RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2024/11/10/the-progressive-movement-is-finished/

It was a wild ride. Imagine defunding the police, or insisting that a man can become a woman, that our very existence is killing Planet Earth, that driving an electric car is proof of your goodness, or that anyone having traditional American values is a racist bigot. Just imagine.

The Progressive movement has taken various forms over the past 60 years but it was always rooted in revolution. “Revolution against what?” you might ask. To paraphrase the great Thomas Sowell, it is a revolution against everything that works and in favor of what sounds good today. Open borders, transgenderism, “renewable” energy, white supremacy—these are just a sampling of the radicalism on full display that has proven to be an abject failure among the U.S. population.

It failed because it was all based on lies. When your entire platform is centered around lies, eventually people become wise to it. We are at that moment.

To understand why the Progressive movement has failed, one only needs to look at the Kamala Harris campaign for president in 2024. At its core, the campaign had entirely too many flaws and a boatload of dishonesty for it to be pulled off.

A big flaw was the candidate herself, an empty pantsuit that brought absolutely nothing to her own campaign except inane word salads, repeating memorized narratives, and proving to be incapable of articulating a single substantive idea for running the country. Showmanship is an important aspect of a political campaign, and Harris was lousy at putting on a show.

But the real reason why voters are rejecting Harris was the avalanche of lies. An avalanche of lies that the enablers in the mainstream media were all too happy to parrot.

Democrats expected voters to sign up for a campaign that was deceitfully hollow, counting on the insanely dishonest notion that the last four years did not happen (never mind what you experienced) and that this was a “new way forward.” A new way forward to where? Unprecedented inflation not seen in 60 years? A southern border that is as porous as a sieve. An economy that has many Americans feeling left behind.

Legitimate questions on policy specifics that seem to have veered wildly from day to day were met with a dumbfounding “My values have not changed.” What is that supposed to mean?

https://amgreatness.com/2024/11/10/the-aftermath-trumps-victory-sparks-media-outrage-and-national-introspection/

What a difference a week makes.

Last week, I reiterated the prediction I had been making since at least July: the polls were wrong. Kamala Harris was going to lose, and Donald Trump would win by a landslide. His campaign, I said, would be like George Patton’s Third Army racing across France in 1944.

All that elicited a certain amount of scoffing, of varying degrees of politeness, from the commentariat and assorted grumblers.  The actual results of the election—the biggest victory since Reagan’s blowout in 1984—seem to have precipitated the “national mental health crisis” that Mark Halperin forecast in October. As James Piereson has noted, the response of many commentators has been to blame the voters.  How could they vote for a man they had identified as evil, an incipient dictator, a fascist, the reincarnation of Hitler who would trample on the Constitution, etc.?

Thus we have The New Yorker’s Susan Glasser, who declared that Trump’s election “is a disastrous revelation about what the United States really is, as opposed to the country that so many hoped that it could be.” The people are sorry they could not rise to your level of smugness, Sue!

Peter “Mr. Moralism” Wehner weighed in with a similar threnody: “This election was a CAT scan on the American people,” he wrote, “and as difficult as it is to say, as hard as it is to name, what it revealed, at least in part, is a frightening affinity for a man of borderless corruption. Donald Trump is no longer an aberration; he is normative.” How could we have disappointed you, Pete?

And then there is the genius loci of NeverTrump agitation, William Kristol, the former conservative. Writing at The Bulwark, Kristol thundered that “The American people have made a disastrous choice. And they have done so decisively, and with their eyes wide open. . . . After everything . . . the American people liked what they saw [in Trump]. At a minimum, they were willing to accept what they saw.” Oh, those awful American people.

One of the most amusing, if inadvertently amusing, eructations came from The New York Times, which put together a histrionic video in which a series of discredited Timesmen (and Timeswomen) somberly hold forth about how “extreme” and nasty the next Trump administration is likely to be: dictatorship, camps for ideological enemies, economic recession, etc., etc. As one commentator observed, it’s as if “Jonestown had recorded a final video.”

There was a fair amount of that infantilized insanity wherever the fetid pools of wokeness oozed.  Thus we had Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, incubator of future diplomats and policymakers, advising their tender charges that “Coloring and Mindfulness Exercises,” “Milk and Cookies,” and “Legos and Coloring” were on offer to offset the trauma of Trump’s victory.

https://amgreatness.com/2024/11/09/the-election-common-sense-democrats-and-the-long-march/

Not long before Tuesday’s election, Ruy Teixeira, a Democratic political scientist and commentator, predicted that, regardless of the outcome of the election, the contemporary progressive movement was dead. Harris, he intimated, could still win the election, but the dominant force in Democratic politics for the last two decades was done. Voters had clearly and unambiguously voiced their distaste for the four pillars of contemporary progressivism: open borders/mass immigration, lax law enforcement/social disorder, identity politics, and the war on fossil fuels. As Teixeira astutely noted, the electorate simply isn’t buying what the progressives are selling.

Teixeira, it should be noted, is not alone in his concerns about and disapproval of the contemporary progressive agenda and its alienating effect on average voters. In the few days since Donald Trump handily defeated Kamala Harris, a handful of prominent Democrats have condemned their party’s polarizing platform and have echoed Teixeira’s denunciation of the progressives’ stubbornness. For example, Matt Yglesias, a longtime left-wing journalist and political commentator, posted a short “common sense” Democratic platform to restore the party’s following, overtly rejecting the entirety of the progressive plan. Like Teixeira, Yglesias slammed the progressives’ obsessions with climate, race, and anti-social behavior in particular.

Based on what we all saw the other night—the most improbable political comeback in American history and a realignment of the electorate—it is clear that both Teixeira and Yglesias are right. The progressive movement has enfeebled the Democratic Party and made it unappealing to a majority of voters. In order to stave off long-term minority-party status, Democrats must move on from contemporary progressivism and must realign themselves with the needs and wants of their traditional voters. The party must change.

There’s only one problem—and it reminds me of the old joke:

Q: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?

A: Only one, but the light bulb really has to want to change.

Teixeira, Yglesias, James Carville, and a host of other Democrats are inarguably correct about the state of their party, the malign influences on it, and the necessity of change. The problem is that the party has to want to change first, which is not as easy as it sounds. Indeed, there are several very important reasons why the Democratic Party will not change—why it cannot change.

The most obvious and overpowering of these is the capture of the institutions.