I started this out with my list of how to topple the current regime in the American Empire but I'll need to save that for tomorrow. When I started my 'road map' to explain some of my terminology for needed coalitions and actions, I found it took WAY more time than I thought, since real American politics is complicated.
Republicans:
Reagan Republicans: These are moderately fiscally conservative, moderately social conservative Republicans who are strong on defense, but who are also capable of compromising with the Democratic party when need be. Many of them now call themselves Independent because they feel their party no longer represents them.[Personally I consider Obama a Reagan Republican, but most Reagan Republicans would beg to disagree.]
Rush Republicans: Radically fiscally conservative and moderately social republicans who speak the language of radically social conservatives. They are the owners of the Right Reality, and dictate its narrative. They control the keys to the kingdom and the infrastructure that allow the Right Reality to function. They are ‘the man’ which all other political factions in the United States would do well to overcome but not without great cost, time and difficulty.
Beck Republicans: Radically fiscally conservative and Radically socially conservative, they invoke Godwin more often than God. These are the foot soldiers in the Rush-Beck alliance. They are the enforcers of the Right Reality. While the Rush republicans might control the narrative, the Beck Republicans enforce it and threaten to vote out the Rush Republicans that do not heed their call.
Rockefeller Republicans: Moderate fiscal and liberal social Republicans, they are a
dying breed. Really, there are none in office, but I still believe there are large populations of them, particularly in the North East. I think many of them now call themselves independent and no longer consider themselves part of the Republican party. I take back my earlier statement…Joe Lieberman might be a good example of a Rockefeller Republican.
Roosevelt Republicans: As in Teddy Roosevelt. Moderate Fiscal and Moderate Social Republicans, they’re also strong on defense but pragmatic enough that they not only get along with Democrats but actively work with them. The primary distinguisher in my opinion between Reagan and Roosevelt Republicans is that Reagan Republicans are moderate enough to be bothered by the current Republican party to detach themselves from it, but still subscribe to the Right Reality whereas Roosevelt Republicans subscribe to the Reality Reality. Meagan McCain is probably the best example of a prominent Roosevelt Republican that I can think of. Ron Paul’s behavior (but not his actual political beliefs) also exemplify this philosophy. John McCain of 2000 would be another excellent example of this. They’re the Republicans I like the most, and wish we had more of.
Democrats
Clinton Democrats: AKA Corporate Dems, AKA Blue Dog dems. Fiscally conservative and moderate socially. The truth of the matter is that they are very milquetoast on social issues and really only care about them to nose ring and control the democratic party. They’re very fiscally conservative and they are in an unholy alliance with the Rush and Beck (and formerly Reagan) Republicans to lock out all other factions. They, more than any other faction, believe in the status quo, and are the token democrats Wall Street billionaires give their money to. They are ‘the pragmatists’ that really don’t believe in anything but tell themselves they do. But they’re scrappy, and they’re fighters. Good examples of Clinton Democrats include the Clintons and Rom Emmanuel. Most of Obama’s cabinet are Clinton Democrats. They are part of the regime all other factions would do well to over throw.
LBJ Democrats: Statists. Moderately conservative, socially very liberal. They are fractured and often largely divided by identity politics, focusing more on their identity than their ideology when it comes to their voting record. They are the most numerous faction in the Democratic party and formerly the enforcers of the Democratic Party narrative. They still have power but are easily distracted and placated by the Clinton Democrats. It is the LBJ Democrats that let the Clinton Democrats retain power, but the resentment in LBJ democrats is slowly building but still easily exploited.
Roosevelt Democrats: Liberal economically and liberal socially. They are ideologists. These are Progressives, and they know how to fight. They understand the power of narrative and they were the previous creators of the narrative of the Democratic Party but were horribly weakened by the Carter/Kennedy fight in 1980, and have been out of power ever since. Howard Dean, Joe Biden, Senator Franken, Senator Gillibrand, and Alan Grayson are an example of this faction. They’re honestly the ones that I want in charge of the Democratic Party and while they are still slowly building an infrastructure to counter the Clinton Democrats, I don’t think most of them REALLY understand what it is that they’re up against. They are also extremely loyal to the Democratic Party.
Kucinich Democrats: Very liberal economically and very liberal socially. These are the guys who were to the left of Roosevelt even when the democrats dominated everything. These are the guys who would actually be considered the Left in much of the world, particularly in Europe. They don’t give up, they don’t give in. They compromise when they must but only reluctantly. Sometimes they go too far, and sometimes they’re responsible for the crazy that is associated with and discredits the entire left as narrated by the Right Reality, but I admire them, for no other reason than they have the strongest conviction of any political faction and they drive the Beck Republicans apoplectic. They are not tied to the Democratic Party at all even though they often vote Democratic. They are also the most likely faction to truly split and form their own party.
Archie Bunker Democrats: I can’t really call these Reagan Democrats because I respect Reagan too much for that. They used to be Yellow Dog democrats, but that term is also old fashioned at this point because they’re all over the country. Unionists. Working men, but also guys who largely believe in a world gone by. They don’t like where the Democratic Party has gone and frequently vote for the Republicans. They’re generally moderately conservative and socially liberal, but because of their beliefs easily exploited by Rush Republicans into believing that the Clinton Democrats are working against their interests. This is actually the truth but its not like the Rush Republicans are a better alternative. They’re just better at selling the message.
Independents
There are so many factions of independents that trying to name them all is functionally impossible, but I’m going to give it a try.
Ron Paul Libertarians: Look, the fact of the matter is while many of them camp out in the Republican Party, they’re really libertarians. Socially moderate and fiscally conservative, they have honor, principals and yet some beliefs that quite frankly I don’t agree with. But I can agree to disagree with them. I think the thing that sets Ron Paul Libertarians apart the most is that they are strict constitutionalists. Unfortunately, the other thing that sets Ron Paul Libertarians apart the most is that they are one of the two independent factions that are most likely to subscribe to the Right Reality, even if many of them are Worldwalkers (capable of understanding or viewing the Reality Reality). This means that it can be very difficult for other factions of independents or democrats to build a coalition with them.
Nolan Libertarians: Socially moderate to liberal and fiscally moderate but weird. They are what I might call ‘libertarian libertarians’ in that they are one of the hardest factions to characterize that still actually have a coherent ideology. They subscribe to much of the views of Heinlein and the saner parts of Randian philosophy. I think the other major difference between them and the Ron Paul libertarians is that they want little or nothing to do with the Republican party and they are more driven by the Reality Reality, though they are slowly being coopted into the Right Reality by the recent usurpation of the Cato institute by Rush sleeper agents.
Nader Greens: Very liberal socially and very liberal economically. They have a lot of really interesting ideas. There is often a close alliance between the Kucinich Democrats and the Nader Greens, but the primary difference between the two is that Nader Greens are pretty much OVER voting for the Democratic Party at this point. I can’t say I blame them, but then again, they weren’t even willing to form a coalition to defeat Bush in 2004.
Anarchists: Really, I can’t put a name to anarchists, because each one is his own island. And I can’t say they’re liberal or conservative socially or economically. They are a faction unto themselves but they do, at the least have an ideology and vote or don’t vote as they see fit. But they by and large DON’T do coalitions.
Conan Independents: Like Anarchists, there are as many philosophies in this camp as there are people so naming someone as their leader is difficult so I choose Conan. No, not the guy with show, the guy with the sword. They wander the land and fight for causes they feel are just, sometimes wisely, sometimes foolishly but they are informed, they choose their issues and their stands on them independent from each other, walk between the Right Reality and the Reality Reality at will, form coalitions as they need to and yet still retain their independence. I admire them for it and consider them the most American of American factions. They are, however, still sometimes deceived.
Snowflakes: Ill-informed independents or just people who don’t give a damn or who consider themselves above it all. This is the largest faction of independents. They don’t form coalitions but they will often vote for whoever has the winning tide or the incumbent. They have no ideology except their own comfort and occasionally that of their friends. Snowflakes do not form coalitions.
Wiggams: Everything is great. Everything is fine. I like ice cream. I will vote for someone because they have good hair. Because they have a nice voice. Because they are the incumbent. Wiggams are too clueless to have an indentity but are very gregarious and wander in among many factions pretending to be members of that faction and probably even firmly believing that they are. They don’t have an ideology so much as a particular direction that they’re going at the time.
Roadkills: The middle of the road faction that moves to the middle of the road based on the Narrative provided by the Left and the Right. No matter what the situation, they will listen to both sides and plant themselves firmly in the middle. They are the second most popular faction among Independents and unlike Snowflakes, they will almost always vote. These guys are the reasons many people go nuts in polls trying to understand why neither the Left nor the Right has any dominance. They form coalitions but are more like chaff in the wind. They are neither admirable nor interesting but they are, however, easily exploitable, and anyone interested in overturning the Rush/Beck/Clinton regime would do well to cater to their instincts, which of course means seizing the Narrative.
No comments:
Post a Comment