FROM SPEAKERSHIP SCUFFLE TO HISTORIC REALIGNMENT?
LOSING THE BATTLE TO WIN THE WAR?
Though a topic of perennial vintage, since the surprise election victory of Donald Trump in 2016, there has been a constant concern in U.S. politics for the prospect of some form of political realignment. That strikes me as the most intriguing lens through which to ponder a peculiar development in the endlessly informative and entertaining speakership scuffle unfolding in the U.S. House.
After the third ballot, with its barely shifting configuration of alliances, and following the successful move to adjourn, a fascinating rumor developed. It was expressed in a Tweet by John Kasich:
The translation of this prospect, it seems to me, is that the word “moderate” is code for the establishment, pro-regime, ruling managerial class factions of each of the two parties. And the “extremists” to be marginalized are the dissident and populist factions of each of the two parties. Should this, admittedly unlikely, development come to pass, America would be on the path to the most consequential political realignment since the (so-called) Civil War. As we’d have clearly delineated two new parties emerging which unambiguously represented the globalist faction of the ruling managerial class, on the one hand, and on the other, represented the organic opposition of populist, communitarian, and nationalist dissidents.
Wouldn’t that be interesting. Sure, in the short term it would be a populist loss. No oversight for the FBI, or inquiries into the abuses of the COVID era. But the era of the uniparty could be over, and the battle lines couldn’t be more clearly drawn going forward. If the dissidents and populists of the current Democratic and Republican Parties, facing common and mutual marginalization from within their own parties, could finally put their differences aside (and what better motivation could there be than this prospect), it’s hard to imagine a development that could more sharply heighten and clarify the conflict between populism and managerial liberalism in America. Indeed, such a maneuver by the “moderates” may be just what’s needed for the “extremists” to finally overcome their petty squabbles and make common cause.
Such developments would have dramatic reverberations across the world.
Again, I doubt such a turn is likely. But we clearly are living through historical times. In such a rip tide of history, so much more is possible. This development would be indeed a case of losing the battle, for a chance at winning the war.
The anti-McCarthy forces are doing the right thing, but it is important not to expect too much from Congressional politics.
A popular front in Congress against uniparty globalism would most likely be pointless at this stage. The whole sphere of representative politics is becoming less relevant with every election. The reality of widespread electoral fraud (and the inability of the federal courts to acknowledge, let alone correct, the problem) guarantees that elections cannot confer legitimacy upon the legislature.
Even the most energetic and vocal populist minority in Congress would only serve as a foil for the uniparty (much as Trump now does), but they would never be able to achieve anything substantial. If such a force were to develop and prove a nuisance, they would be picked off one way or another: defamed by a confected scandal (like Trump with the 'Russiagate' hoax), gaoled like Eugene Debbs or assassinated like the Kennedy brothers.
Without a degree of mass mobilisation or popular unrest, no lasting political change of any kind is possible. The constituencies of discontent remain unorganised. The solution must come from within those constituencies, not from professional entertainers/politicians at the national level whose advocacy is typically ineffective.
The fate of the regime will most likely be settled by war and the fate of the petrodollar and the financial system. In the meantime, 'representative' politics will serve to distract the public. The only politicians capable of doing anything positive are at the state level who can prepare for the possibility of Washington growing weaker as the petrodollar slowly but surely fails.
The 4-D chess of American politics is unfortunately built around a set of rules which favors the system, over the people.
The mind-hive Borg-like coalition known collectively as democrats, will do whatever is needed for their system to prevail, much like a virus that over replicates until it kills its host.
The free ranging chaotic group of spores known as republicans seem incapable of recognizing their own swamp infections as the mass wanders aimlessly from one buzzword oasis to the next. This disunity will also lead to a loss.
The need for a unifying objective, or ideology is present in one large faction (even though it is one of anti-americanism, collectivism and state control).
If the other free rangers could coalesce behind an ideology that favors the citizen, that puts the citizen above The State, that proves its fidelity to foundational principles through actions, and not vacuous word salads, then we may see a return to sanity. (If only there were a document that outlined that....?)
Otherwise, as others mention, kinetic combat is most likely the only outcome that will yield change, albeit a very painful one. The only thing keeping that at bay seems to be the multigenerational success of removing critically thinking brains, strong resolute spines and a balanced mix of adrenaline, testosterone and serotonin, from the bulk of our society.