Politics in America
Part 17: Parties, Subcultures, and Structures (Conclusion)
by Robert L. Kocher
Why Don’t People Vote?
Instead of discussion of these and other issues by political candidates we get evasion and nauseating conspiracy which enables the problems. Any need or demand for representation of reality is betrayed. There is little resolution for which to vote.
Another reason is very simple. By design or accident the major political parties have driven off the American people while both major political parties attempt to satisfy left-wing hacks and TV virtual reality, instead of appealing to the millions of people who have become so disgusted as to be repelled from voting.
A large part of this is the result of poll-based presidential and other politics. Campaigns and strategies are being run based on previous or most-likely voters. There is an inherent flaw in this that alienates voters.
This can be explained beginning with research on testing theory I did in the early to mid 60s. This may be a little tricky to follow.
In the early-mid 60s I took a course from a psychology professor. He did an analysis of examination questions on his mid-term and final examinations and found some questions either had no correlation with student grades on the overall examination, or correct answers to some questions correlated negatively with the overall grade on the examination. In other words, there were questions on the examination that were answered correctly by students who gave incorrect answers on many of the other questions in the examination.
His view was that such questions were invalid predictors of the final grades on the examination and the course. As such, he deleted them from subsequent examinations to leave only those questions and examination subjects that correlated with success in the course or high examination grades. This “predictive validity” approach sounds like a good argument for test construction—until you investigate it.
Being a questioning and rather troublesome student at the time, I did a personal study. I got one of the other professors to give me the multiple choice final exams from one of his advanced courses. I encoded the exam answers and scores onto IBM cards and ran them through an old IBM 101 statistical machine, which was a primitive pre-computer that had to be hard-wire programmed from the back to control, sort, and analyze data.
I found some very interesting and disturbing things. The correct answers to examination questions followed patterns or clusters. That is, groups of people who answered one question correctly tended to answer a whole series of other questions correctly, call them type X questions while also answering another series of questions, call them type Y questions, incorrectly. Conversely, people who would answer type Y questions correctly would tend to do poorly on type X questions. There were smaller W and Z clusters in the exam answers.
I tried to correlate the X and Y questions with different chapters in the text used in the course to see if the clusters were due to people who had read some chapters but not read others, but came up with no correlation. Apparently the clusters correlated with some undefined personality characteristics in students such that type X questions were compatible with type X people while type Y questions were compatible with type Y people.
How to Bias Tests
After having examined the data it became apparent that I could take the existing questions from the exam, and probably from most other examinations at the university, all of which were valid questions, delete all the X type questions, then produce a subsequent exam where Y people would get straight As while the X people in the class would get Cs or below. On the other hand, if I put only type X questions on the exam, the type X people would become certified as brilliant scholars while the Y people would do poorly. As an aside, what constitutes knowledge and academic success is arbitrary and artificial.
What the first professor was doing, probably without considering it, was biasing his exams for or against X or Y people. When he first started giving examinations, by happenstance he had a predominant number of X type people in his class or X questions on this examination. In deleting questions that did not solidly correlate with selecting the group who initially got the highest grades, he subsequently artificially suppressed the scores of the other major group(s). Who were the Xs, Ys, Ws, or whatever were unknown to me and probably to him.
A few years later when I was in a doctoral program, I approached my professors with my old data and brought up the possibility that type X professors with type X personalities might be prone to put predominantly type X questions on examinations with the result of selecting favoring type X students. If so, depending upon the prevalence of personality types in a department, academic freedom was a myth. It would be easy to investigate with MMPI or CPI profiles and political profiles on students and professors being cross-correlated with scrutiny of student examinations for clusters. In return for this speculation I was rewarded with looks of fear from my liberal professors the likes of which I have not seen since watching newsreels of panicked jungle natives desperately escaping the eruption of a large volcano. This was followed by the stern warning, in rarefied language, to keep such goddamned ideas to myself if I wanted to remain at the department.
My investigations told me that if I can analyze a college examination after the first time it is given, I can then devise subsequent examinations to rig the tests and award As or stick poorer grades on various groups of students at will by selecting among and using entirely valid test questions.
So what does this have to do with anything? In our political life our politicians, pollsters, and handlers examine the decreasing number of most likely voters, the people who voted last time, or whatever, more than half of whom are the crackpots who inflicted the nation with the Clintons, to see what worked last time and what these people want to inflict on us this time. This political selection process is selecting out halfwits for the voting pool and halfwitted poll-dependent candidates to appeal to them. Meanwhile, at the present time more than 50 percent of the American people are over in the corner in a state of nausea instead of voting on election day because they are disgusted and insulted and nothing going on relates to, or represents, them. The politicians then declare themselves solid winners while fewer and fewer serious sane people show up at the polls because there is nothing offered for them to vote for.
To get an idea of how the process works, let’s see who voted for the Clintons. Sitting before me is a Sunday November 17, 1996 Washington Post piece in a series titled “Unconventional Wisdom, New facts and hot stats from the social sciences,” by Richard Morin. Part of the piece describes “The Lunkhead Vote.” In a survey of voters taken immediately after the 1996 election by, again, the Washington Post, Harvard University and the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, voters were asked to identify the positions held by Dole and Clinton on twelve different issues. “Among those who accurately knew the candidates’ positions, Dole beat Clinton 47 percent to 42 percent. But Clinton trounced Dole, 53 percent to 33 percent among voters who were most misinformed about the two candidates’ positions—a veritable lunkhead landslide.”
In my unkind and unbiased opinion, the people who understood what Clinton obviously was, but still voted for him, were more severely defective than those who somehow couldn’t recognize him for what he was but voted for him, only it was a different type of mental malfunction.
Now, where does this get us? George W. Bush is glowingly described in articles as reaching out to Democrats, meaning the predominantly mentally distorted or retarded who voted for the Clintons, to incorporate them into a big Republican win. This is hailed as a brilliant and profound political move. But the only way he can do that is by compromising reality and betraying anyone with integrity. Meanwhile, the tens of millions of people comprising the 51 percent who didn’t vote, the 50,000,000 people who registered but didn’t vote, and the additional millions of people who were willing to register to vote for Perot receive no consideration at all, leaving the polling and the direction of the campaigning oriented toward satisfying a grim concoction of meatballs. There’s no attempt to represent serious people and no place for them to go. That isn’t so brilliant from the standpoint of long term survival of the nation. It is among these tens of millions of people who are concerned enough to register to vote, but are too disgusted to do so on election day, where the real political opportunity lies. This is the opportunity Perot showed existed. It never occurs to the dim-witted Bush this is where he should be going or that if people wanted to reach out to the Democrats they would have voted for the Democrats instead of staying home in disgust or voting for Perot.
However, reaching out to the disgusted takes courage and thought.
Bringing Lunkheads Together
The recent new glittering buzz-phrase is “bringing us together.” It is reminiscent of some sort of quasi-hippie love-in from liberal churches or the so-called civil rights movement. But bringing us together with repulsive people who want to enslave me in social servitude to them, and with whom I want no association and who I don’t want affecting my life or political environment is not what I and tens of millions of others want or need. I don’t want any association or compromise with degenerates and crazies, or lunkheads, or people tolerant or supportive of what has been going on in the White House in recent years. What needs to be done is reach out to the 50,000,000 rightfully disgusted registered non-voters who are waiting for a message of serious integrity. Instead, the Republicans are alienating more people and adding to the number of disgusted political dropouts.
It is indicative that polls of potential voters indicate such voters believe it will make little difference which candidate wins.
For my own part, there are millions of people in this world who are intractable chronic aggressive burdens and impositions upon me during any periods of personal contact or influence. “Bringing us together” is not an idealistic goal, but, rather, a threat and a further destructive imposition. I choose my friends and associates, they don’t choose me. And I don’t want political agitators or kooks either choosing them for me or demanding to be chosen. I am in accordance with the Amish principle of “Go ye from among them and be ye separate.”
So our major party political candidates and political process confine themselves primarily as to what the remaining people not too nauseated to vote want, after having driven off increasing proportions of people who aren’t half-nuts, radicalized, lacking integrity, compromised, or incompetent.
And George W. Bush. is reaching out to Democrats to build his own lunkhead landslide with their lunkheads. If he can act brain-dead to build up mutual rapport, then shift to the political left while a great proportion of the American electorate is immobilized and distanced from any alternatives, he may be able to do it.
In the present American political structure there is an increasingly greater proportion of non-people who have no representation and do not vote because of lack of committed serious defined representation of their views, or lack of representation of reality. George W. Bush is not bringing us together, but splitting people off and pushing them away into non-person gulags of further alienation and disenfranchisement. Their lack of a voice, their lack of representation, and their lack of a forum is then called peace and unanimity. Bringing people together in unanimity is a ridiculously contorted mis-statement meaning excluding increasing majorities of the American population so that they will not be able to intrude into the political process or in the personal ambitions or ideologies of a small group that wants to run the America and maybe the world.
(In all sincerity, I doubt that Bush is either calculating enough or evil enough to do this consciously or intentionally. He appears to be a pleasant person who has been placed into a position out of his depth or level of development on the basis of family name, and who is wandering aimlessly or is dependent upon advisors. Such considerations seem beyond his capacity, commitment, or temperament. However, blamelessness due to personal incapacity does not change the consequences. We have come to the awful point in history where it’s time to begin telling people, even if it ruins their day, or ruins their life, that they haven’t the qualifications or ability to be president. Additionally, some elite family lines should be told to find something other than politics with which to busy themselves, fill their lives, and obscure their uselessness. The list includes, but is not limited to, the Gores, the Bentsens, the Robb/Johnsons, the Kennedys, the Cuomos, and the Bushs.)
For the radical left all this is like dying and going to heaven. At the present rate and trends, in another 20 years candidates will be scrambling for that 35 percent of the population which will consist dominantly of the worst case people voting their leftist media-guided and protected character disorders, incompetence, other mental problems, and life styles—while the remainder of the population will be for practical purposes politically disenfranchised and without a voice, presuming there are any people remaining who have not been taken over by the resulting cultural environment. As more people are driven off, it leaves radicals and kooks a disproportionate leverage and powerful force in choice of government. The left will be uncontested for control of America.
A License for Pathology
Those not sentenced to non-person gulags will be people who can be bought, not necessarily bought just with money, but bought with support and validation of behavior, pathological conditions, and attitudes that shouldn’t be validated. Elections will become, and are becoming, auctions selling licenses for pathology and the involuntary servitude of others. Politicians will be relieved of needing to think or face issues. All they will need to do is promise more from other people’s confiscated lives.
For practical purposes, the left is already in nearly uncontested control of America. There are events and direction in America, ranging from the lunatic antics in the White House to the equally lunatic American-aided build-up of hostile communist countries that is pushed through with concocted staged support on TV with little unstaged sane discussion and only token opposition.
I keep asking myself, Who are these goofs and what is this madness? I never had a chance to vote for any of this or against any of this. I never had a chance to vote for political claims to be for any of this, or against any of this. It was impossible to get candidates to talk about any of it before the election.
Fucking Jew Bastards
In recent weeks America has been treated to a Republican convention that consisted of an inter-racial, inter-religious, inter-sexual-orientation, intercultural dog-and-pony show. Then, in the poker game of irrelevant politics, Al Gore called Bush’s Hispanics bet and raised the bet by one Jew, which is somewhat of a good idea since Hillary Clinton has shown occasional propensity to employ the term “fucking Jew bastards” in moments of personal splendor when cameras are not present, and there is some need for fence-mending.
But meanwhile, back in the serious real world, if anybody still bothers to keep track of it or believe it has any importance, the communist Chinese are on a program of strategic technological and industrial acquisition with American help so as to allow them to compensate for the deficiencies of communism while they simultaneously test nuclear bombs and missiles. North Korea is testing missiles. China is exporting bomb components to hostile or lunatic countries. According to both the Rand corporation and the CIA, Iraq and Iran are expected to have long range missiles and nuclear warheads within 15 years. There are serious present domestic economic issues and serious future domestic economic problems on the horizon. There are serious domestic issues regarding domestic rights and ideological direction. One third of American children are born out of wedlock. And so on. There is no indication of realistic awareness, analysis, or commitment regarding any of it. There is no committed declared policy to vote for or against. Instead, what I hear is George W. Bush has a nephew who looks like a Latin movie star.
A major political strategy, often attributed to an explanation by Richard Nixon, is to campaign in the political center, then move to the right after being elected. The idea of such political deception did not originate with Nixon. It is transparently a widespread practice. As a more general principle, campaign in the middle, then change to the left or right after being elected depending upon your personal beliefs or what best serves your ambitions.
But even that is crude. The mark of the astute demagogue is to be as evasively cryptic as the Oracle of Delphi while simultaneously convincing through eye-winking vague hints to every group of people that they alone have the real inside track as to what he really means and intends, while it’s only those other dumb bastards who are the ones being deceived. Most people are born self-impressed by their own intelligence and are willing to believe it.
The Insulting Farce of Campaign 2000
In recent months I have watched presidential campaigns based on as little hard content, on as much evasion, and on as much ambiguity, as well as on some inconsistency depending which group the candidate is facing, as any I have ever seen. Much of it has been dominated by endless accusations of, “He called me a nasty name.” “No, he called me a name first.” “His nasty name was worse than my nasty name and the nasty name I called him was the truth.” “He’s running an unfair negative campaign.” “No, my opponent is running a more negative campaign than I am and he started it first.” This is supposed to pass for content. The 2000 campaign is the most dishonest insulting political farce since the Kennedy campaign in 1960.
The evasion and lack of substance impelled the feared and exasperated Alan Keyes, who had the distinction of being the only adult remaining in the presidential contest in either the Republican or Democrat parties, to ask if he could interrupt the evasion to introduce some substance into the debate.
I am told by various candidate supporters that they are giving me the inside track and correct interpretation on what their candidate believes or intends. Um hum. Are the people telling me this only dummies that have been deceived and now have become missionaries proselytizing their deceived state, or are they prime source political confidence men who think I’m one of the dummies that are to be misled? How do I know I’m the one not the one being mislead instead of those other guys? If the candidate has no conscience about misleading them, why should I suspect he has any conscience against misleading me?
One thing is certain, in running in the middle, wherever that is momentarily in its speeding travel leftward, with the intent to shift God-knows-where after the election, the candidate and campaign are beginning with serious dishonesty, beginning with lack of integrity, and should not be trusted. That means the people have nothing solid to vote for and there is no reason to bother going to the polls.
This contentless evasion and deception is how America ends up with Trojan horses in office with no accountability, and have no alternatives as to what to vote for. As little as possible is said to be accountable for. It’s also how America ends up with lunkheads in office because contentlessness is an equal opportunity occupation in which mental deficiency does not confer disqualification from participation —and in fact may even be a distinct advantage in that it contributes an impressive visibly relaxed comfort level, an image of sincerity, and even an air of supreme self-confidence, during the reigning constipation of thought and sense of reality. It is becoming increasingly difficult to separate contentless evasion and deception from genuine easily-leftist-subverted abysmal stupidity —or sometimes to even know if one is seeing the worst of both worlds. Regardless, the result is the election of bombs who are vulnerable to leftist fashions and who detonate in random directions after entering office without identification beforehand, making voting useless or impossible.
How do we regain control of our lives and political lives? How do we rid ourselves of the clowns or incompetents or surprise packages with bombs inside?
The first step is to start with the real issues.
Some of the most serious issues in American politics have been discussed here and in previous installments.
What is the most important and yet unspoken issue in America?
George Washington said tyranny is “most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.”
Believe it. That’s a real issue and the wisest of observations that should be written over the entrance to every schoolhouse in the world. The statement is headed in the right direction, but even it does not go far enough.
Alan Keyes made an observation similar to Washington’s in a timely manner speaking before the Home Educators association of Virginia on June 16, 1995. Among other things he said, “—We thought we could disregard the sense that there does in fact have to be a sense of discipline and self government that goes hand-in-hand with freedom and liberty. We thought we could do without it… But we can’t.”
Prisons and mental institutions are rightly inhabited by people who are destructive to others, destructive to themselves, or otherwise incapable of functioning day to day in a free environment. Human freedom can only exist to the extent that people are not destructive to others, are not destructive to themselves, or are willing and/or capable of functioning responsibly in their daily lives. In the case where large portions of a population are destructive to others or unwilling to function responsibly but wish to conscript other members of society into servitude to those conditions through exercise of democracy, three courses of action remain. The first is to convert society into a large combined prison and mental institution. And indeed modern liberalism/socialism has become a subsidized mental disorder theme park for people demanding to enjoy various forms of militantly adopted psychopathology and immaturity. The second course of action is government by madness. The third is armed revolution between people determined to divorce themselves from servitude to degenerate social systems and those other people determined to keep them in a state of servitude to such systems.
Presently, America is in a condition of government by social madness, with a president groping high school girls in the Oval Office then running around in circles masturbating like an inbred idiot monarch in the last days of a disintegrating decadent empire, with an apparently mentally malfunctioning vice president who seems brain dead during times when he is not living in a child’s toy world where he can claim to have invented the Internet or make other ludicrous statements characteristic of a distorted internal unreality—and a frighteningly detached Republican presidential candidate with a blank look who lacks awareness and passion regarding the state and seriousness of the American condition.
It is a hard fact that many among the aging hippie generation, and now many among younger generations to whom the countercultural torch has been passed through programming by liberalism combined with a soft non-functional developmental environment, must give up their absolute hatred and rejection of adulthood and adult responsibilities. They must get over their resentment over the requirement to eventually leave the spoiled teenage, or at best the spoiled college sophomore’s, world. Such necessity is now looked upon as intolerable oppression that corrupt liberalism/socialism can be engineered to avoid. But, fulfilling the basic requirements of adulthood is not oppression. And socialistic avoidance of maturity is a constructed illusion that both contains and obscures the real threat of oppression and tyranny.
The economic consequences of rejecting adulthood can be temporarily covered by forced economic redistribution. But meanwhile the wholesale destruction of personal lives due to that same self-centered immaturity continues and eats into the strength of society like termites eat into the foundation of a building. The soft environment and escape from adult maturity enabled by the first, contributes to an environment that creates emboldened assertion and confidence of avoidance of adulthood that produces the second. In the end, it’s all the same thing, isn’t it?
Crusade for Sanity
What do I want? I want a basically sane society where someone who lives a serious responsible disciplined sane life has a good chance at leading a decent life with a decent economic standard of living. Any society that provides that provides most of what any society or government can, and should, provide. That existed in America at one time and tens of millions of people immigrated in to find personal prosperity and build an economic condition that was the envy of the world. But they did it living lives of sane self discipline, not as self-absorbed soft spoiled brats. There was a time when people in America, or coming to America, were looking for opportunity. In recent decades far too many people are not looking for opportunity, but are instead afraid they will find it if it requires seriousness, if it requires effort, or if it means interference with demands for self-centered lives of ease following irresponsible impulses and amusements.
In the event a proportion of people act like spoiled brats, other people are not to be conscripted into servitude so that they may remain spoiled brats. AIDS problems, sex life problems, marital problems, and so forth are of people’s own devising and should be individually lived with accordingly on the basis of assumption of risk when engaging in pertinent forms of behavior.
I want other people’s lives and problems kept separate from my life.
I am not owned by any other person, group of persons, or society. We supposedly did away with ownership of people many years ago with the Emancipation Proclamation. I am not to be treated as somebody’s, or society’s, runaway mule to be hunted down and harnessed to pull the wagon of problems and follies other people create for themselves.
In recent years there has been entirely too much presumption of authority by politicians, by ideological theoreticians, and by other people that assumes members of society are to be handled and forced into servitude to narcississtic political ambitions or social plans. Indeed, America has become afflicted with waves of spoiled self-centered aggressive mentalities who are would-be kings and queens presuming the right of intellectual and ideological royal tyrants to take uncontested control over people’s lives and use them as playthings or docile slaves to do their bidding in creating the societies they design, impose, and want to rule. This is what is so frightening and threatening about Hillary Clinton. She operates on the presumption of entitlement to supersede the constitution, the rights of others, the truth, or anything else for her own purposes, without respect for other people, without introspection, or without conscience. Her second distinguishing characteristic is that she is part of an exponentially expanding parasitic subculture of people who produce nothing, but have a choke-hold on America.
If children suffer because adults having them are spoiled brats, the children are not to be used as blackmail. The absolute first order of business is honest and open identification of the problem as people being irresponsible spoiled brats. The second order of business is for them to cease acting like irresponsible spoiled brats. It is not the task of society to reorder itself into a social system where people may remain spoiled brats. It is not permissible to force other people into social servitude so that some may remain spoiled brats, regardless of how large a proportion of people want to become or remain spoiled brats. And so it is with many other societal difficulties.
To mention any of this is, as my grandfather used to say, pretty strong tobacco. But it must be explained seriously and accurately on the national political stage if America is to survive. Any political candidate who does not subscribe to, who can not, or does not, venture such explanation is not only useless, but is actively subversive in the sense of assuring the present course of disintegration is to flourish unquestioned and uncontested.
The Bush Illusion
This is the major real issue in American politics. Anything else is far behind in second place. Some of the above reasons are why I should not, and can not, support George W. Bush for president. He’s a pleasant man who has not prepared himself rigorously for the presidency. He exhibits both a distaste and incapacity for incisive confrontation of that which must be confronted. George Bush isn’t going to change anything. He may modify it for his own purposes, if he even has a purpose. But his estrangement from real issues, his limitations, silence, and ineptitude alone make him a dangerous part of the system. That makes him a political killer. Gore is a corrupt and immature personality that is unfit for anything but a delinquent child’s world. It isn’t much of a choice.
Perot had the right idea. There desperately needed to be a major national reform party. Unfortunately, Perot’s movement was formed in too short a period to be comprehensive and viable. The Reform Party was a hastily constructed organization in response to a national political disaster. With Perot’s disgusted withdrawal from politics the reform party is dissolving into fractured eccentric cacophony.
A new political party and political movement must be organized around some of the statements read here, around the original intent and interpretation of the American constitution, and around the moral and intellectual discipline of the mind that both created the document and allowed a free society to be lived. The movement should be organized and operated parallel to the Mormon church. There should be a comprehensive philosophy/ideology and a comprehensive non-evasive binding political platform representing it. There should be a board of governors to exercise quality control over candidates seeking office during primaries to make certain they are committed to the platform. No candidate should be allowed to enter the party primary or otherwise run for office on the party slate without undergoing thorough examination by the board of governors. The equivalent of missionaries should be circulating throughout the country searching for the best articulate minds and leadership capacity. What is required is an entire political party made up of united serious solid well-adjusted articulate teachers with integrity who can present a case comprehensively and in detail to the American people.
The New Religion: Authoritarian Liberalism
America needs a unified caliber of minds that can break the hold the new religion has upon the American people. For many years in world history, and in the history of portions of America, people were beaten down and programmed into hysterical irrational guilt by ignorant warped religious fanatics. People who were susceptible to such thinking were little more than frightened neurotics or psychotics immobilized from acknowledging any of their own thoughts that deviated from warped classical religion when it was contrary to reality. The new religion is the rote authoritarian liberalism pounded in over TV and other portions of the media that inculcates such blind guilt among the suggestible that they are self-forbidden to question the degree of its irrationality, or the social deterioration resulting from it, or the meaningless oppressed condition of their own lives, even in their most private moments. American people live in a condition of constant panic in fear that they don’t think they way the new religion tells them to think, or that they don’t feel the way the new religion tells them to feel. This needs to be confronted.
At the present time such a movement should be able to attract 40 percent of the Republican party and 20 percent of the Democratic party. Strategically, it should be possible to partially gut substantial portions of the Republican and Democratic parties, leaving them collapsing shells. For practical purposes the Democrats have been running candidates who are half nuts or warped for at least the last 35 years. With exception of Reagan, who suffered opposition from the elite boys club in his own party, the Republicans are in a condition of such flaccid irrelevance that not even the fact that the Democrats are half nuts is any longer capable of saving the Republicans. The Republicans and Democrats should be combined, if they so choose, in response to the movement threat. They are converging anyway.
Substantial numbers of voters can be gained from restored representation to many among the disenfranchised in the 51 percent who are not voting, although it would be foolish to believe all of them are brilliant saints. Specifically, there should be representation of many among the 50,000,000 people who registered to vote in 1996, but were repelled from voting.
Rather than disenfranchising in the name of domestic and political peace, there must be open polarization and confrontation to restore franchisement rather than suppression and disenfranchisement of those who disagree with what’s being fed them. The bringing together of people in unity has in fact been slow strangulation of those who disagree with the tenets of liberalism to produce a deceptive silence.
There are geographically subcultural areas of the country that must be considered presently too diseased to be allowed influence of alteration or blurring of the movement platform. One among several principle difficulties in the Republican party is the problem of rich powerful figures in places such as the People’s Republic of Massachusetts who want to play at their political ambitions but find no openings in the Democratic Party or find it socially inferior. They become Republicans and fight to impose leftist agenda demanded in such geographical areas upon the Republican party so they may attain or continue in office. They opposed Reagan. They sided with the Clintons. Although it is possible to run token candidates and present a presidential slate in such areas, the realization should be that there is little chance of success in such states and that any sense of rationality or responsibility would need to be gutted from any political party or movement in order to appeal to them.
Such a movement could be put together in a mature form with a complete slate of candidates presented to the public in 2004 if work were started in 2000 with a nucleus of personnel. The clinker is that it would cost about $85,000,000 to start and develop it.
If it isn’t done, the political left along with the swarm of clowns that arise out of the present system each election to disenfranchise American people are going to destroy the America and convert it into an authoritarian left-wing swill where each is licensed, even encouraged, to live in a state of irresponsibility and degeneracy supported by enforced servitude of others through the intermediary of government. And it will then be thus throughout the planet. When America falls, there will be no one left to oppose forced socialism, and the technology of political population control will be so advanced and unified as to eradicate all real opposition.
The next authoritarian system is apt to be world wide and hence without possible resources or support from outside its boundaries to aid in its overthrow. There will be no boundaries.
I am not attempting to run for president.