In 2026, Republicans Will Have To Decide What Comes After Trump
Is the party heading deeper into the right wing fever swamps?
The Republican Party that I joined in the 1980s (and later left) espoused a straightforward set of principles. It believed in free markets, limited government, peace through strength in dealing with international aggressors, and "traditional" values. Sure, the last one was nebulous and the party often was hypocritical, but these core ideas were the key to its eventual resurgence.
One of its leading lights, former NFL quarterback Jack Kemp, was described by The New York Times as someone who "brought more zeal to America's poverty problems than any national politician since Robert Kennedy…the only official to have won standing ovations in black ghettos by calling for a capital gains tax cut." Kemp, like Ronald Reagan, exuded authenticity. Despite their flaws, these serious big-hearted men truly believed in classic American ideals.
In his farewell address, President Reagan, often called the Great Communicator, was characteristically humble: "I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn't spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation." Conservatives in the media were mostly about exploring weighty ideas, as any perusal of William F. Buckley Jr.'s "Firing Line" archive reveals.
Engaging in nostalgia is a hazard of growing older, but one need not be misty-eyed to compare that Grand Old Party to the current freak show. Sure, Democrats were pretty awful during that era (and embraced views surprisingly common in Republican circles today) and largely remain so, but the GOP was the voice of sanity. With the GOP's dark and nasty pivot, advocates for those age-old ideals have nowhere to turn.
We've become numb to narcissistic rage posts from our president, but the highly publicized Turning Point USA convention last week offers a preview into where the Republican Party is going after Donald Trump exits the stage. It's not pretty. As we've seen recently in other squabbles within the conservative movement, the fireworks centered on the rhetoric of some conspiracy minded—but highly popular—right-wing personalities. TPUSA had it all: in-fighting, name-calling and innuendo.
In the old days, the conservative movement tried to police itself, as it shoved authoritarians and conspiracy theorists to the sidelines. Buckley took on the John Birch Society, which in its zealous anti-communism argued the United States government was controlled by communists. Standing up to the Evil Empire was a core part of conservative philosophy, but Buckley realized that allowing the fever swamps to engulf his movement only tarnished that goal.
Some critics argue Buckley wasn't all that successful, but he was successful enough to keep the party from becoming what it has become now—where reasonable voices are drowned out by the likes of Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens. If there are no adults in charge—and the party's leader acts like a toddler, as he savages his foes in petty tantrums, renames buildings after himself and adds insulting White House plaques below the portraits of former presidents—then the whole trashy movement will one day be heaved into the dumpster.
Those recent controversies, however, show the movement's problem isn't solely the result of a body rotting from the head down. At the TPUSA event, the main fireworks were between commentators Ben Shapiro and Carlson over the latter's puff interview with far-right "Groyper" Fuentes. Shapiro said the slain leader of TPUSA, Charlie Kirk, "knew that Nick Fuentes is an evil troll, and that building him up is an act of moral imbecility, and that is precisely what Tucker Carlson did." Carlson tried to make it a free speech issue, with Vice President J.D. Vance siding with a big Republican tent that won't de-platform its fringe voices.
Sadly, Shapiro and the relatively traditional Republicans seem to be walking the plank. A recent public-opinion survey from the conservative Manhattan Institute found 37% of Republicans believe the Holocaust was exaggerated or didn't happen as historians describe it and 41% believe the 9-11 attacks were "likely orchestrated or permitted by the U.S. government." Meanwhile, the party has mostly abandoned those Reagan-era views, as the administration chooses tariffs over markets, promotes an unrestrained federal government, blames Ukraine for its invasion and embraces a brooding, pessimistic vision.
Now many Republicans support the concept of a Heritage American, where those with ancestry closer to the founding are more American than later arrivals. It's a natural outgrowth of the GOP's new values. "Nationalism doesn't just historically correlate with bigotry—it consistently drives antisemitism and other racial and ethnic prejudices," wrote law professor Ilya Somin in The Unpopulist. That's because it replaces the "universalist liberal principles of the American Founding" with its "zero-sum worldview … under which one ethnic or racial group can only gain at the expense of others."
There's no returning to the past, but perhaps in the post-Trump scuffle some GOP leaders will emerge who rediscover the basics of our founding. As Reagan said, "the eyes of mankind are on us."
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
So let me see if I got that straight ...
"commentators Ben Shapiro and Carlson over the latter's puff interview with far-right "Groyper" Fuentes" which was a dispute over Fuentes racist remarks being so-wrong Carlson shouldn't have even interviewed him is why the right-wing is now Nazi-Favoring National racists?
Please learn the meaning of the word 'contradiction'.
Maybe the right-wing isn't all those things by your very evidence presented.
Gosh this is like those fact-checkers that provide all the evidence to defeat their own ruling.
Fuentes is a great boogeyman for the left, but he carries next to no influence on the right. He's the left's George Soros, but he doesn't do shit to actually help or influence the right.
Which is funny because soros literally is a nazi that would rat out jews that were hiding
Yes he was. Soros is pure evil.
Nope.
Fuentes is a great boogeyman for the left, but he carries next to no influence on the right.
This is true, but because the current left is so abhorrent, disgusting, and repugnant to most of humanity, and because they portray Fuentes as their antithesis, many young men, who are their primary victims, are led to believe there might be something to his nonsense and he's their champion.
It's like a child murder-rapist telling kids that the drug pusher next door is his greatest adversary. Guess where the kids are going to run to for help.
“It's like a child murder-rapist telling kids that the drug pusher next door is his greatest adversary. Guess where the kids are going to run to for help.”
ISMT that Shrike’s strategy to groom kids?
Fuentes endorsed kamala...
Dave Smith also interviewed Fuentes. Which means the libertarians own him too apparently.
Dave Smith is no libertarian.
I’m thinking it’s New York City that went deeper into the “fever swamp”.
"Trump exits the stage"...
Wait, isn't there still time for a constitutional amendment? Can't we train an AI to take office and act Trumpy forever?
Personally, I think we need new political parties. Or none, as the founders intended.
We should be able to have AI create a way for government to be mostly run by a jury/militia old-time volunteer firefighter system. People get to choose whether to be taxed in cash, in kind, or in labor/time. And AI is deployed strongly to replace careerists, bureaucrats, cronies, etc
Slaughtering our leftists would solve most of our problems.
The Founders wanted us to alter or abolish (it's way, way too late to alter) the govt. if it didn't "serve and protect" our rights. It broke that oath to obey 1st term with the 10% whiskey tax that ruined thousands of farmers to enrich Hamilton's banker conspiracy. For a decade the tax was NOT paid, even when cut in half, even when nationalized Americans killed, arrested protesters. That was the time to self-govern, or return to "The Articles of Confederation".
To a great extent the economy can be divided into an intangible economy (finance, law, software, much media, etc.) where the employees are almost all college educated, most work is done in front of a screen, and there is little reliance upon blue collar workers. Then there is the tangible economy (construction, agriculture, resource extraction, etc.) which is heavily reliant on blue collar workers though the managers are generally college educated, often with technical degrees.
The Democrats have become the party of the intangible economy and Republicans are the party of the tangible economy. Given the hostility of many people in the intangible economy towards industries in the tangible economy, blue collar workers, particularly white blue collar workers but with a growing number of minorities, aligned with their bosses in the interests of mutual survival. This alignment chafes some, and there are disagreements as to priorities, and most bosses would probably be happier with a Romney than a Trump, but we'll have to see how it works out in the long run.
Long run, things appear to be shifting the Republicans way, especially as population migration and electoral votes continue to shift from blue to red states. In the short run, Trump fatigue could give the Democrats a shot at electing a real wing nut like Gavin Newsom.
It might be a good strategy for the GOP for Trump to "step down" due to "health" problems after the midterms so that the post-Trump reset could begin before the presidential election.
Why? People hate the GOPe. They voted for Trump because of what he's doing right now and recognize that the GOPe is trying to thwart him.
The 119th Congress is widely regarded as one of the least productive in modern U.S. history, with only 61 pieces of legislation enacted by the end of the year.
This figure is a historic low, falling well below the productivity of any Congress since at least the mid-1970s and significantly less than half the output of previous two-year terms.
They have the House, Senate and Presidency and nothing is getting done. Trump is having to EO everything. They are purposefully slow walking it all in order to thwart the changes. People notice this.
"People notice this."
A lack of leadership? If Trump can't lead his party, why not step aside and let someone else try it.
How does Trump lead the Republicans in Congress? He can't order the House and the Senate to do anything. We he demanded Senate Republicans abolish the filibuster and blue slips, they blew him off.
"How does Trump lead the Republicans in Congress? "
How does he NOT lead the Republicans in Congress seems to be the more relevant question given the thrust of these comments.
"We he demanded Senate Republicans abolish the filibuster and blue slips, they blew him off."
That's precisely what one would expect given Trump's weak leadership. An excellent celebrity host on Reality TV, it can't be denied. As a political leader of a large nation? Not so much.
You’re such a pathetic, desperate, leftist bitch.
Remember. Democrats think trump is a dictator but then also blame him when he isnt.
Mtrue is a good example of that. But one of the democrat’s evil strengths is their capacity to simultaneously hold two completely antithetical positions.
The solution is to get rid of all the pinkos now.
"Long run, things appear to be shifting the Republicans way,"
I'm not so sure. If the Democratic base is American white collar types, and the Republican base is blue collar, that's going to be a problem. When the blue collar is increasingly robots, migrants from south of the border or off shored workers in China, well none of them can vote.
There has been a dramatic increase in unionization activity, which will strengthen the domestic blue collar voting constituency, but the GOP has a tradition of animosity to unions and may not benefit while the Democrats are more favorable.
Is trueman a human of some machine programed to spout lefty bullshit?
"mtrueman
May.23.2022 at 10:29 am
[…]As long as humans are operating the reactors, an accident is a potential, regardless of the safety of the reactors. It's the human element where the danger comes in...”
Look at that pile of bullshit and consider it.
My wife is in healthcare and they have automation equipment to perform many repetitive, mundane tasks. They have teams of people hired full time to manage that equipment every time it fouls up...which is constantly.
It’s like those self check stands at the grocery store. With several employees hovering around them to deal with the constant glitches.
Misconstrueman's point, however, is that blue-collar jobs are disappearing while white-collar ones remain safe.
In reality, the opposite is true, at least for now. Corporate offices are emptying out at an astonishing pace worldwide, with AI automation replacing knowledge-based tasks.
I personally know of two corporate HQ's that moved this year, ostensibly to take advantage of cheaper taxes in another province, but in fact they aren't transferring employees to, or hiring at, the new location. 80% of their HQ staff are actually quietly being replaced with AI.
For the foreseeable future, plumbers, electricians, and construction workers appear relatively secure, as these roles require physical dexterity, on-site problem-solving, and human judgment that current AI and robotics struggle to replicate. In contrast, routine tasks in accounting, legal research, and middle management are increasingly being automated or augmented by AI, putting entry-level and mid-tier white-collar positions at a far higher risk of elimination.
Most studies show that replacement AI has so many hiles that the actual hours saved is a wash. They are paying experienced employees to review all the AI products and removing the data entry and entry level jobs. Basically a generation of entry level work os disappearing and they aren't training the replacements for those reviewing the AI output.
The private sector workforce is less than 6% unionized. Can they claw their way back up to 7% or even 8%? If they do, will it be in blue states that are losing electoral votes anyways, or will it be in red states where union efforts have often failed, especially in southern states? Or will they drop down below 5%? I don't know. Your guess is probably as good as mine.
Manufacturing is increasingly automated, but there is a screaming need right now for people skilled in the trades.
" will it be in red states where union efforts have often failed"
Why did they fail? Often it's because they are hobbled by state legislatures under the control of the GOP. That's part of the animosity towards the blue collar I was referring to.
"but there is a screaming need right now for people skilled in the trades."
You'll find all the skilled tradespeople you need in Mexico. My old neighbor has been in the building trade since he was 12 years old. He can look at a sketch of a house design and calculate the amount of cement, bricks, lumber etc in his head with virtually no waste. You simply need to overcome the absurd notion that these non Americans are rapists, retards, communists, lazy, or pet eaters.
How have states opposed private unions? Literally, unions hold all the cards. A vote to support a union is binding and almost irreversible. A vote to decline a union can be repeated immediately even if it isn't overturned on the flimsiest of pretexts. The feds have been overwhelmingly pro-union for decades.
And yet, despite all their advantages, unions have declined in power and membership because they give poor benefits for their costs
"How have states opposed private unions? "
Of course the biggest opponents to unions are the companies that employ these blue collar workers. They've hired groups like Pinkerton and organized crime to disrupt unionization activities.
The Red States and the South have enacted Right to Work Legislation which stymies unionization efforts.
FDR (a Democrat) and the feds have also played a part. The Wagner act prevented unionization in the South by exempting domestic (maids etc) and agricultural workers, areas which were largely Black, making unionization well nigh impossible.
“Of course the biggest opponents to unions are the companies that employ these blue collar workers. They've hired groups like Pinkerton and organized crime to disrupt unionization activities.”
This isn’t the 1930’s.
“The Red States and the South have enacted Right to Work Legislation which stymies unionization efforts.”
Yes, you can’t bully people into joining a labor corporation (union) against their will. So as a democrat, you hate that. As you feel a need to use the government to impose your will on everyone.
"This isn’t the 1930’s."
Indeed. The 30s were good times for unions in the US.
"Yes, you can’t bully people into joining a labor corporation (union) against their will. "
Exactly. Right to Work Legislation has stymied unionization. You can't deny it.
So you want people bullied into working for unions that will take part of their pay and use it to buy themselves riches?
You Democrats will never give up on slavery, will you?
"You Democrats will never give up on slavery, will you?"
Or Genocide even. Still, if the equally Genocidal Republicans were serious about capturing the Blue Collar vote, you'd expect them to pander a least a little to this growing constituency. But you can't, can you, because slavery. Not very convincing.
Of course he does. It’s the democrat way. And he is their creature.
Or maybe. The whole reason the "Intangible Economy" (i.e. Production-less) has out-grown the productive is because the 'Guns' keep STEALING from the productive and funneling it to the "Intangible Economy".
It is bloody hilarious hearing leftards spout about automation making the productive insignificant when this whole time the very reason 'Gun' (Gov-Gun) rationing is happening is because it's the Production-less "Intangible FAKE-Economy" that is INSIGNIFICANT.
LMAO... Leftard Self-Projection; day-in & day-out.
Whatever they see as the 'problem' of those 'icky' people is really a 'problem' they themselves have.
Software isn't intangible.
waiting for the Reason write up on how much further left the far left Democrat cultist party can go after electing an America hating Socialist ruler for NYC
They haven't done much with street violence yet. Look for another 2020 style Summer of Mostly Peace next year.
"Ranking the top 2028 Democratic contenders"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ranking-the-top-2028-democratic-contenders/ar-AA1TpOKu?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=695744d277e94137a5afa241c03339e0&ei=10
Pretty sure the WH janitor will beat the lot of them.
yeah... and will the words 'fever swamp' show up in it ...?
Greenhut, your only examples of the Republicans being crazy is
1. Trump making fun of his political opponents
2. Arguments between Shapiro (an Isreal Forster), Candice Owen's (a psycho leftist), Fuentes (a person mainly propped up by the left), and tucker carlson(a guy that believes in potemka cities)
The thing is, Republicans allow open debate in the party. If you want totalitarian thought policing go become a Democrat.
Can you update the article to include actual policies and actions that back up your claim?
He did mention the Tariffs of the Week.
The thing is, Republicans allow open debate in the party. If you want totalitarian thought policing go become a Democrat.
I didn't read the article. Greenhut is too abjectly retarded for a person of even pretty low IQ to waste their time on. Maybe if you were stuck in Orange County without internet or any electronic devices, he's better than reading the ingredients off a food label. Even then, I'd say there's more innate benefit to knowing about what you're putting in your body.
The tone of the title, from a fake, Orange County Democrat posing as a libertarian reads like "Why haven't Republicans chosen their next top man already?" maybe even "Why haven't Republicans chosen their next top man so the DNC can get started on fabricating a Russian Hoax dossier on him yet?"
Schadenfreudiest part of the latter is that even in 2016, it would've been a bit parody, but after the brazenness and status quo amnesty and pardoning of the intervening years, why wouldn't they do that? Not exactly to say Trump has failed but if you can kill a million people with illegal GOF research and not wind up swinging from a lamppost, autopen you way through a Presidency, and put on the campaign that Harris/Walz did, complete with voting manipulation and then-known welfare fraud, and suffer nothing from the media besides "The CBS interview wasn't really *that* bad." why wouldn't you just pick someone slightly more charismatic and functional and do it all again?
A big part of the reason Greenhut and journalists scream "But TRUMP!" (or "But [INSERT NEXT GOP CANDIDATE]!") is deliberately to distract from their own ineptitude and malfeasance.
"Nationalism doesn't just historically correlate with bigotry—it consistently drives antisemitism"
Is this true for the nationalists in Isreal?
Where's Misek to explain to us that the Zionists are fake Jews?
The Nazi shitbags JFucked and JohnZ are covering for him.
I haven’t seen JohnZ in awhile. Has he crawled out from under his rock lately? Or couldn’t he afford the subscription?
I doubt he can afford the subscription.
^THIS.
[Na]tionalist WHAT? Seems to be there is a missing variable in that equation.
Does [Na]tional pride in a Nation based on "All men are created equal" correlate with bigotry & drive antisemitism?
It's the So[zi]alism that does that. Not just [Na]tional pride because pride can be set in anything. The STEAL from those 'icky' people for my *entitlements* rests on figuring out WHO the *entitled* will be and WHO the ripped-off will be.
It is the So[zi]alism part of [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism] that creates all the corresponding consequence.
Once again,
Either Greenhut is a fundamentally dishonest shitheel who will lie in order to compare himself favorably to George Washington, or he's retard who doesn't know the difference between feet and yards.
Either way, Reason should stop paying him to produce content (for them secondhand).
Why would I listen to a uniparty globalist explain the current state of American conservatives?
Might as well read BBQ reviews written by a vegan.
You have Slade giving you plenty of the former and Camp has done the latter.
Reason has become beyond parody
When I first started coming here back in 2013, I would find a few articles a week that were useful to explain libertarian positions to my friends. Now every article is an embarrassment, except for the occasional Stossel pieces that Reason still runs.
Gee, I guess if we use the descriptions of the GOP provided by the left, we are already past "fever swamp" and deep into "Nazi occupation".
Why are you all so afraid of the 'right' that starvation and work camps are an attractive alternative?
^THIS. Well Said +1000000.
And I personally would peg it on BS-Leftard Indoctrination from the media and Commie-Indoctrination camps for kids.
i.e. !!!!The Earth is Melting!!!! because of the 'right'.
It's not a fear of the right, it's a fear of authoritarianism and that can come from either side and should be opposed on both. Yeah I'd take MAGA over a communist dictatorship if that's my choice, but surely a moderate conservative is a realistic option that's better than both right?
Like the [D] imposed COVID authoritarianism?
There's a real issue around with Leftard Self-Projection.
De-Regulation, Agency Cutting, Tax-Cuts =/= Authoritarianism.
A lot of people in the US are getting played like a fiddle by the leftard-media.
>Nationalism doesn't just historically correlate with bigotry—it consistently drives antisemitism and other racial and ethnic prejudices,
Somebody should ask Somin about the way Jews were treated in the communist countries. You know, the globalist ones?
And contrast that to how they were treated in, for example, fascist Italy.
"Somebody should ask Somin about the way Jews were treated in the communist countries."
Jews were especially welcome in the NKVD (secret police). Look at the two greatest atrocities perpetrated by the Bolsheviks. Ukraine and Kazakhstan. In either case almost half the local population perished.The effort in Ukraine was headed by Lazar Kaganovitch. The effort in Kazakhstan was headed by Filip Goloshchyokin. Both men were Jewish. It doesn't stop there. The cadres who actually carried out the atrocities were youngsters from the cities, many of whom were Jewish.
Ukraine had a history of anti Jewish pogroms and would celebrate Easter, for example, by burning down a synagogue. Kazakhstan, is Muslim, was extremely conservative in treatment of women etc.
"The persecution of Jews in the Soviet Union escalated significantly after World War II, "
The atrocities I was referring to all took place before WWII. Sorry for not making that clear.
During WWII, many Jews in the USSR fought bravely and distinguished themselves in the fight against Fascism. After the war, anti Jewish sentiment was on the rise with quotas, discrimination and persecution. On the other hand, the USSR was the very first country to recognize the State of Israel. Initially Israel was populated by Socialists living in communes called Kibbutzim. I suspect many of the first settlers who came from the Soviet Union and had a history of participating in the atrocities against Ukrainians and Kazakhs.
From Wikipedia:
Soviets believed that the main objective of the Zionist movement was to bring about a mass immigration of Jews into Israel from countries where they had been scattered among the general population, with a special emphasis placed on the Soviet Union. Under Joseph Stalin's rule, he initially accepted a limited emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union into Israel in order to invest in what he hoped would be a socialist Israel.[1]
Establishment of the State of Israel
For Soviet foreign policy decision-makers, pragmatism took precedence over ideology. Without changing its official anti-Zionist stance, from late 1944, until 1948 and even later, Joseph Stalin adopted a pro-Zionist foreign policy, apparently believing that the new country would be socialist and would accelerate the decline of British influence in the Middle East.[2]
The USSR began to support Zionism at the UN during the 1947 UN Partition Plan debate. It preferred a Jewish–Arab binational state. But if this proved impossible it indicated that it would support partition and a Jewish state. On 14 May 1947, the Soviet ambassador Andrei Gromyko announced:
As we know, the aspirations of a considerable part of the Jewish people are linked with the problem of Palestine and of its future administration. This fact scarcely requires proof. ... During the last war, the Jewish people underwent exceptional sorrow and suffering. ...
The United Nations cannot and must not regard this situation with indifference, since this would be incompatible with the high principles proclaimed in its Charter. ...
The fact that no Western European State has been able to ensure the defence of the elementary rights of the Jewish people and to safeguard it against the violence of the fascist executioners explains the aspirations of the Jews to establish their own State. It would be unjust not to take this into consideration and to deny the right of the Jewish people to realize this aspiration.[3]
Shortly after this speech, the Soviet media temporarily stopped publishing anti-Zionist material.[4]
It followed this policy and gave support to the UN plan to partition the British Mandate of Palestine, which led to the founding of the State of Israel.
On May 17, 1948, three days after Israel declared independence, the Soviet Union legally recognized it de jure, becoming the first country to grant de jure recognition to the Jewish state.[5][6] In addition to the diplomatic support, arms from Czechoslovakia, part of the Soviet bloc, were crucial to Israel in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. "
"Jews were especially welcome in the NKVD (secret police). Look at the two greatest atrocities perpetrated by the Bolsheviks. Ukraine and Kazakhstan. In either case almost half the local population perished.The effort in Ukraine was headed by Lazar Kaganovitch. The effort in Kazakhstan was headed by Filip Goloshchyokin. Both men were Jewish. It doesn't stop there. The cadres who actually carried out the atrocities were youngsters from the cities, many of whom were Jewish."
I think we've found our new Misek, folks.
Misconstrueman, this is deliberately antisemitic garbage, and you should be ashamed for peddling it.
You're resurrecting the "Judeo-Bolshevism" conspiracy theory that justified Stalin's pogroms and the Nazi Holocaust, by cherry-picking Jewish names like Kaganovich and Goloshchyokin to falsely paint Jews as the architects of Soviet atrocities.
Yes, those men played roles in Stalin's murderous collectivization that killed millions in Ukraine and Kazakhstan, but so did countless Russians, Georgians (Stalin himself!), Ukrainians, and others in a multi-ethnic regime. Blaming "the Jews" is pure scapegoating.
Jews were only 1.8–2% of the Soviet population yet overrepresented in early NKVD ranks (5–8% overall, higher in leadership) due to literacy and targeted revolutionary recruitment, not some sinister plot.
Jewish kids were taught to read at their religious schools pre-revolution when most Russian peasant kids weren't. Also, as a group that had been on the receiving end of tsarist pogroms, the Bolsheviks targeted them for recruitment as they would have no sympathies towards the prior regime.
Most were later purged in Stalin's post-war antisemitic campaigns.
Your claim that "many" executioners were Jewish urban youth is a baseless, hateful exaggeration.
Stop spreading this dangerous poison that demonizes an entire people for the crimes of a dictatorship. It's not just historically illiterate, it's bigoted propaganda.
Cheka, the first incarnation of the Soviet secret police (NKVD), was established on this date in 1917. Many Jews played leading roles in the secret police, and even more fell victim to it. “About 40 percent of high-ranking NKVD officers had Jewish nationality recorded in their identity documents,” writes Yale University professor Timothy Snyder in Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin, “as did more than half of the NKVD generals. . . . The Great Terror could be, and by many would be, blamed on the Jews.” “At the time when the NKVD was killing members of national minorities, most of its leading officers were themselves members of national minorities.... In carrying out these ethnic massacres, which of course they had to if they wished to preserve their positions and their lives, they comprised an ethic of internationalism, which must have been important to some of them. Then they were killed anyway . . . and usually replaced by Russians.” —Timothy Snyder
https://jewishcurrents.org/december-20-the-secret-police
Incunabulum was curious about Jews in communist countries and I responded with some irrefutable facts and some speculation. Sosume.
"Blaming "the Jews" is pure scapegoating."
Nobody is blaming the Jews. They were just following orders. It's interesting that Stalin allowed Jews to emigrate to Israel. I wonder if he hand picked them, he was known for such micromanagement, according to their experience and willingness to shed the blood of innocents. It's notable that famed Jewish American academic Noam Chomsky visited Israel in the early 1950s with an idea to possibly settle there.
from wikipedia:
He enjoyed living in Hashomer Hatzair's HaZore'a kibbutz while in Israel, but was appalled by his interactions with Jewish nationalism, anti-Arab racism and, within the kibbutz's leftist community, Stalinism.
How is the TDS-addled steaming pile of lying shit Greenhut going to make a living when he doesn't have Trump to SCREAM about?!
Fuck off and die, asswipe. Make your family proud and your dog happy.
The Republicans have no choice. What come next js mass purges and criminal trials. But based on real crimes, not BS ones.
What "real crimes", 混蛋?
War crimes, rape, murder, kidnapping, torture. These are real crimes.
MAGAs have a complete lack of even basic humanity. There is no cruelty too much for them.
Yes, we will have to put many democrats on trial for those things.
War crimes, rape, murder, kidnapping, torture. These are real crimes.
They sure are. Do you have any examples of MAGA doing this? Because I can write examples of Team Blue doing this as long as my arm, but I can't think of a single MAGA instance.
"I can't think". We know.
Don't try to evade. Again, do you have any examples of MAGA doing this, Tony?
Nope. We need to hound Tony on this whenever he posts on any article until he answers.
How clever, 混蛋.
Still waiting for the cite and then please fuck off and die.
Democrats don't do those things.
China really doesnt get their worth from you.
Democrats always do those things.
Right. As-if the 70%+ prison population being [D] party members didn't give that away.
Molly thinks the criminal deserves to RULE.
Too selfish and greedy to comprehend that crime doesn't make sh*t for anyone.
"War crimes, rape, murder, kidnapping, torture."
None of which happened with Trump in office, 混蛋
Walz +7
China Tony dreams of being in Maos Red Guard it appears.
Journalism will have to decide what comes after Trump. What in tarnation will you people even write about?
I think we can safely say that with whoever takes over for the Rs the journ-0's take will be 'literally Hitler!!!'
take old modus, rinse and repeat until the globalist open borders future is ushered in [but only ushered in to the western democracies ... outside of japan]
They wrote about trump more than Biden for 4 years. They wont stop. They cant stop.
It will be Vance vs. some fucking communist and as flawed as Vance is he's still the better option.
Amd the communists currently lining up to run are all morons. Harris, Newsom, etc., are all morons.
There's no relevant communist in American politics. There are (sadly) relevant socialist but none of them are remotely viable candidates for the presidency. The dems will run some moderate liberal like Newsome, Buttigieg, or Shapiro. All of which are probably better options than JD Vance who is far too opportunistic and tarnished by MAGA (and also just one of the least likeable people on the right, without a touch of Trump's charisma how can he possibly hold a coalition together?)
Lets hope that instead of either an actual candidate emerges for the Rs that's a moderate conservative or better and is an electable candidate. I'd vote in an instant for Rubio (probably the only competent person in the Trump admin), Paul, or Cruz over any of the above.
*...he was successful enough to keep the party from becoming what it has become now—where reasonable voices are drowned out by the likes of Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens.*
Funny, I have never listened to a single word from two of those three people. And I only ever listened to Tucker when he was employed by CNN and Fox. Yet I hear from what I consider to be reasonable voices all of the time, because I own a podcast app, internet access, and I am not retarded. Thanks for projecting, though, Greenhut.
Tucker seems about right on most things (he needs little more austrian economics) but Shapiro is an Israel firster and America is a commuter nation to enrich themselves and put their tribe first ...Huckabee kissing a fucking traitor's ass is a great example of traitors...
"Is the party heading deeper into the right wing fever swamps?"
THE EXTREME RIGHT, PEOPLE!!!
Things that have been reliably identified as far-right/white supremacy in the last five years:
- politeness and good manners
- drinking alcohol and sobriety
- obtaining ID
- physical fitness and going to the gym
- healthy eating
- eating meat
- drinking milk
- baking bread
- punctuality
- having a family and children
- marriage and parenting
- heterosexuality
- patriotism and national pride
- Christianity
- farming and supporting farmers
- being a virgin and being a ladies man
- respect for the law
- meritocracy
- Israel and philosemitism
- the American flag
- math, 2+2=4
- the trades
- owning a car
- owning your home
- mixed race spaces and water fountains
- Judging people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin
Scary stuff. Thank goodness we have Greenhut to warn us.
How would we know what to think absent steaming piles of lying TDS-addled shit like Greenhut?
"- math, 2+2=4"
Leftist math: four is 1+1+1+1. Truly radical, first principles rather than rote memorization.
And why are Blacks, Gays, Foreigners, Vegetarians, the poor and the disabled absent from your laundry list here? What's wrong with the right that it attracts such a narrow range of constituents?
Are you fucking illiterate, clowntits?
- mixed race spaces and water fountains
- Judging people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin
And I didn't create that list. You psychopaths did. You are the ones that said these were all right-wing or white supremacist and problematic, including 2+2=4.
Why did you guys not identify vegans and trannies as right wing?
Gee, I wonder.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/03/getting-fit-could-turn-you-into-a-rightwing-jerk
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/milk-white-supremacy-racism_n_5bffad35e4b0864f4f6a3e28
https://www.newsweek.com/smithsonian-race-guidelines-rational-thinking-hard-work-are-white-values-1518333
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-radical-teachers-claim-that-saying-224-is-white-supremacy
"problematic, including 2+2=4."
It's not problematic, it relies on rote memorization rather than first principles. That why it's not radical or leftist.
And you still haven't addressed why the Right can't bring itself to embrace Blacks, Gays, foreigners, vegetarians, the poor or the disabled. More tolerance and inclusivity wouldn't hurt that much, would it?
hard to accept folks who believe treating mentally ill kids with sexual mutilation is acceptable. Or folks who demand quotas? Or elites who hate the bill of rights? All are welcome but you have to have shared values of liberty and freedom, honesty, integrity, (basic Christian values-which are pro human) and not degeneracy.
"hard to accept folks who believe treating mentally ill kids with sexual mutilation is acceptable"
Exactly. Nobody said that tolerance and inclusivity were easy to accomplish. Or that these folks were easy to accept. Just ask a Leftist who struggles over these issues every day. Yet Leftists have managed to accept those who are confronting issues of sexual identity. There's no reason why Rightists can't do the same.
You’re pathetic. Do you understand that very one here sees you as a retarded Marxist clown? You embarrass yourself with every comment you puke up.
So...
- Not mutilating your own kids sexual organs
needs to be added to that list of - Things that have been reliably identified as far-right/white supremacy in the last five years
As well as
- Locking-up the "mentally ill" who "struggling over such issues" of whether they should sexually mutilate their own children.
Instead of...
Trying to Excuse/Normalize/Accept the "mentally ill" crimes against their own kids.
It is baffling how hard the left tries to turn every Crime they do against others into some sort of righteous human sacrifice religion. Why it's almost like all the BS *imaginary* scares of religion made a gaping-hole for a self-filling Human-Sacrificing religion just to fill the gaping-hole in your BS *imagination*.
"they should sexually mutilate their own children."
As in taking a knife to a healthy penis?
The penis of minor, non-consenting babe in arms, no less?
As in the widely practiced and communistical surgical procedure called circumcision?
Well, Whites are supreme, it goes without saying, but White Penises? They need all the help they can get.
Do tell. Is there a medical reason besides the parents dreams of sacrificing their kids organs on the alter of transgenderism in cutting off a penis? I'm willing to address a logical explanation. RU? Heck; I'll even proudly insist ADULTS can chop off any part of themselves they so chose of their own doings.
" Is there a medical reason besides the parents dreams of sacrificing their kids organs on the alter of transgenderism in cutting off a penis? "
You're asking the wrong person. Ask someone who went to medical school. I never went, never wanted to, and I am generally happy with my penis as it is. Sorry to disappoint you.
" I'll even proudly insist ADULTS can chop off any part of themselves they so chose of their own doings."
You deserve a pat on the back for that. Fighting for the rights of those who wish to mutilate themselves. Keep it up and when the time comes, we just might spare you from a spell of re-education at the gulags.
Thus. You don't have a logical point in "still haven't addressed why the Right can't bring itself to embrace" sacrificing their own children on the alter of transgenderism.
" You don't have a logical point"
I'm not sure there is a logical point to parents having a doctor take a scalpel to the penis of a new born baby boy. Is it a medical necessity? If you think so, please explain. It shouldn't be too hard, as the extreme right doesn't seem to have any qualms about this type of surgical mutilation of non consenting infants.
Now you're just playing dumb/retarded.
Phimosis, Balanitis, Paraphimosis, Balanitix xerotica obliterans, Cancer, HIV
https://www.nhs.uk/tests-and-treatments/circumcision-in-men/
Oh wait; Think I missed your master-point in all that.
"I have a right to mutilate my kids! See - my racist entitlement card!" /s
Good, thoughtful Steven Greenhut piece. I also started as a mostly Republican voter. In my 1st voting-age year (1972, the year the 26th Amendment made 18-year-olds eligible), that vote was for Richard Nixon. But unlike Greenhut, I've never been a member of either the Republican or Democratic Party. Like him, I long for the return of a thoughtful, rational conservative party—hopefully, within my lifetime—but to me, it seems unlikely to be the GOP.
I probably would have been satisfied as an Eisenhower Republican had not the consequences of that Nixon vote kicked off a long process of political maturation. So, instead, I’m an Independent who, when possible, votes for thoughtful, rational local Republicans (like in 2020, my own state’s Secretary of State, who ensured the accessibility and security of our 100% mail voting system against Trumpist attacks).
Regretfully, however, I’ve been unable to vote for a national Republican since GHW Bush’s reelection attempt (he didn't deserve having a minor recession that had already ended, cause his loss to a callow, kinda smarmy, minor southern-state governor).
The three amply demonstrated reasons for that are the Republican Party's:
1) Decades of ever-increasing evidence that Nixon's 1968 Southern Strategy signaled GoP’s acceptance & Reagan-Gingrich-era pursuit of; and today’s resulting dependence on & catering to, a racist, xenophobic, base.
2) Demonstrated and growing rejection of science-based/evidence-based decision-making.
3) Unfortunate, accelerating attraction to autocratic authoritarians, especially theocrats.
None of these are based on conservative principles. For decades, all have been debasing and corrupting American society’s culture and governance. Amplified by the last decade's Trumpism, the result has been the devolution of the GOP into today’s purely populist cultural movement, motivated mostly by the emotion-driven resentment, envy, greed, and rage exemplified in Reason's comment sections this and every day).
Indeed, Trump is just the logical end in what I first noticed in the 1980's. So, neither Republican nor Democrat, I accept existing within the boundaries of traditional Western Liberal Democracy, as opposed to its opposite, Trump's Illiberalism.
Married to my only wife for 49 years now, interested not only in my own relatively short remaining life but in the future of my children and grandchildren, I remain by choice and temperament a natural, Western Liberal Conservative, which I define as believing in:
• the importance of institutionalism;
• communitarianism surviving individuals;
• fact-based knowledge & reality-based decision making;
• delayed gratification; and
• humility about what we do not—and perhaps cannot—know.
The farther-left facets of liberalism have always had a problem with the last two of those (sometimes the last three). But every Trump cultist and every member of the Republican Party anointing Trump as its leader, have entirely rejected all five. None retain a rational claim to conservatism. As reflected in the comments today, they're a combination of illiberal, reactionary, and revanchist.
I have some speculative theories of what will happen to the post-Trump Republican Party—primarily, a three-faction split in an entertaining, metaphorically bloody schism fighting it out for the 2008 nomination—but will spare y'all that for now as I have no real idea of which may end up being right.
"(like in 2020, my own state’s Secretary of State, who ensured the accessibility and security of our 100% mail voting system against Trumpist attacks)."
Let me guess. Ga where Fulton county just admitted to 350k illegal votes. So a useful idiot of the uni party.
"1) Decades of ever-increasing evidence that Nixon's 1968 Southern Strategy signaled GoP’s acceptance & Reagan-Gingrich-era pursuit of; and today’s resulting dependence on & catering to, a racist, xenophobic, base."
South didnt flip until the 90s, but you bought the leftist narrative blindly. So a retarded uniparty idiot too.
"2) Demonstrated and growing rejection of science-based/evidence-based decision-making."
Lol!
Imagine pretending to be an independent and then pushing every retarded leftist lie.
My god man. Your post is full of stupidity.
This is my favorite.
"the importance of institutionalism;"
You're a big state leftist.
Ike didnt' let the Israeli lobby run our foreign policy...so yes I'd love to have Ike back. Didn't run deficits and didn't fight globalist banker wars..
"a three-faction split in an entertaining,"
A split is a possibility. The Tories in England in the 19th century split over the issue of Free Trade and Protectionism. And to a lesser extent, the ID politics over the Irish Question. The same sort of issues seem to be dividing the Republicans today.
Oh Steve Steve Steve. Let's get to what is upsetting you. Questioning Zionism and how the Israeli Lobby controls US foreign policy. (2Klb bombs in Gaza is "justified" huh?) Or we could discuss the anti-white media, govt elected officials and academia how so often they are "secular jews" whatever that is. Sorry buddy but the anti white (and again let's be honest that is Irish, Italian, Greek and so on Christians) crap is the corporate media today. 2% of Americans are jews and 20% of Federal Judges are. Now if say Mormons (2%) were 20% of Federal Judges and the majority enforced the Constitution and shut down most Federal Agencies the NYT would be screaming anti Mormon BS. As for "foreign intervention" nope...Reagan told Israel to back off in Lebanon, Ike did the same in 56. Ukraine? Read Scott Horton. the Neocons pushed this war...something about Trotsky losing to Stalin and the Czar was a bad guy I guess. And Israel where Zelensky's wallet ran off to with $100M doesn't have an extradition treaty with anyone. All those jewish pedos (NYT not me) fleed there. Time, we dropped Israel as an ally and removed the lobby from any political power. Stopped all immigration for five years and focused on America First. The bigotry towards white Christians has gone on long enough. The only anti anything is against Euro Americans of Christian faith. And along with ending the Fed, shutting down most of the Federal Govt, ending deficit spending for good. And protecting the Bill of Rights, not the Israeli Cyber billionare on CNBC talking about ending free speech...or Bari Weiss not allowing any criticism of your state...
This reads like Uomo Del Ghacio changed his nym.
LOL it's only been one year Greenhut. Post-Trump wishcasting is fine, I guess, but kind of pointless right now.
Boy, the next three years are going to be tough for you.
This
You think Trump will be alive and in office at the end of this year? The upcoming battle for succession will be a boon for journalists, It's January 2026, and it's already started.
Polymarket has it at 11%, go put your money where your mouth is.
I'm not invested in Trump's demise or removal. Let's say he does make it over the next three years. His decline into doddering dementia is sure to provide us all with plenty of laughs, and we'll all doubtless shed a few tears over the pathetic spectacle. Either way, glory days for the journalists.
The smart move would be RFK Jr. or Tulsi Gabbard.
The JB Society might not have been ideal, but we are ruled by grifting commie-fascists. The government has lurched to the far left for over 100 years while Reason twiddles its thumbs and toots the horns of open borders and government mandated child genital mutilatiin forever, and was wrong about mandates for years. JB wasn't entirely wrong.
Govt. assumes "The Most Dangerous Superstition" and the majority buys it. Why? That's the age-old question, the superstition behind every govt. in recorded history has ruled over common sense, EXCEPT the governments of the American colonies. They assumed the citizen was the sovereign. It was a long journey, starting with the Magna Carta, when the King granted very limited "rights" to his subjects, that was the beginning of the end of "unequal rights", a contradiction. But, still the political paradigm shifts back and forth between universal sovereignty and "unique sovereignty", i.e., between a social ethical code and those with an immunity. For example, "Murder is immoral for me but I can grant an exception for a few". How can I give what I don't have? I believe. It's my superstition, e.g., I just feel it's moral and that's all the proof I need (as long as the consensus is with me)
Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens
Greenhut: DIVERSITAY!
Right: How about a half-Mexican 'alt-right' YouTuber, a S. Californian Son of a Swedish-American Journalist and Ambassador to Seychelles, and a Republican black woman from White Planes, all of whom are sick of your retarded diversity schtick?
Greenhut: NOT THAT KIND OF WHITE-SUPREMACIST DIVERSITAY!
Instead of addressing the rotting elephant in the room, the typical conservative response is something like:
"So you're saying that Biden and the Democrats are better?"
There are essentially two different camps on the right. The warmongering neocons such as Ben Shapiro with a cult like fanaticism and complete subservience to Israel. The other faction is more isolationist, more America First, more anti-war.
The author seems to be in the warmongering camp, seems to accept the myths as fact and is unwilling to question the validity of these myths. This does not mean that every theory questioning the myth narrative is going to be accurate. In fact may of these theories may be wildly wrong and off target, however it's also apparent that there are numerous holes in the official narratives.
True voices like William F. Buckley kept a tight leash on exploration of ideas counter to his personal beliefs. However unlike the author insinuation, this was not a good thing, but rather a heinous act of violating our freedom of speech. With the invention of the internet, more people have the opportunity to express their point of view instead of having no voice and being forced to be silent.
The reality is that the two major parties are fractured and the coalitions of the various factions don't align with the views of anyone other than the most hardcore extremists. I would include the author in this camp.