“…someone who prizes honest and precise language, who loves to parse words and use them clearly and correctly…”
You are undoubtedly describing many other Conservatives as well but this is the opposite of the Left, who are masters at manipulating and misrepresenting the meaning of words to advance their agenda in dishonest ways. Think “gender affirming care”.
That’s why their objections to Trump based on the precision of his language is so disingenuous. This is really about the Left’s monopoly on controlling the language and the narrative. Their objections to Trump and his supporters on technical grounds is pure friend/enemy distinction, and nothing to do with the merits of his assertion.
The Left/Dem/Prog's use or misuse of language is so profound that last year I purchased an Oxford English Dictionary, Unabridged. All 13 volumes and appendices. So I could fact check them. Only to realize that truth doesn't matter to them. It's a startlingly successful tactic used by people suffering from Antisocial Personality Disorder. I know because I've had the opportunity to provide treatment for them along with Borderline Personality Disorder. And others. Many call this the "Cluster B" problem.
This is what happens when a culture doesn't have worry about food, shelter and safety. You don't see this level of crazy in third world countries like you see in first world countries.
I think you make a valid point. Humans have always been challenged to survive and thrive. Now that we live at such a basic level of comfort in which there’s little material challenge it seems we are making new problems to solve. The Cluster B diagnosis is something I’ve heard before. Do you follow Josh Slocum at the Disaffected Newsletter? He is all about that issue.
Friend/enemy distinction is a feature of both left and right today. We have a broken political system and for reasons I have written in my direct response, electing Trump is not the solution
Sherry, if your "why" is "why is Trump not the solution?" my long response directly to the original post I think covers the ground. The shorthand version is because he is not an authentic human being working to care for others. His rhetorical "strategy" pointed out by Leah is calculated only to get himself elected because he demonstrably only cares about "winning," power (because that's the evidence of winning) and adulation. Like the salesman he is, he is manipulating our natural human proclivities to fear folks who are different than us or from a different tribe without any concern for how that causes real harm to innocents. We are given choices like this Trump/Harris election because the two party system has devolved to the point where a very small minority of the most rabid partisans (on both sides) effectively decide who the candidates are (partisan primaries in gerrymandered districts). Neither Trump nor Harris will be a happy outcome for the majority of voters which only portends another 4 years of division and strife - and at some point, if we don't reform it, it will end in large scale violence.
Dave, I honestly don't see Trump as in it solely for himself. I think he's a bombastic egoist when he has an audience, and I think he's a salesman at heart, but I think he is genuinely concerned about the country and moved by the fears of many people. The way you've painted Trump in your comments strikes me as the caricature the media is deeply invested in, and I freely admit he gives them PLENTY of material in soundbites. But I don't think his character is driven by narcissism so much as by certainty that he can do the job that needs doing. I am heartened by who he has surrounded himself with: RFK Jr. (my original choice for president), JD Vance (my hope for 2028), Tulsi Gabbard, Elon Musk, Dr. Casey and Calley Means...all extremely intelligent, courageous, and committed people who I believe have America's best interests at heart. If he was a tyrannical narcissist I don't think he would be able to attract that kind of talent and integrity to support his ticket at such close range.
Thanks, Leah - I just think there's too much evidence to ignore. If Trump is elected, I hope your optimism is rewarded, but my expectations are that he will govern very poorly. I had that opinion of him before he ran for president. I agree that the caricatures have been extreme, but the heart of the assessment is deserved.
I'm curious if you feel he governed very poorly the first time? He actually was far more of a stable leader than I had expected him to be, especially internationally, and governed with far more conservatism than I anticipated. I think a second term, with this new inner circle rather than the Uniparty players, will be game changing.
So what do you suggest as an alternative to the two party system. I agree with Leah Rose about Trump. He’s bombastic, yes. But I do believe that most of his talking point policies are sincere beliefs that they will help the Country. As for power hungry, anyone that far up in politics is hungry for power and most politicians are narcissistic and power hungry. Most are corrupt. I think we need to find a way to control the corruption we already have.
A significant project in my retirement is advocating for election reform as the first, critical step to correcting the system. The problem we are solving is that our elected officials are beholden only to the small minority of very partisan voters who vote in their primary (in more than 80% of the districts, the primary winner of the dominant party will easily win the general election, thanks to gerrymandered districts).
These most-partisan voters are also the folks happier to see the whole thing burn than to compromise their principles. Their representatives are rewarded for demonizing the other side as "evil," rejecting any proposal from the other side out-of-hand, offering alternative proposals that are equally unfeasible in the political reality, and refusing to sort out "best doable" improvement in this moment (which is the real work of politics). Reps who try to solve problems via the necessity of compromising are "primaried" out the next cycle.
These dynamics are a result of the devolution of the primary system (which was a reform of the "smoke-filled back rooms"), obstacles the two parties colluded to put in place to avoid other competition (party privileges in legislative houses for example), and the concentration of power and money (partly a problem of campaign finance).
The best solution devised thus far is to eliminate partisan primaries and have a single primary with all qualifying candidates. Ideally, the top 4-5 vote-getters in that primary go to the general election so that there are quality choices. Because there are multiple quality choices, it is necessary to do something other than "most votes wins" in the general election. Otherwise, a candidate viewed as very undesirable by a large majority of voters might win. There are multiple ways to solve this problem and the first suggestion has been ranked choice voting. This is fine (there are other good options, too), but the parties have gone overboard in attempting to taint the idea of RCV with the public.
The experience in Alaska using this system has demonstrated an outstanding result with respect to their state legislature. Reps know they will be rewarded for participating in bi-partisan work that actually makes progress on the state's priorities. "Majority Rules" is a documentary that tells that story.
Some form of what I have just described is on the ballot in 9 states and DC this cycle (this includes the effort to repeal the reform in Alaska - ginned up by the state Republican party). Both parties generally oppose the reform (because it reduces the power of the party wing that has taken control), but the dominant party in any given state will be most forceful in its opposition.
While a viable third party could arise within this system, it is as likely that candidates within the two parties will be more moderate and interested in governing and will continue to be dominant.
I think the Alaska repeal effort is due to the real world effect of ranked choice, which definitely sounds like a fabulous solution on paper but in reality gives a huge advantage to democrats in election outcomes as many of the Republican base (often older or non-college educated) end up confused by the process and don't actually use the ranking system to vote.
I've also heard that opening the primaries is likely to end up with a situation like California has, where voters end up with two democrats running for an office and no republican on the ballot. So even though it seems like these are good solutions for fostering bipartisan efforts but it seems the actual effect is to diminish real choice for voters.
I'd like to see ballot initiatives in every state making it easier for third party candidates to get on state ballots, access campaign finance coffers, and be included on the debate stage with the major party candidates.
He didn’t stack the court. He appointed them as spots opened up. Did you think the court was stacked in the left’s favor all those years when Democrats had the majority all those years (think the Warren Court)? Presidential immunity was a long honored by both sides until this administration weaponized the system against Trump and other conservatives and Christians. The party that says burning Minneapolis was a peaceful protest and demanding the right to peaceful protest (while blocking roads and highways) for everyone except conservatives. Elderly woman are arrested for silently protesting abortion clinics.
Dude you knocked it out of the park! I hung on every word and desperately want to send this to every Trump hating lefty I know--and you know who I'm talking about! I think you found your vein of gold.
And--regarding the opening of this masterpiece, these blogs make us very little money--for now. Write for YOU. The readers will come. And if you can't do that write to the one person you know would lap it up. Which is me, haha! Seriously thinking from the result backwards stops creativity in its tracks. I've had that bait and switch fear as well as my own Substack morphs and grows. But in the end, to write anything of value, in a sea of bullshit, just write that thing that demands to be written. And you'll know what that is when your fingers start flying. I'll be restacking it right the hell now. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Remember when you said to me "you're the wind beneath my wings"? Well, back atcha, sister. Your honest and courageous writing lifts me up and helps me find my own honesty and courage. So grateful to have your voice urging me onward. Thank you for being such a reliable fan and cheerleader. And for restacking! Boy howdy, has that been a boost!🙏🚀 🙏
Thanks, Brian! And thanks for the reminder—I've been meaning to listen to that Halperin interview. One can certainly imagine how his prediction might play out. I did read JD's book back when it was hot off the press—well, listened to it. He narrates the audiobook and I found it truly a gripping story. I haven't seen the movie but I've liked him ever since the book. I am so thrilled at the thought he could become the winning candidate in 2028!
Excellent work on everything truly & this ⤵️⤵️⤵️⤵️⤵️
Bingo ‼️🇺🇸‼️🇺🇸‼️🇺🇸🙏
“ All of which brings me to the most telling—and likely consequential—difference I see between Trump and his opponents: his instinctive trust in the intelligence and decency of everyday Americans, versus their obvious distrust. The True Believers of the postmodern Left have for so long preached that only their own vision of humanity is the humane and righteous one, that love and compassion are properly definable only by their own radical values, that they regard anyone who does not bend a knee at their cultural altars to be unworthy of their confidence or respect—a likely bigot, a probable deplorable. Unfortunately for them, those unwashed masses may well prove to be the larger swath of the electorate.”
Absolutely did resonate 💯 & I’d love to make use of portions if you are ok with that- by use I mean on my own & other forums on substack - that type of thing. I would absolutely source it to you. Great job!
The largest swath of the electorate are now Independents who believe both parties have left sanity aside. Until and unless we correct the excesses caused by allowing the small minority of the most radical partisans effectively elect our representatives (more than 80% of the House is elected in "safe primaries" due to gerrymandering, etc.) we are on the path to dissolution. Trump will accelerate that, but there are no guarantees you'll like what's on the other side.
You're welcome, Faith. There are 9 states and DC with ballot measures touching on the reforms needed to our election system. If you live in DC, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Colorado, Oregon, or South Dakota, you have the opportunity to vote FOR initiatives that will move this forward. If you live in Alaska or Missouri, there are initiatives to retract or avoid such reforms (Alaska led the way with a solid reform 4 years ago and the political power in the state is rearing up to tear it down). I am hoping voters in those two states will reject those initiatives.
Outstanding post on so many levels. When trump came down the now famous golden escalator in 2015 American politics were quite different than they are today. The Democrat party had strong support among "working people" and the GOP were caricatured as rich bankers and elitists who wore funny looking pants at private golf clubs. Trump tapped into what I believe is the defining issue of our time and the border makes understanding that issue very very simple. The issue is national sovereignty. A sovereign nation cannot have am open border. A sovereign nation has the right to preserve its institutions and history and character and its values. Even before trump descended down to the lobby the Democrats were opening the border and if one was paying attention making clear that they were on the global Obama-Clinton train where American sovereignty mattered less than global institutions ( UN ,WHO, ICC , various NGOs and global summits such as the world economic forum) and the prevailing belief that America was not exceptional was made quite clear. Trump began to turn that train around but let us recall that Hillary lost in 2016 more than trump won. Our open border has become a sieve since Jan 20 2021 and the Democrats have gone all in on that issue and the make over of the Democrat party as the party of elitists is complete. Maybe Kamala wins by playing the identity politics card. Maybe she doesn't. But even if Trump wins this battle is far from over. Became the Dems control the media and the schools and colleges and they now have the deepest pockets when it comes to big wealth. They won't be moving to Canada or new Zealand and they will double down their efforts to influence young minds though the educational system and social media. Martha Radditz and her ilk are here for the long run .
Thank you! You've summed up the state of things quite neatly. As you suggest, there's a lot of fighting left to do if we want sanity to prevail. My deepest hope is that the excesses of the Left will continue to wake its followers up, one heart and mind at a time. We've sure come a long way in that regard since 2016, or even 2020. Praying the trend continues.
An alternative perspective is that Trump has no respect for our institutions to the extent that they interfere with his personal crusade for "winning" and adulation.
Good analysis. Trump is a salesman, he hypes things up to make a point. The left points to hype and calls it lies, and the credulous cannot distinguish between the two.
Once again, you very thoughtfully brought me to a realization that I have been struggling with for a long time; why do they hate him so much?
Any time I've ever asked someone that question, it's always the same answer. He's some form of -ist, a dictator, or something else just as bad.
I usually follow up with a request for specifics, which almost always leads to angry dismissal.
I, for one, am done with polished orators and politicians. Have been for some time. The more polished, the more I suspect snake oil.
To that point, I am excited about the prospect of Elon, who is not a very polished speaker either, would head up an agency, solely dedicated to government efficiency.
Thanks, Bryan! Tbh, I have some reservations about Elon and his flirtation with transhumanism (Neurolink, etc.). But in the moment we're in I am nothing but thankful for his vision of what needs doing to save America from falling to authoritarians. May his mind and his money continue to help us forward.
Well done, Leah!! What a fantastic post on so many levels. Your writing, as always, is outstanding, and your insights are right on target. I recently talked with a friend whose son, a real left wing guy, lives near Aurora. He and his family are petrified of the Venezuelan gangs and have even seen them carrying rifles in cars down their streets, and they had a friend raped in her garage by one. They are considering moving… odd, though, they apparently will still support Kamala. The disconnect must be intentional… they are, btw, also very supportive of their 9 year old son who is not sure if he’s a boy or girl. I could go on. The point is that you have it right… current Democrats can’t see the forest for the trees because of their disdain for Trump and for all of us stupid conservatives. The arrogance is appalling. Keep up the good work, Leah!! 👍
Thank you, Ellen—I always appreciate your support and feedback. That is really an amazing (and disturbing) story about your friend's son. The power of propaganda is scary! But it's comforting to consider how many people have been waking up from its spell since 2020— shows the power of truth is strong enough to restore the sight of the blinded. Let's keep praying for those miracles.
Totally agree but the mental illnesses that pervades the progressive movement has deeper tendencies. The post modern Left has lost all perspective on their own awful history. The progressives of 100 years ago were at the forefront of the Eugenics movement as they are today w genital surgery for minors. They proclaim some lofty ideal of racial awareness yet are the leaders is blatantly racist D.E.I. policies. They claim to be the outspoken champions of women’s rights yet think men can be pregnant and biological men can compete in women’s sports.
Yes, I think the mind-bending logic of today's Progressivism stems from its mid/late 20th century adoption of postmodern deconstructionist theory. That same early impulse to micromanage nature and people has now been paired with transhumanism and its godless, denaturing outlook, and so here we are, faced with navigating and trying to awaken out of a brutal, soul-corroding nightmare.
I can’t stand listening to him either, despite being a supporter since June 2018 (yes, I know exactly when I gave up denial as a political stance). I’ve always been a policy guy, so the aesthetics don’t matter.
However, this year I started seeing videos of him just riffing with normal people. He’s a totally normal guy. I know a guy just like him, minus the billions. He’s universally loved by everyone who knows him. He is loyal and gives his time to help everyone, he’s just fun, and he often offends people. Just like Trump.
People need to reframe their expectations from fakery to what really matters.
Re your comment that Trump is a sales & marketing guy: Greg Gutfeld made a great point--that people don't understand Trump is in real estate, and real estate people are given to crazy exaggerations: "Comfy gem of a corner unit with ocean view!" is actually a 60 sq ft walkup with a view of the bay if you're standing on a chair in just the right spot. He exaggerates and is full of hyperbole, but he isn't flat-out lying (although we certainly feel lied to when the real estate agent shows us the apartment!). "Only a handful of apartment buildings," after all.
Stories like this always make me curious what Trump actually said, because despite theoretically taking him literally, his detractors are often quite careful to not actually quote him, in full, in context, when they can spread malicious misinterpretations instead. So I went looking for the original quote and couldn't find more than two or three words at a time in quotation marks in any of the hostile articles, so they clearly had to edit heavily to make him sound crazy. Here's the most complete quote I've found on the subject, apparently from his visit there:
"Kamala has imported an army of illegal alien gang members and migrant criminals from the dungeons of the third world … and she has had them resettled beautifully into your community to pray upon innocent American citizens,” Trump said. “And no place is it more evident than right here, because in Aurora, multiple apartment complexes have been taken over by the savage Venezuela prison gang known as Tren de Aragua.”
Maybe this is a toned down version from days later after the initial "exaggeration", I couldn't get timestamps, but he's pretty clearly speaking factually in the latter part, and even if so, that would give him a much better track record than most of the hostile press in regards to correcting himself after his initial reports were exaggerated.
Did he initially claim that gangs were "taking over the city"? Maybe. Did he call it an "invasion"? Maybe. Even as a military man myself, I don't find those words to be an unreasonable description of a hostile foreign power having seized territory instead the city and currently working to expand their foothold from there. A truly literal reading of those words does not require that a foreign military have staged an infantry assault on City Hall, despite that seeming to be the image his detractors have in mind. A foreign power unlawfully crossing your border is an invasion. The gangs did that. Said foreign power assuming sovereignty over territory within your borders in violation of your own laws, the gangs did that too. Yet the story is basically "the gangs have only STARTED to take over the city, it's just a few complexes so far, it's not like it's the WHOLE city yet"...as if the exact percentage of the city conquest progress bar is the more salient point than journalists not asking why foreign gangs of illegal aliens are being allowed to control ANY part of an American city.
It's actually kinda funny to me, because we've seen this rhetorical tactic so often and from so many nominally unconnected media outlets: some thing ordinary people won't like gets mentioned by a Republican, the story the mainstream press run on it isn't actually about the "thing ordinary people won't like", it's laser focused on how "Republicans pounced/seized/weaponized/etc" that inconvenient thing AGAINST Democrats. If they aren't outright attempting to deny the facts (which they often are), they trivialize them (only a handful), because what REALLY matters to them is how outraged they think we all ought to be that someone DARED point out that they or one of their favored demographics did anything wrong. Don't we KNOW that Democracy is at stake and the only way to save it from the Orange Bad Man is to all pretend that the Emperor is wearing the finest clothes!?
Apparently not. Maybe the intelligentsia has gotten so used to believing that everything is "socially constructed" that they genuinely think "controlling the narrative" is all it takes, that "perception is reality". No, reality is reality. Their reality checks have come due and bounced because they are lacking sense.
Thank you so much for putting so much clarity out here to be shared. You’ve helped me to be less of a hold-my-nose-while-I-vote-for-him American. I do find his words offensive at times but you’re correct to remind us that it is indeed the thought that counts, as opposed to the other side that uses all the right words with no honest thought behind them.
And thank you Michael D. for pointing out the hypocrisy of “the Left’s monopoly on controlling the language and the narrative” while being unable to define simple words like ‘woman’.
Paul, don't let the culture war tail of politics wag the larger dog. Most of the culture war issues are sideshows largely ginned up by hyper partisans on both sides. The issue is how do we revive the system so that our representatives actually do the hard work of debating the serious issues and working out the best feasible solution in this moment.
It's true that this is a "hold your nose" election. That is all our current political system (closed primaries, gerrymandered districts, unfettered campaign finance) is going to give us going forward. So, the question for this election is which path is likelier to allow for real reform to take root (the grassroots movements have great momentum) and create change with the least risk of total chaos and large-scale violence.
Haven’t read you before but Wow! Excellent excellent observations and framework.
The point you made about Raditz especially struck me: her absolute ZERO concern for the hell unleashed by violent gangs on those people unlucky enough to live where the gangs are running the show. But those folks are just losers I guess.
Thought experiment: Try to imagine Raditz saying that only a handful of rapes were committed. Or even less likely, that only a handful of a minority group’s members were lynched.
Thanks Sheryl—glad my piece crossed your path. Concern for the victims, and their utterly needless suffering—if authorities were properly doing their jobs—should be the obvious, humane take on the situation for everyone, even the Raddatzes of the world. Astounding that it's not.
We know too the reality. This was not a high end condo community. I would bet it was low end, minorities, single Moms, who were under gang control. This wasn’t doctors and professionals living in a complex. If it were it would have been dealt with.
That’s exactly the type of apartment complex it was . Bought a few years ago, underwent a lot of renovations, tenants returned, primarily lower and middle class, the few tenants that I saw who were willing to be on camera were minorities.
“…someone who prizes honest and precise language, who loves to parse words and use them clearly and correctly…”
You are undoubtedly describing many other Conservatives as well but this is the opposite of the Left, who are masters at manipulating and misrepresenting the meaning of words to advance their agenda in dishonest ways. Think “gender affirming care”.
That’s why their objections to Trump based on the precision of his language is so disingenuous. This is really about the Left’s monopoly on controlling the language and the narrative. Their objections to Trump and his supporters on technical grounds is pure friend/enemy distinction, and nothing to do with the merits of his assertion.
The Left/Dem/Prog's use or misuse of language is so profound that last year I purchased an Oxford English Dictionary, Unabridged. All 13 volumes and appendices. So I could fact check them. Only to realize that truth doesn't matter to them. It's a startlingly successful tactic used by people suffering from Antisocial Personality Disorder. I know because I've had the opportunity to provide treatment for them along with Borderline Personality Disorder. And others. Many call this the "Cluster B" problem.
This is what happens when a culture doesn't have worry about food, shelter and safety. You don't see this level of crazy in third world countries like you see in first world countries.
Just my simple opinion. I could be wrong.
I think you make a valid point. Humans have always been challenged to survive and thrive. Now that we live at such a basic level of comfort in which there’s little material challenge it seems we are making new problems to solve. The Cluster B diagnosis is something I’ve heard before. Do you follow Josh Slocum at the Disaffected Newsletter? He is all about that issue.
Yes I do. Another fellow Vermonter.
That's a fantastic point, Michael. Thanks for sharing it. I think you're spot on.
Friend/enemy distinction is a feature of both left and right today. We have a broken political system and for reasons I have written in my direct response, electing Trump is not the solution
Why?
Sherry, if your "why" is "why is Trump not the solution?" my long response directly to the original post I think covers the ground. The shorthand version is because he is not an authentic human being working to care for others. His rhetorical "strategy" pointed out by Leah is calculated only to get himself elected because he demonstrably only cares about "winning," power (because that's the evidence of winning) and adulation. Like the salesman he is, he is manipulating our natural human proclivities to fear folks who are different than us or from a different tribe without any concern for how that causes real harm to innocents. We are given choices like this Trump/Harris election because the two party system has devolved to the point where a very small minority of the most rabid partisans (on both sides) effectively decide who the candidates are (partisan primaries in gerrymandered districts). Neither Trump nor Harris will be a happy outcome for the majority of voters which only portends another 4 years of division and strife - and at some point, if we don't reform it, it will end in large scale violence.
Dave, I honestly don't see Trump as in it solely for himself. I think he's a bombastic egoist when he has an audience, and I think he's a salesman at heart, but I think he is genuinely concerned about the country and moved by the fears of many people. The way you've painted Trump in your comments strikes me as the caricature the media is deeply invested in, and I freely admit he gives them PLENTY of material in soundbites. But I don't think his character is driven by narcissism so much as by certainty that he can do the job that needs doing. I am heartened by who he has surrounded himself with: RFK Jr. (my original choice for president), JD Vance (my hope for 2028), Tulsi Gabbard, Elon Musk, Dr. Casey and Calley Means...all extremely intelligent, courageous, and committed people who I believe have America's best interests at heart. If he was a tyrannical narcissist I don't think he would be able to attract that kind of talent and integrity to support his ticket at such close range.
Thanks, Leah - I just think there's too much evidence to ignore. If Trump is elected, I hope your optimism is rewarded, but my expectations are that he will govern very poorly. I had that opinion of him before he ran for president. I agree that the caricatures have been extreme, but the heart of the assessment is deserved.
I'm curious if you feel he governed very poorly the first time? He actually was far more of a stable leader than I had expected him to be, especially internationally, and governed with far more conservatism than I anticipated. I think a second term, with this new inner circle rather than the Uniparty players, will be game changing.
So what do you suggest as an alternative to the two party system. I agree with Leah Rose about Trump. He’s bombastic, yes. But I do believe that most of his talking point policies are sincere beliefs that they will help the Country. As for power hungry, anyone that far up in politics is hungry for power and most politicians are narcissistic and power hungry. Most are corrupt. I think we need to find a way to control the corruption we already have.
A significant project in my retirement is advocating for election reform as the first, critical step to correcting the system. The problem we are solving is that our elected officials are beholden only to the small minority of very partisan voters who vote in their primary (in more than 80% of the districts, the primary winner of the dominant party will easily win the general election, thanks to gerrymandered districts).
These most-partisan voters are also the folks happier to see the whole thing burn than to compromise their principles. Their representatives are rewarded for demonizing the other side as "evil," rejecting any proposal from the other side out-of-hand, offering alternative proposals that are equally unfeasible in the political reality, and refusing to sort out "best doable" improvement in this moment (which is the real work of politics). Reps who try to solve problems via the necessity of compromising are "primaried" out the next cycle.
These dynamics are a result of the devolution of the primary system (which was a reform of the "smoke-filled back rooms"), obstacles the two parties colluded to put in place to avoid other competition (party privileges in legislative houses for example), and the concentration of power and money (partly a problem of campaign finance).
The best solution devised thus far is to eliminate partisan primaries and have a single primary with all qualifying candidates. Ideally, the top 4-5 vote-getters in that primary go to the general election so that there are quality choices. Because there are multiple quality choices, it is necessary to do something other than "most votes wins" in the general election. Otherwise, a candidate viewed as very undesirable by a large majority of voters might win. There are multiple ways to solve this problem and the first suggestion has been ranked choice voting. This is fine (there are other good options, too), but the parties have gone overboard in attempting to taint the idea of RCV with the public.
The experience in Alaska using this system has demonstrated an outstanding result with respect to their state legislature. Reps know they will be rewarded for participating in bi-partisan work that actually makes progress on the state's priorities. "Majority Rules" is a documentary that tells that story.
Some form of what I have just described is on the ballot in 9 states and DC this cycle (this includes the effort to repeal the reform in Alaska - ginned up by the state Republican party). Both parties generally oppose the reform (because it reduces the power of the party wing that has taken control), but the dominant party in any given state will be most forceful in its opposition.
While a viable third party could arise within this system, it is as likely that candidates within the two parties will be more moderate and interested in governing and will continue to be dominant.
I think the Alaska repeal effort is due to the real world effect of ranked choice, which definitely sounds like a fabulous solution on paper but in reality gives a huge advantage to democrats in election outcomes as many of the Republican base (often older or non-college educated) end up confused by the process and don't actually use the ranking system to vote.
I've also heard that opening the primaries is likely to end up with a situation like California has, where voters end up with two democrats running for an office and no republican on the ballot. So even though it seems like these are good solutions for fostering bipartisan efforts but it seems the actual effect is to diminish real choice for voters.
I'd like to see ballot initiatives in every state making it easier for third party candidates to get on state ballots, access campaign finance coffers, and be included on the debate stage with the major party candidates.
I agree with much of your diagnosis, but how do you force the two major parties to reform a system that they both benefit from and control?
He didn’t stack the court. He appointed them as spots opened up. Did you think the court was stacked in the left’s favor all those years when Democrats had the majority all those years (think the Warren Court)? Presidential immunity was a long honored by both sides until this administration weaponized the system against Trump and other conservatives and Christians. The party that says burning Minneapolis was a peaceful protest and demanding the right to peaceful protest (while blocking roads and highways) for everyone except conservatives. Elderly woman are arrested for silently protesting abortion clinics.
Indeed. Ditto what Danny said.
Dude you knocked it out of the park! I hung on every word and desperately want to send this to every Trump hating lefty I know--and you know who I'm talking about! I think you found your vein of gold.
And--regarding the opening of this masterpiece, these blogs make us very little money--for now. Write for YOU. The readers will come. And if you can't do that write to the one person you know would lap it up. Which is me, haha! Seriously thinking from the result backwards stops creativity in its tracks. I've had that bait and switch fear as well as my own Substack morphs and grows. But in the end, to write anything of value, in a sea of bullshit, just write that thing that demands to be written. And you'll know what that is when your fingers start flying. I'll be restacking it right the hell now. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Remember when you said to me "you're the wind beneath my wings"? Well, back atcha, sister. Your honest and courageous writing lifts me up and helps me find my own honesty and courage. So grateful to have your voice urging me onward. Thank you for being such a reliable fan and cheerleader. And for restacking! Boy howdy, has that been a boost!🙏🚀 🙏
I have just stumbled upon this a few minutes ago but I can absolutely say “count me in, write to me too!”
Happy to add you to the list. 😆
Great analysis.
I like the way you took apart the opposition’s framing of Trump.
As a first impression, a viewer must get past their hate for Trump, to even listen to him.
Once past that, your essay fits in well.
That is to say, many will not even listen to him at this point.
Why ?
The media.
Mark Halperin was interviewed by Tucker recently and was asked:
What happens if Trump wins ?
Halperin’s response: it will be the cause of the greatest mental health crisis in the history of the USA.
Seriously.
Also, JD Vance.
Please read his book.
The movie missed the plot.
It made “addiction” the focus of the movie rather than the author of the book, JD Vance.
In the book JD, in a very humble manner, focused on his challenges and successes.
The military, Ohio State, Yale Law School.
He is an extremely smart and capable man and his debate performance and recent interviews prove this.
Thanks, Brian! And thanks for the reminder—I've been meaning to listen to that Halperin interview. One can certainly imagine how his prediction might play out. I did read JD's book back when it was hot off the press—well, listened to it. He narrates the audiobook and I found it truly a gripping story. I haven't seen the movie but I've liked him ever since the book. I am so thrilled at the thought he could become the winning candidate in 2028!
The Halperin interview is excellent.
He really is connected and presents the political landscape brilliantly.
🤩 WOW 🤩
Excellent work on everything truly & this ⤵️⤵️⤵️⤵️⤵️
Bingo ‼️🇺🇸‼️🇺🇸‼️🇺🇸🙏
“ All of which brings me to the most telling—and likely consequential—difference I see between Trump and his opponents: his instinctive trust in the intelligence and decency of everyday Americans, versus their obvious distrust. The True Believers of the postmodern Left have for so long preached that only their own vision of humanity is the humane and righteous one, that love and compassion are properly definable only by their own radical values, that they regard anyone who does not bend a knee at their cultural altars to be unworthy of their confidence or respect—a likely bigot, a probable deplorable. Unfortunately for them, those unwashed masses may well prove to be the larger swath of the electorate.”
Thank you Faith! So glad it resonated.
More than “resonated.” Your entire piece was some of the best writing I’ve seen since George Will. Please keep writing!
I’m speechless. (But not wordless, so no worries.) Just…thank you.
Absolutely did resonate 💯 & I’d love to make use of portions if you are ok with that- by use I mean on my own & other forums on substack - that type of thing. I would absolutely source it to you. Great job!
Be my guest—I'm honored to have my work shared by others. Thank you!
You are exceptional at writing & analysis! And smart women are more scarce than you’d imagine. This is when technology is a good thing!
Now I'm blushing. Thank you. Truly.
The largest swath of the electorate are now Independents who believe both parties have left sanity aside. Until and unless we correct the excesses caused by allowing the small minority of the most radical partisans effectively elect our representatives (more than 80% of the House is elected in "safe primaries" due to gerrymandering, etc.) we are on the path to dissolution. Trump will accelerate that, but there are no guarantees you'll like what's on the other side.
Thank you your perspective & insight
You're welcome, Faith. There are 9 states and DC with ballot measures touching on the reforms needed to our election system. If you live in DC, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Colorado, Oregon, or South Dakota, you have the opportunity to vote FOR initiatives that will move this forward. If you live in Alaska or Missouri, there are initiatives to retract or avoid such reforms (Alaska led the way with a solid reform 4 years ago and the political power in the state is rearing up to tear it down). I am hoping voters in those two states will reject those initiatives.
Outstanding post on so many levels. When trump came down the now famous golden escalator in 2015 American politics were quite different than they are today. The Democrat party had strong support among "working people" and the GOP were caricatured as rich bankers and elitists who wore funny looking pants at private golf clubs. Trump tapped into what I believe is the defining issue of our time and the border makes understanding that issue very very simple. The issue is national sovereignty. A sovereign nation cannot have am open border. A sovereign nation has the right to preserve its institutions and history and character and its values. Even before trump descended down to the lobby the Democrats were opening the border and if one was paying attention making clear that they were on the global Obama-Clinton train where American sovereignty mattered less than global institutions ( UN ,WHO, ICC , various NGOs and global summits such as the world economic forum) and the prevailing belief that America was not exceptional was made quite clear. Trump began to turn that train around but let us recall that Hillary lost in 2016 more than trump won. Our open border has become a sieve since Jan 20 2021 and the Democrats have gone all in on that issue and the make over of the Democrat party as the party of elitists is complete. Maybe Kamala wins by playing the identity politics card. Maybe she doesn't. But even if Trump wins this battle is far from over. Became the Dems control the media and the schools and colleges and they now have the deepest pockets when it comes to big wealth. They won't be moving to Canada or new Zealand and they will double down their efforts to influence young minds though the educational system and social media. Martha Radditz and her ilk are here for the long run .
Thank you! You've summed up the state of things quite neatly. As you suggest, there's a lot of fighting left to do if we want sanity to prevail. My deepest hope is that the excesses of the Left will continue to wake its followers up, one heart and mind at a time. We've sure come a long way in that regard since 2016, or even 2020. Praying the trend continues.
An alternative perspective is that Trump has no respect for our institutions to the extent that they interfere with his personal crusade for "winning" and adulation.
Not sure the other candidate has any more respect for our institutions than Trump does, her lip service to the contrary.
Good analysis. Trump is a salesman, he hypes things up to make a point. The left points to hype and calls it lies, and the credulous cannot distinguish between the two.
Good synopsis! You distilled the dynamic with admirable precision. Thank you!
Once again, you very thoughtfully brought me to a realization that I have been struggling with for a long time; why do they hate him so much?
Any time I've ever asked someone that question, it's always the same answer. He's some form of -ist, a dictator, or something else just as bad.
I usually follow up with a request for specifics, which almost always leads to angry dismissal.
I, for one, am done with polished orators and politicians. Have been for some time. The more polished, the more I suspect snake oil.
To that point, I am excited about the prospect of Elon, who is not a very polished speaker either, would head up an agency, solely dedicated to government efficiency.
Thanks, Bryan! Tbh, I have some reservations about Elon and his flirtation with transhumanism (Neurolink, etc.). But in the moment we're in I am nothing but thankful for his vision of what needs doing to save America from falling to authoritarians. May his mind and his money continue to help us forward.
Yes. Like Trump, he's not perfect. Almost too smart for his own good. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.
Nuerolink helping people with palsy, good. Running computers with your brain, to play VR games, bad.
Well done, Leah!! What a fantastic post on so many levels. Your writing, as always, is outstanding, and your insights are right on target. I recently talked with a friend whose son, a real left wing guy, lives near Aurora. He and his family are petrified of the Venezuelan gangs and have even seen them carrying rifles in cars down their streets, and they had a friend raped in her garage by one. They are considering moving… odd, though, they apparently will still support Kamala. The disconnect must be intentional… they are, btw, also very supportive of their 9 year old son who is not sure if he’s a boy or girl. I could go on. The point is that you have it right… current Democrats can’t see the forest for the trees because of their disdain for Trump and for all of us stupid conservatives. The arrogance is appalling. Keep up the good work, Leah!! 👍
Thank you, Ellen—I always appreciate your support and feedback. That is really an amazing (and disturbing) story about your friend's son. The power of propaganda is scary! But it's comforting to consider how many people have been waking up from its spell since 2020— shows the power of truth is strong enough to restore the sight of the blinded. Let's keep praying for those miracles.
What a great Stack, and the comments also. So glad I happened to see this.
Thanks Scott! I'm glad you did, too.
Tl; dr: Democrats are incapable of grasping that hyperbole is not mendacity.
Ha, yes.
Totally agree but the mental illnesses that pervades the progressive movement has deeper tendencies. The post modern Left has lost all perspective on their own awful history. The progressives of 100 years ago were at the forefront of the Eugenics movement as they are today w genital surgery for minors. They proclaim some lofty ideal of racial awareness yet are the leaders is blatantly racist D.E.I. policies. They claim to be the outspoken champions of women’s rights yet think men can be pregnant and biological men can compete in women’s sports.
Yes, I think the mind-bending logic of today's Progressivism stems from its mid/late 20th century adoption of postmodern deconstructionist theory. That same early impulse to micromanage nature and people has now been paired with transhumanism and its godless, denaturing outlook, and so here we are, faced with navigating and trying to awaken out of a brutal, soul-corroding nightmare.
Indeed!
Nature 'builds' Ecologies...infinitely complex, wholly, DEEPLY redundant systems which are just MARVELOUS to study...
MAN builds something QUITE 'Different'; WE build 'Archololgies'; artificial, low complexity, almost null redundancy systems.
It is therefore no suprise that while LIFE always re-boots itself, nothing designed by MAN has that most basic property.
"The Wisdom of MEN is but FOOLISHNESS in the Sight of GOD."
As the Scripture accounts it.
I VERY MUCH was enthused in locating your piece...you ARE a profoundly good writer!
Again, my thanks...for bouying my Spirit today: ALL is NOT LOST!
Be Well, SAFE and Blessed also...
JOG
Well said John!
I can’t stand listening to him either, despite being a supporter since June 2018 (yes, I know exactly when I gave up denial as a political stance). I’ve always been a policy guy, so the aesthetics don’t matter.
However, this year I started seeing videos of him just riffing with normal people. He’s a totally normal guy. I know a guy just like him, minus the billions. He’s universally loved by everyone who knows him. He is loyal and gives his time to help everyone, he’s just fun, and he often offends people. Just like Trump.
People need to reframe their expectations from fakery to what really matters.
I've seen some of those videos also. I was glad for the opportunity to see him in a different light.
Re your comment that Trump is a sales & marketing guy: Greg Gutfeld made a great point--that people don't understand Trump is in real estate, and real estate people are given to crazy exaggerations: "Comfy gem of a corner unit with ocean view!" is actually a 60 sq ft walkup with a view of the bay if you're standing on a chair in just the right spot. He exaggerates and is full of hyperbole, but he isn't flat-out lying (although we certainly feel lied to when the real estate agent shows us the apartment!). "Only a handful of apartment buildings," after all.
Great point!
Hey, you earned a new reader! High five!
Stories like this always make me curious what Trump actually said, because despite theoretically taking him literally, his detractors are often quite careful to not actually quote him, in full, in context, when they can spread malicious misinterpretations instead. So I went looking for the original quote and couldn't find more than two or three words at a time in quotation marks in any of the hostile articles, so they clearly had to edit heavily to make him sound crazy. Here's the most complete quote I've found on the subject, apparently from his visit there:
"Kamala has imported an army of illegal alien gang members and migrant criminals from the dungeons of the third world … and she has had them resettled beautifully into your community to pray upon innocent American citizens,” Trump said. “And no place is it more evident than right here, because in Aurora, multiple apartment complexes have been taken over by the savage Venezuela prison gang known as Tren de Aragua.”
Maybe this is a toned down version from days later after the initial "exaggeration", I couldn't get timestamps, but he's pretty clearly speaking factually in the latter part, and even if so, that would give him a much better track record than most of the hostile press in regards to correcting himself after his initial reports were exaggerated.
Did he initially claim that gangs were "taking over the city"? Maybe. Did he call it an "invasion"? Maybe. Even as a military man myself, I don't find those words to be an unreasonable description of a hostile foreign power having seized territory instead the city and currently working to expand their foothold from there. A truly literal reading of those words does not require that a foreign military have staged an infantry assault on City Hall, despite that seeming to be the image his detractors have in mind. A foreign power unlawfully crossing your border is an invasion. The gangs did that. Said foreign power assuming sovereignty over territory within your borders in violation of your own laws, the gangs did that too. Yet the story is basically "the gangs have only STARTED to take over the city, it's just a few complexes so far, it's not like it's the WHOLE city yet"...as if the exact percentage of the city conquest progress bar is the more salient point than journalists not asking why foreign gangs of illegal aliens are being allowed to control ANY part of an American city.
It's actually kinda funny to me, because we've seen this rhetorical tactic so often and from so many nominally unconnected media outlets: some thing ordinary people won't like gets mentioned by a Republican, the story the mainstream press run on it isn't actually about the "thing ordinary people won't like", it's laser focused on how "Republicans pounced/seized/weaponized/etc" that inconvenient thing AGAINST Democrats. If they aren't outright attempting to deny the facts (which they often are), they trivialize them (only a handful), because what REALLY matters to them is how outraged they think we all ought to be that someone DARED point out that they or one of their favored demographics did anything wrong. Don't we KNOW that Democracy is at stake and the only way to save it from the Orange Bad Man is to all pretend that the Emperor is wearing the finest clothes!?
Apparently not. Maybe the intelligentsia has gotten so used to believing that everything is "socially constructed" that they genuinely think "controlling the narrative" is all it takes, that "perception is reality". No, reality is reality. Their reality checks have come due and bounced because they are lacking sense.
Thanks Steven! Welcome. And yep…your assessment rings pretty true to me.
Thank you so much for putting so much clarity out here to be shared. You’ve helped me to be less of a hold-my-nose-while-I-vote-for-him American. I do find his words offensive at times but you’re correct to remind us that it is indeed the thought that counts, as opposed to the other side that uses all the right words with no honest thought behind them.
And thank you Michael D. for pointing out the hypocrisy of “the Left’s monopoly on controlling the language and the narrative” while being unable to define simple words like ‘woman’.
Thanks Paul. I'm humbled to hear my words have helped your vote feel less painful!
Paul, don't let the culture war tail of politics wag the larger dog. Most of the culture war issues are sideshows largely ginned up by hyper partisans on both sides. The issue is how do we revive the system so that our representatives actually do the hard work of debating the serious issues and working out the best feasible solution in this moment.
It's true that this is a "hold your nose" election. That is all our current political system (closed primaries, gerrymandered districts, unfettered campaign finance) is going to give us going forward. So, the question for this election is which path is likelier to allow for real reform to take root (the grassroots movements have great momentum) and create change with the least risk of total chaos and large-scale violence.
Haven’t read you before but Wow! Excellent excellent observations and framework.
The point you made about Raditz especially struck me: her absolute ZERO concern for the hell unleashed by violent gangs on those people unlucky enough to live where the gangs are running the show. But those folks are just losers I guess.
Thought experiment: Try to imagine Raditz saying that only a handful of rapes were committed. Or even less likely, that only a handful of a minority group’s members were lynched.
Thanks Sheryl—glad my piece crossed your path. Concern for the victims, and their utterly needless suffering—if authorities were properly doing their jobs—should be the obvious, humane take on the situation for everyone, even the Raddatzes of the world. Astounding that it's not.
We know too the reality. This was not a high end condo community. I would bet it was low end, minorities, single Moms, who were under gang control. This wasn’t doctors and professionals living in a complex. If it were it would have been dealt with.
That’s exactly the type of apartment complex it was . Bought a few years ago, underwent a lot of renovations, tenants returned, primarily lower and middle class, the few tenants that I saw who were willing to be on camera were minorities.