. If children have same-sex parents, they learn less than half of the socialization skills necessary for the continuation of civilization.

      Civilization has a duty to encourage the integration of the sexes, not the segregation of the sexes, because segregation breeds disassociation, which is the breeding ground for hatred, hence homosexual marriage is not only contrary to civilization, it is nonsensical.

      Another Marxist-tasked sabotage policy that’s been pushed on Western Civilization that adversely affects children is easy divorce. Marriage is the most important institution for any society, so naturally when children see their parents divorce for the least of reasons, children naturally conclude that (1) Western civilization is a joke, since its most critical institution is seen to be a joke up close; and (2) people are nothing more than commodities, to be thrown away when they become an inconvenience to our base, narcissistic lifestyles. .

      Of course, not unlike same-sex marriage, children of divorce are deprived of the socialization process of watching and learning from their opposite-sex parents, where the child learns how both males and females are supposed to behave towards each other. This critical deficit for children culminates into sociopathic behaviors when adults.

  • CraigStrachan

    Well, Mia Love wouldn’t talk about God as such. She’d talk about “Our Heavenly Father”, who evidently lives in conjugal bliss on the Planet Kolob with Our Heavenly Mother and multiple sister wives.

  • The republican party has always practiced a hypocritical Christian faith. gop politics are nothing but corporate slave politics.

    Ike was right about the grave danger to democracy and freedom posed by national-security state governmental apparatuses. Just ask Egyptians. Or Chileans. The Biggest Threat to Democracy and Freedom

  • daner

    Nigel Farage and Rand Paul to run a little Thatcher/Reagan 2.0 for the next decade if the gods are just.

  • finzi_holst

    And the Spectator is becoming a lot more like the Grauniad and just about as insightful too. How about The Spetcarto?

  • Robert11110

    There is no more right wing in this country. When it comes to social issues they support the same things as the left wing. When it comes to economics you have a difference between enslavement through socialism or a global plantation of cheap labor. The Christian right did not support immigration that I know of. They believe in biblical values of nations being designed by God and every group its place in the world, basically nationalism.

  • deadisdead

    One thing that must be remembered: With the flood of money into contemporary American politics made possible by Citizens United, the Koch brand of Libertarianism-moderate on social, draconian on economic policy–is likely to win the day. The Koch’s dont give a shit about abortion or gay marriage, and secretly through Reason magazine and the Cato institute, do not share working whites xenophobia.

    For one reason only: If it helps them get more money and power, they are for it–simple as that .If their pseudo-libertarianism helps them win, so be it. Bread and circuses til death…

  • Lacombe57 .

    My state’s governor is one of the GOP Clowns in the current GOP Clown Car. He signed an oath with Grover Noquist, which somehow supersedes his oath for office,agreeing to no tax increases. Must look really good on paper. During his two terms in office ,which will end soon,he has incurred a $1.6 billion budget deficit.

  • Ehis Macauley

    HOW I GOT MY BUSINESS LOAN FROM MR ELLIS BRAHMAH (whitehartfinances@yahoo.com)

    My name is Ehis Macaulay. i live in Michigan USA, I am a businessman that deals with automobile machines.On a faithful day my shop got burnt and all my properties were destroyed there was no way for me start my life all again i was desperate and frustrated so i came online searching for any loan firm or company if i may say so i saw much not knowing they are not genuine as i told one good business partner of mine Mr Brad O’bryan by name introduced me to a legitimate and easy way of getting a loan. The Company he introduced me to was owned by MR. ELLIS BRAHMAH so i contacted him just to give a trial via E-mail:(whitehartfinances@yahoo.com) and within 20 Hours the same days i got my loan from him that is how i could stand back on my feet and start my business again and it is also the reason am sharing my testimony so you all seekers should contact him and also share your
    testimony like me. Thanks Mr.Dickson Brains God bless you so much.Once again CONTACT MR. ELLIS BRAHMAH VIA EMAIL: whitehartfinances@yahoo.com for your help.