Only Conservatism Can Sustain Democracy

Kevin Williamson is becoming something of a favorite of mine lately – because he’s so consistently wrong, that it’s rather fun to read him and then go over the ways that he is wrong. It also helps that he’s a splendid writer. Anyways, he’s got a new article in Commentary about Democracy – Liberal or Militant. It is well worth a read. I was going through it and kind of checking off the wrong as I went along, but this passage was the first which seemed worthy of a direct response:

…a more immediately pressing question is whether liberalism can contain democracy—it is mass democracy itself, not jackbooted stormtroopers, that poses the most dangerous threat to freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, property rights, and other fundamentals of citizenship. It is the democratic mob, not an autocratic elite, that demands conformity in life and thought and speech, and brooks no dissent…

The short answer to that is, of course, that liberalism cannot contain democracy. Liberalism is incompatible with democracy. It would take a whole book to write down everything wrong with liberalism, but among liberalism’s many failures is that it is anti-tradition. And tradition is crucial to the success of democracy. A quick bit by Chesterton on this:

But there is one thing that I have never from my youth up been able to understand. I have never been able to understand where people got the idea that democracy was in some way opposed to tradition. It is obvious that tradition is only democracy extended through time. It is trusting to a consensus of common human voices rather than to some isolated or arbitrary record. The man who quotes some German historian against the tradition of the Catholic Church, for instance, is strictly appealing to aristocracy. He is appealing to the superiority of one expert against the awful authority of a mob. It is quite easy to see why a legend is treated, and ought to be treated, more respectfully than a book of history. The legend is generally made by the majority of people in the village, who are sane. The book is generally written by the one man in the village who is mad. Those who urge against tradition that men in the past were ignorant may go and urge it at the Carlton Club, along with the statement that voters in the slums are ignorant. It will not do for us. If we attach great importance to the opinion of ordinary men in great unanimity when we are dealing with daily matters, there is no reason why we should disregard it when we are dealing with history or fable. Tradition may be defined as an extension of the franchise. Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father. I, at any rate, cannot separate the two ideas of democracy and tradition; it seems evident to me that they are the same idea. We will have the dead at our councils. The ancient Greeks voted by stones; these shall vote by tombstones. It is all quite regular and official, for most tombstones, like most ballot papers, are marked with a cross.

You see, it wasn’t the Constitution that preserved our liberties until just recently – it was tradition. Sure, sure: the words were written down and there was even reference made to the words in various laws and court cases. But the fundamental fact of life is that all the written words in the world don’t amount to a hill of beans if people don’t live by them…and they’ll only live by them via tradition. Why was it unthinkable for FDR to seek a third term in 1940? Because Washington had served two terms and then voluntarily stepped down, even though he could easily have obtained another term (indeed, he could have had the office for life, if he wanted). It became tradition – and even some very successful and popular Presidents felt bound by it and refused to run for a third term. Who broke the tradition? An autocratic elitist by the name of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It should be noted that Roosevelt’s vote total dropped by 400,000 from 1936 when he ran for re-election in 1940 – and this when the country, as a whole, was doing much better than it had been in 1936; while the GOP vote total increased by about five and a half million. Seems that some of the regular folks out there just didn’t like this break with tradition.

But, at least there wasn’t a law prohibiting it. So, there was that. But once you start setting aside tradition, then no tradition is safe. Just a few years later, the President of the United States committed us to war in Korea without a Congressional declaration of war. This action would have been unimaginable even ten years previously. It kinda went downhill from there – to Vietnam; to using the FBI to spy on Americans; to vile, little CIA actions around the world; to refusing to enforce laws against subversion and espionage because the party in power would take a big hit from it; to the use of friendly judges to enact into law things which no Congress would ever approve; to the bureaucracy entering into extra-legal agreements with pressure groups to de-facto make law outside of Congressional or judicial action; to, now, parts of the federal bureaucracy attempting to annul the results of a Presidential election because they don’t like the man who won.

None of this was done by popular demand. The crude and rude mob of American democracy wanted none of this. Because the crude and rude American democracy still clings to its traditions. Most of these people can’t put it into words and couldn’t quote Locke if their lives depended on it, but they know that the law is supposed to apply to everyone; that Congress is supposed to make the laws; that judges are to merely interpret the law; that the bureaucracy is supposed to do as it is told, not as it might want to do. The American democracy watched for decades as autocratic elitists twisted our system to their own liking and increasingly refused to even give lip service to the desires of the people. In the end, they voted Trump – someone as rude and crude as they are. And there is Trump – trying mightily to actually make the system work as it is supposed to work. You know: getting Congress to actually pass laws to do things; curbing the courts via the appointment of judges who know their proper place; insisting that the bureaucracy obey orders. And who is pushing back against this? Not the mob of American democracy…but the very autocratic elitists which Williamson thinks a lesser threat than the mob.

Williamson does note some of the outrages going on out there – specifically some of the anti-freedom actions along the lines of people trying to suppress dissenting voices and so forth. But it isn’t the people demanding this. A few thousand carefully organized demonstrators shouting for, say, Exxon to be destroyed in the name of fighting climate change isn’t the American democracy on display. It is what it is: a carefully orchestrated pressure group designed to give the appearance of popular support. It is created, organized and led by autocratic elitists. If you ask the Average Joe out there, you wouldn’t find one in a hundred who wants to punish Exxon…even among those who believe that climate change is real. No, the shouting mobs of zealots represent no one but a few elitists who want various climate change actions taken because such actions will increase their personal power and wealth.

The cure for what ails us isn’t to curb the mob – it is to allow the mob to rule. I know, we’re all supposed to be opposed to that, but I think our kneejerk disdain for the mob is built into us by a century of propaganda by elitists. You, my friends, are the mob – and either you will rule, or the elite will. Pick which one. As for me, I’ll trust myself to the good sense of the sometimes foolish, often ignorant American people…because, in the end, their core desire is that everyone be left alone to live their lives as they see fit. In a fit of anger they may howl for my blood, but once they calm down a bit they’ll leave me be. Meanwhile, the elite is relentless in its pursuing hatreds. For 60 years, for instance, my Christian views have been hounded until we are now very much a post-Christian nation, and yet these elites continue to demand the complete destruction of my Christianity. The very existence of it inflames them…and they’ll never, ever quit.

Liberals of old had some fine things to say – some good ideas, that is. But they were only good ideas when they were the fulfillment of American tradition. It was liberal to extend the franchise to all men and women…but it was only good because it helped to reinforce the Conservative, traditional idea that we will rule ourselves. And here’s something to ponder – some of the very same liberals who were pushing to enfranchise women in the early 20th century were also working diligently to cut the voting public out of decision-making via a strengthened federal government which would manage the country in spite of what the people might want. Think of all the things going on in this country you don’t like – pretty much if you can name the abuse of power, it was an abuse which was imposed on us, via a judge or a bureaucrat, who took no notice of what the people might want…even if the people had clearly stated their desires at the voting booth. It is no real surprise that elements of the bureaucracy are trying to annul an election…it is just a culmination of what has been going on for a century. That is, it is merely the logical end to a government which decided, not too long ago, that it can take your private property and hand it over to another private entity because that entity promised the government more money. A bureaucracy which can get away with things like that is not likely to think that anything is out of bounds for it.

What we need to save freedom in this nation isn’t more laws or more effective expositions of Constitutional theory – what is needed is merely that the government obey the law, and submit to the will of the people in the creation of laws. Sure, the people might come up with some bone-headed ideas from time to time; like Prohibition…but it should also be noted that the people fixed that particular mistake rather rapidly. Meanwhile, gigantic mistakes like the EPA are now pushing 50 years on with no end in sight…and even relatively smaller mistakes like federal funding for Planned Parenthood can’t be spiked no matter how many pro-life Republicans people send to Congress. The mistakes of the people may be fabulous, but they are usually short-lived…while the mistakes of the Elite seem to go on forever.

Let us endeavor to have the people make our own mistakes, rather than having mistakes imposed on them. Let we, the people rule – and we’ll likely rule most often much better than the elites have. After all, no genuinely fascist or communist or Nazi government really rose to full power via the people…Mussolini’s fascists seized power; communists in various nations directly seized power or infiltrated their way into total power; the Nazis got into office via a shabby political deal among the elites (in the last really free election of pre-Nazi Germany, Hitler’s goons only secured 33% of the vote). I’ll trust my fellow Americans, knowing that in the end, they’ll give me a fair deal.

15 thoughts on “Only Conservatism Can Sustain Democracy

  1. Retired Spook April 17, 2018 / 8:20 am

    Great post, Mark. It reminded me of one of my favorite William F. Buckley Jr. quotes:

    I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.

  2. Retired Spook April 17, 2018 / 10:10 am

    I had an interesting discussion with a new member of my local Oath Keepers group at our monthly meeting this past Sunday. We were essentially discussing the theme of your post, and what measures can be taken to either halt this transformation away from a democratic representative republic or at least slow it down. He said his primary concern is that too many generations of Americans have been indoctrinated through our public education system to accept a gradual loss of freedom in exchange for being cared for by the government, that when the generations born between the 30’s and the 60’s are gone, the country will simply default to a collectivist society, disarmed and herded into major metropolitan areas, much like present day China. I’m having a difficult time convincing myself that he’s wrong. The simple fact that what is commonly referred to as The Liberty Movement (Tea Party, Oath Keepers, Three Percenters, state militias, etc.) attracts very few young people would seem to bear his concern out. I saw a quote a while back to the effect that, “if you don’t know what your rights are, you won’t know when you’ve lost them,” and I think that applies to a significant number of Americans younger than 50.

    • M. Noonan April 17, 2018 / 11:24 am

      The kids are definitely propagandized. My niece is definitely going through a full blown Commie phase in college. In her case, I suspect she’ll move out of it as she has the requisite intelligence and, also, once truth is in a person’s mind, it is almost impossible to eradicate. But think of the number of kids who never had any truth, at all…they’ll definitely fall for the propaganda disguised as education. They’ll think they know – and they’ll just mindlessly follow the left unless and until some piece of truth can get in there. This is why, by the way, some push for universal basic income…to ensure that even the most ill-educated, exiting education, can still live even if they don’t have a job…this way, they’ll have a far less chance of a bit of truth getting in there (many is the Progressive hippy who switched conservative as soon as he or she began earning money and paying bills).

      OTOH, I know some youngsters via Twitter who are as determined as anyone to preserve liberty. Still an odd lot of people, to be sure; not what oldsters like us would consider normal, Conservative material…but they are out there fighting the good fight. They are some times wrong out of youthful ignorance, but they are fighting on the right side, for all that.

      • Retired Spook April 17, 2018 / 11:49 am

        The question is, what percentage of Americans, say, teenagers to age 50, have such a strong yearning for freedom and an understanding of what it will take to maintain it, that they would be willing to actually fight and risk their lives for it? In the last 60 years, the number of privately owned firearms in this country has gone from approximately 70 million to around 350 million, and yet the number of households that own firearms is declining, but still around 100 million. I have no idea what percentage of those households keep firearms primarily for hunting as opposed to self defense and a hedge against a tyrannical government. I’m sure there’s a lot of overlap. If the offspring of those families inherit their parents’ views on freedom, then our republic is in good shape. If they turn all the guns in to the government as soon as their parents reach room temperature, then I guess they deserve the kind of society they get.

    • Retired Spook April 17, 2018 / 4:28 pm

      Jeremiah, it looked like we might actually have a war about this time last year, but saner minds prevailed, or, more likely, the minders on the Left told the Millennials that were pushing for revolution that Conservatives have all the guns, and it might not be a good idea to provoke us. Either that or they went underground and/or the media quit reporting on them.

      Unless Conservatives can somehow gain control of the education system, I don’t have much confidence in our republic surviving long-term. I’m just hoping I’ll be long gone when it collapses.

      • Amazona April 17, 2018 / 5:49 pm

        As I get back on my soapbox, you can all sigh and go get a glass of water or something. In the meantime:

        We (conservatives) are meekly sitting on our hands and fretting, without doing anything. We aren’t working to establish a basis of communication with others, allowing the Left to totally control the narrative, and when we do find a squeaky little voice to object it is a loony-tunes like Mark Levin, whose writing is succinct and researched but whose talk show is full of annoying quirks like referring to government workers as “pubic servants”. He may have fun preaching to the choir, but that kind of snottiness isn’t going to attract anyone not already in the fold. We have Hannity, who makes some sense, though both he and Ingraham are more focused on interrupting everyone they talk to with their own perceptions, blanking out any fresh ideas.

        We let the Left define conservatism, only to shake our heads and murmur “huh-uh” under our breaths, while we squabble among ourselves, trying to out-virtue each other on the superiority of our values instead of giving young people something they can get behind without sacrificing their beloved issues. As an example, we didn’t have to come out against gay marriage, just against allowing it to be a federal issue. We had a chance to educate on the 10th Amendment but we were too busy drawing a line in the morality sand. At the state level I would have fought it vigorously, but we let the Left force us into taking a national stand they could then define as intolerant. The Left didn’t get where they are in one huge leap—they nibbled away at the foundations of our society, changing a little here and a little there, and they did it by not coming across as threatening. We can do the same thing—-we can put together a playing field of simple reason, simple logic, based on the logic of the superiority of more localized government control rather than a massive Central Authority, on the reasoning behind limiting the size, scope and power of the federal government, on the history of powerful central governments over the ages and the accompanying erosion of liberty. We can agree to find common ground with people based on things like this, and that we don’t need to agree on issues and values, just on which battlefield they must be fought. We could, and should, appeal on unemotional grounds of reason, so people can meet us there without feeling that they have given up ideas and beliefs that matter to them. But no, we demand that they abandon the emotional issues that they think are important, to agree with us on constitutional government, and then wonder why they turn their backs on us.

        We are so inept, we can’t even address huge, glaring lies when they are told. I have yet to hear a single conservative address the underlying lie of linking the word “white” to the word “nationalist”. We just sit there and take it, while the Left builds on that original little idea they planted by linking those words, till they have an entire edifice of national identity equaling racism. And we have nothing to say. I’m still seeing claims that Donald Trump grabbed a woman by the genitals, bragged about it or said he wanted to do it. The tapes are there, the transcripts are there, he was not talking about himself but about the character of women who make themselves sexually available to men because of their status, but we let it go and then we fuss because so many women have a bad impression of Trump.

        We don’t have a plan, we don’t have a clue. We don’t act, we react, while the Left calls the tune. We have a national party that seems to be anything BUT a national party. We have a president who doesn’t even seem to try to rally Republican legislators to a common cause. The term “herding cats” must have come about after watching Republicans fight with each other about arranging the deck chairs while the Dems were sinking the ship. I’m seeing a little pushback from conservatives who have been shut down by fascists fighting free speech, but they don’t have much of a voice. We let the Left make up labels like alt.right and use them ourselves. We are pretty meek and silent about the fact that Antifa is really a hard-core fascist model. They own the political dictionary, and we meekly use their terms. I still haven’t heard a single voice stand up for Trump’s comment that there were some good people in the marches in Charlottsville, though it is obvious that there had to be some decent, sane people trying to be heard over the noise of the professional haters brought in for the riots. No, the Left says he was defending white supremacists, and the Right cowers in fear.

        Yes, letting the Left take over education was a big mistake. But it happened because of lack of leadership on the Right.

        But I encourage us all to step back from the edge of the cliff and look at what is really going on. The country, in spite of the efforts and successes of the Left, still elected Donald Trump to the presidency. Going back to the election before that, the only reason Obama was elected was because he was black and the race card was so powerful it had people voting against their own self interest just to prove they weren’t racist—without that, the Left lost traction. Since the last election, the Right has had some victories—no coherent voice to explain them to the country, but victories nevertheless. We still haven’t had any national voices talking about the unconstitutional establishment of a de facto fourth branch of government run by political appointees, making laws outside the only legal legislative body in the government, to explain one reason for slashing the sizes of so many federal agencies. I still haven’t heard a national voice talking about the weaponization of federal agencies like the BLM, leading to armed standoffs and the deaths of some Americans and the imprisonment or massive expenses imposed on others, for political reasons. I still haven’t heard a national voice talk about the millions of rounds of ammunition bought by agencies like the Social Security Administration, and the dangers to the Republic of vast agencies like this, again run by political appointees, with vast powers and armament.

        And even so, the Left’s terror is palpable, as we see in the rising notes of hysteria and panic. They are overplaying every card they draw. Seriously, aside from the committed race-baiters and professional victim pimps, does anyone think it reasonable to boycott the entire Starbucks chain because one employee might have offended two black men? Not even the hysterics can think this should reflect on an entire business, especially a business with such a history of supporting Leftist causes, a business whose national CEO has apologized so profusely, about an incident where it seems any blame if blame is to be placed would be on the police officers more than on the Starbucks employee. They go too far. Cory Booker is an enraged lunatic who doesn’t even try to make sense any more. He and Maxine Waters and David Hogg are the new face of the American Left. University students falling to the ground in terror, unable to move because of their panic at knowing someone with a different opinion is actually ON THE SAME CAMPUS, though miles away, only generate scorn and ridicule. Incapacitating terror at seeing a banana peel on a tree, a shoelace on a doorknob, a poster for a speech given miles away, don’t make the Left look appealing or even sane. So let them go. Make fun of them, of course, but let them go. They are their own worst enemies.

        The only people we should care about are the Independents. Forget the Dems. Let them go, let them marinate in their own hatred and stupidity. Some will get tired of it and leave, most won’t. We don’t need them. We need to focus on those who haven’t made a choice yet, and to do that we have to be the sane side, the rational side, the pragmatic side, the calm side that isn’t always screeching and marching and rioting and name-calling. As for education, I think if we push hard enough for vouchers to pull the teeth of the teachers’ unions and diminish their power, common sense will start to rebound. It won’t be fast, but the overtaking of the system took decades and it will take that long to turn it around.

    • Amazona April 17, 2018 / 6:35 pm

      Well, the Left didn’t take over the educational system with lots of !!!!!!! and talk of militias and generals and soldiers and battles. No, they did it incrementally. They slowly eroded the foundations of education, till graduates had no idea what to do with apostrophes and couldn’t identify a verb much less know what to do with it. They gradually eliminated history classes, so the students who graduated and then became teachers didn’t have historical references to compare to current events. They focused the appeal of teaching on the soft-hearted, and also I must admit on the soft-headed—-teaching became a not-very-demanding profession. People didn’t need to be very smart or disciplined to become teachers. They didn’t need to know much about history or math—history was irrelevant and who needs math if they have computers and calculators? We saw a lot of Casper here, a teacher of Boomer age or thereabouts, who is completely ignorant of the history of this nation, believing that the Founders wrote a document intended to support slavery and deny women the vote. And for years he filled his poor students’ heads with this kind of nonsense. Mediocre minds like Casper who could never be successful in any other profession flocked to teaching and made Leftist erosion of educational standards much easier.

      Once a generation had been handicapped by this kind of educational malfeasance, it went on to become parents ignorant of the deficiencies of their childrens’ educations, and from that point on, I’d say mid 70s, the skids were greased. We had the ignorant teaching the uninformed, who went on to be ignorant themselves, and it was self-perpetuating.

      BUT…..wealthier parents sent their children to private schools, or at least to more carefully selected public schools. Some parents objected to the indoctrination and poor education in most public schools and started pushing for charter schools, or doing home schooling. In Jefferson County, Colorado one of the first charter schools was based on going back to the basics of education—-spelling, flash cards, basic mathematical standards and so on. And within weeks it had waiting lists years long.

      I don’t think we are going to make any progress with yelling, with generals and soldiers and warlike rhetoric. I think we will make progress by undermining the public school system by forcing it to be be competitive. That is, by forcing public schools to compete with private and charter schools for tax money, which is accomplished by voting for voucher systems. That is, in a school district like a Washington DC district that spends $12,000 a year per student, a parent could choose to apply that same amount of money to a private school, chosen because of the kind of education it offers. That would mean that a public school would have to start being competitive with the private and charter schools, not being complacent but having to actually teach as well as the other schools. By the time the public schools realize this they will be on the ropes, seriously defunded, and the NEA will be weakened. Why do you think they fight vouchers so hard? In Colorado, two school districts voted in conservative school board members, and by the next election tens and tens of millions of dollars had flooded into these Colorado districts from out of state to defeat the conservatives and return the schools to Liberal control. That tells you how threatened the NEA is by challenges to its power, but I think if they are challenged all over the country they won’t be able to fund such elaborate opposition.

      Demanding merit pay for teachers instead of tenure will go a long way toward reforming the educational system. When a Teacher of the Year is let go in favor of keeping a teacher who is known to be bad but has been in the system longer, this is a model that has to change.

      One of the biggest changes that has to be made has to change across the board, not just in schools, and that is the approach that if “too many” people can’t do something, the something should be made easier, instead of providing the education or training to allow people to succeed. The lowering of standards instead of raising qualifications is a problem in the entire nation, not just the educational system. When the Denver DMV had a policy of not charging to take driver license tests, and let people take the tests over and over again in any given day, they were swamped with people who just went in and kept taking the tests over and over till they passed. Instead of implementing a common sense policy, such as charging $10 or $15 to take a test and only allowing two tries in a day, and then reducing the cost of the actual license so the total of $25.00 would be the same if the person passed the first time, the wizards of Denver politics just lowered the standards for passing the test. So what if more people with less knowledge were suddenly driving? They “solved” the problem, as far as they were concerned. This is how problems are solved these days—-don’t increase training so more people can qualify, just lower the standards.

      Yes, the NEA is destructive but I don’t think it can be defeated in “battles” led by “militias” and “generals”. It needs to be defunded by moving tax dollars to private or non-union schools, it needs to be de-legitimized by pointing out that it is indoctrinating students instead of educating them, it needs to be called out for the poor quality of its education, and it needs to just wither on the vine, as so many other unions are doing. We laugh at the ignorance of young people interviewed by people like Jesse Waters, but no one follows up to point out that they are typical of what we get from our teachers and our schools.

      I’m not sure how anyone can simply “demand” that a labor union by “disbanded”, much less enforce such a demand. It sounds good, till you look at the details. Back up these demands with “force”? Legal force? Or just plain mobs?

    • Amazona April 17, 2018 / 6:50 pm

      Not a lot of things scare me as much as a declaration that the American people and their votes can’t be trusted, and they must have someone take over for them, for their own good. You know, a war—not one to overthrow the government, of course, just one to make sure the right kind of government is in power.
      That kind of rhetoric sounds familiar……..

    • Amazona April 17, 2018 / 7:32 pm

      Got it. The best way to support and defend the Constitution is to violate it by ruling by brute force. Not, as you say, with legal force, but with “blood and treasure”.

      The war against slavery was won by fighting to defend the nation’s sovereignty, to keep it intact as it exercised legal means to fight slavery.

      There was no actual “war against taxation without representation” but a complex war based on many principles, with representation being one of them, and it was fought against a sovereign nation, in a battle to separate from that nation and establish another, which was to be based on certain moral and legal principles. It made sense because the original sovereign nation and the one the rebels wanted to establish were thousands of miles apart and essentially already different countries, in geography and culture. If your argument is that you think a war should be fought against the United States to establish a new and different nation based on certain moral and legal principles, instead of addressing what you feel is wrong within the framework of the nation established by the Founders in that war you reference, say so. After all, you call for “blood and treasure” to be sacrificed, or at least risked, in what you yourself say you think we “need”——a “real revolution”. One with, based on your prior posts, militias, which I take to mean with arms.

      So what, exactly, would you be rebelling against? Clearly against the processes established for Americans to address problems, as you seem to be arguing that those processes are not adequate to achieve whatever it is you want to achieve. So, where would your militias strike first, against what targets, and to achieve what aims? An armed attack on the headquarters of the NEA? I’m a little unclear on what you think is such a noble cause that some special breed of man should arise and take up arms to fight for it, and who he should fight with those arms in his willingness to risk blood and treasure. Because you really sound like you are calling for an armed insurrection against the government of the United States, and I find that to be a distasteful combination of lunacy and treason. And here in this country, when men take up arms and risk blood and treasure to express dissatisfaction with some part of our government or our culture, we tend to think of people like Timothy McVeigh–though he only risked other peoples’ blood and treasure. But I’m sure he thought his was a noble cause. Thankfully, he was a “special breed” of man.

      You’re clearly itching to go shoot someone and claim it was because you are dedicated to a noble cause and because you are a special breed of man, the kind of man who fought for independence from a tyrannical nation. You’ve lurched from getting rid of a union to picking up guns and starting a “real revolution in America”.


    • Amazona April 17, 2018 / 7:36 pm

      ‘…..I don’t want to see America turned into a Stalinist style country! If only more people had guts to stand up!”

      Because the best way to avoid becoming a Stalinist style country is to overthrow those ignorant voters! To have the guts to just stand up and take over!

    • Jeremiah April 17, 2018 / 8:30 pm

      Hitler was creepy, too.

      • Amazona April 17, 2018 / 10:24 pm

        Good. You get it.

  3. Cluster April 17, 2018 / 11:47 am

    Lloyd Marcus wrote a good article speaking to this:

    Since prayer was removed from schools in 1962, out-of-wedlock births for girls 15-19 years old has tripled. Violent crimes have increased tenfold. Single-parent female-headed households have grown from 5 million in 1962 to 12 million and growing.

    Sexually transmitted diseases in kids 10-14 years old has skyrocketed, increasing 257% since 1962. Fifteen-year-olds having sex since 1962 is up 1,000%. For decades, divorce rates were declining. Since 1962, divorce rates have increased 117%, making America number one in the world for divorce.

    • Amazona April 17, 2018 / 6:47 pm

      It has not made America better, but it has helped the Left because the Left is threatened by a strong, moral America and people who love this country and are proud of it. Like the jackals that tear at an animal’s hind legs till it collapses, the Left has been savaging the underpinnings of American life till it is staggering and sometimes feels ready to fall.

Comments are closed.