Republican Civil War Part 3

To conclude this series in three parts, I’ll summarize it at the top, and I’ll explain a bit more thoroughly below it.

The Republican Leadership also known as the Republican Establishment believes that under the concept of ‘severing the head the body will wither’ will enable Republican Leadership recompile Republican rank and file support factions into: fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and moderate conservatives to pursue pro-globalization, open border policies used to justify 9/11 security-public safety measures, and expansionist foreign policy through think-tanks and organizations such as ALEC. Republican Leadership aren’t likely to impeach Trump under the basis; their actions tell observers in no uncertain terms that they’re using Trump’s Presidency to pass Republican Leadership interests and trying to pass them off as Trump’s Agenda such as the tax cuts. These actions through policy structures and policy catalysts are pretty blatant; they state that they need to lure voters that voted Trump to gain their own popularity with primarily Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania popular votes to cinch the 270 Electoral College votes necessary for J Bush, Rubio, Kasich, Cruz, Pence, and other potential candidates to win the Presidency.

For the long version, Republican Leadership also known as the Republican Establishment are attempting to manipulate Republican rank and file voters that there is no alternative economic model to the Bipartisan globalization, open border policies used by W. Bush legally argued for his post 9/11 security measures, and expansionist foreign policy that is promoted by think-tanks and organizations such as American Legislation Exchange Council (ALEC) https://www.alec.org/

The purpose is to capitalize on Trump’s Presidency to increase Republican Leadership’s preferred candidates as J Bush, Rubio, Kasich, Cruz, Pence, and etc. Yes, Cruz’s entire brand as an anti-Republican Establishment rhetoric is largely imaging of his brand; this is why Cruz was able to sponsor the Expatriation Act that would enable the usage of suspicion through association in addition to accusation in allowing the Governmental Regime in power to declare an American Citizen Stateless/Sovereign Citizen and thus renders them not privy to the either the Bill of Rights or Geneva Convention. The entire structure of the bill builds upon W. Bush’s post 9/11 security measures that enhanced crime-terror intervention-prevention through lowering the standards of probable cause resulting in the deaths of Garner, Gray, Brown, Rice, and etc that resulted in the formation of groups as Black Lives Matter.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/04/retiring-members-congress-2018-216209

“I’ve never experienced as much anger and hatred as I did in the first few months of [2017],” says Representative John Duncan, an affable ultraconservative Republican from Knoxville, Tennessee, who is retiring after 30 years in the House.

“All the incentives are wrong now,” says Arizona Senator Jeff Flake, a onetime conservative star who is retiring after nearly two decades in the House and the Senate.

Years of deepening tribalism and dysfunction have taken their toll, which they gripe about while mostly blaming their political opponents, or the other chamber, or the media, though they talk up their friendships across the aisle and the long-forgotten bipartisan bills they’ve passed.

“It’s like the machinery of government is rusty and clanking along,” says Representative Lamar Smith. The Texas Republican makes a special point of blaming “the Mediacrats,” a conspiracy of Democratic and media elites to make his party look evil and dysfunctional.

… And most think the Trumpian era of base-playing politics is still closer to its beginning than its end.

… They plead for more individual responsibility among their colleagues to lower the temperature. Fix the primary system. Don’t be so divided. The Senate should get rid of the filibuster—or the Senate should build the filibuster back up again. House leadership should land harder on members who vote against their bills—or be tougher on lawmakers who were never going to vote for the bills in the first place.

“The way you solve this problem,” Dent says, “is you marginalize the members who can’t get to yes on these basic matters of governance.” Put more bills on the floor, Dent says, and see what passes.

(Bold Emphasis Mine)

Governance

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/governance

gov·er·nance

(gŭv′ər-nəns)

n.

The action, manner, or power of governing: principles of good governance.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

governance

(ˈɡʌvənəns)

n

1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) government, control, or authority
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the action, manner, or system of governing
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

gov•ern•ance

(ˈgʌv ər nəns)

n.

1. government; exercise of authority; control.
2. a method or system of government or management.

The term governance is often used in lieu of “to rule” that requires under the United States’ terms would require interpreting the US Constitution grants rights, and the Supremacy Clause is Federal Government Supremacy. Back to the article

“One of the problems with the internet is it creates a sense on the part of some people that it’s all just a referendum.” —Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)

“It is a lot easier to enjoy your job when you’re a committee chairman and a member of the majority.” —Lamar Smith (R-Texas)

“I’ll miss least the people who have no discernible political principles. I’ll miss most the people who do.” —Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas)

“The Congress I came to was a very bipartisan, get-along place. People knew each other and tried to work together.” —Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.)

“The best advice I can give to any current or future member: Say what you believe after digging into the facts and consulting broadly.” —Sander Levin (D-Mich.)

Bipartisan legislation doesn’t make the news because we’re not fussing and feuding and fighting.” —Ted Poe (R-Texas)

“What I will miss least is the current polarization and common refusal to listen to or respect others’ ideas. It is possible to find common ground.” —Sam Johnson (R-Texas)

“The rhetoric trickles down. It’s almost as though some of my Republican colleagues are auditioning for Fox News—what they say so much parrots what you hear.” —Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.)

If you follow economic models, policy structures, and policy catalysts, the “tribalism”, “hatred”, and “anger” in promoting Bipartisanship stems from promoting Group-Think also known as “Consensus Building”, “Herd Mind”, and “Hive Mind” whose common denominator is the marginalization or otherwise dehumanization and humiliation of dissent and opposition. Consider, the opposition and dissent in the “Trump Era” referenced is anti-war, anti-expansionism, anti-rules for thee but not for me, anti-Crony Capitalism/governmental fiefdoms, public-private partnerships, and public-private mergers/Corruption, anti-globalization that promotes and enhances Crony Capitalism, open borders catalyzed by security measured after 9/11 enhancing crime-terror prevention through lowered standards of due process to suspicion by accusation-association, and etc. Have readers not noticed many of these outlets like Politico’s primary sponsor and featured in sponsored content often is JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and other Too Big To Fail Institutions who benefit the most from globalization’s promotion of Crony Capitalism and have been bailed out in the United States and Eurozone?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/7/karl-rove-gop-strategist-republicans-in-big-troubl/

“We’re going to see the unified Republican agenda — House, Senate and White House — which is going to focus on infrastructure and a DACA deal and a couple of other things,” Mr. Rove said. “And then we’re going to see a House Republican agenda, in which they do tackle things like poverty and welfare reform so that the members have the ability to go home and say, ‘I passed it, I voted on it, and it’s all bollixed up in the Senate.’”

Mr. Rove said there has always been a “tension” between the House and the Senate. He said House Republicans are going to use that tension to their advantage.

Translation, Rove himself is really saying that it’s the Senate Republicans are likely to lose their Majority placing Schumer the Senate Majority. Also note, both the order and issues Rove references. Recall, Karl Rove was W. Bush’s adviser.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/7/mitch-mcconnell-a-swamp-creature-that-trump-can-co/

… But it might be time now to step back and re-evaluate Mr. McConnell and his leadership. I dare say, it might be time to put away the Skeletor-faced pinata — or, at the very least, take stock of some hugely significant achievements of the Senate majority leader.

Mr. McConnell’s steadfast opposition preserved the opening for President Trump to fill with Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a true constitutionalist. In addition, by keeping that high court seat open, Mr. McConnell gave conservatives a big reason to vote in the 2016 election, undoubtedly helping Mr. Trump win.

In the end, he not only delivered on Mr. Trump’s tax cut package, but also managed to insert (on his own) a repeal of the Obamacare mandate, which effectively guts the whole health care Ponzi boondoggle.

(Bold Emphasis Mine)

Even National Review states the tax cut bill was Republican Leadership preferred under the imaging of “Traditional Right”.

Then, we have National Review in particular hyping the 2018 Mid-term election cycle

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455207/trumps-impeachment-prospects-hinge-public-perception-democrats-winning-congress

When it comes to impeachment, the court of public opinion is the court that matters.

… As my colleague Andrew McCarthy has explained in book-length detail, it’s a political process that’s influenced by legal arguments. The political branches of government make the decision. Members of the Congress — not the federal judiciary — determine if a president has committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” that require his removal from office.

Understanding this reality helps us understand the recent past. Why was Bill Clinton able to survive in 1998 in the face of overwhelming evidence that he committed perjury and obstructed justice? He was a popular president governing in a time of peace and prosperity. His average approval rating for his second term was a whopping 61 percent. House impeachment managers came forward with ample evidence of misconduct, but there was no chance that Democrat senators would vote to convict. Not only did the public (and much of the media) back the Democratic party in spite of the law, they arguably voted to punish Republicans for their impeachment efforts in the 1998 midterms.

What about Richard Nixon? As the Watergate scandal drip-dripped into the public square, overwhelming evidence of guilt accumulated, and the media thirsted for the president’s political blood, his approval rating plunged. He maintained a “loyal core” of 25 percent, but his disapproval spiked into the mid-sixties. Both men violated the law, but two different presidents operating in two different political environments achieved very different outcomes.

The lesson to take isn’t “unpopular presidents get impeached.” After all, George W. Bush hit dismal lows in his second term, but he never faced a realistic impeachment threat. The lesson instead is that the combination of credible claims of corruption or abuse of power, opposition-party control, and low public approval can drive a president out of office. Alter any one of these factors, and the president stays.

(Bold Emphasis Mine)

In other words, it means utilizing public opinion for Party over the Country. We can see this shortly.

Outside of the base, however, two of the three preconditions for impeachment are perilously close to being met. Millions of Americans believe obstruction has already occurred. They listen to a parade of legal experts who claim Trump has already violated the law, and they’ve made up their own minds about Trump’s conduct.

If Trump’s popularity slides further, and if the Democrats take the House, then he may well face the humiliation Bill Clinton endured — an impeachment vote in the House and a trial in the Senate — but with a media pursuing Trump with the same zeal that they pursued Nixon. Clinton enjoyed popularity and media backing. Nixon faced a shrinking base and unrelenting media hostility.

Three things can save Trump from this divisive and damaging fate, and only one of them is largely in his control. If Mueller exonerates Trump or the GOP retains the House, then Trump is safe. But Trump has virtually no influence over the Mueller investigation, and as of now the GOP is hoping to hold the House in spite of Trump. Democrats appear energized and ready to change the balance of power.

(Bold Emphasis Mine)

In other words, the entire affair of impeachment requires Democrats turning the House and Senate of Congress to impeach Trump, and Republicans are unlikely to 25th Amendment Trump if Trump simply becomes an Republican Leadership figurehead lacking neither the grooming to sell himself as a social conservative or background to pass himself off as a “fiscal conservative”, and he’s too controversial to sell himself as a Moderate Conservative all of which impedes the Republican Leaderships’ imaging and branding of the Republican Party.

David French who was tapped by figures as Bill Kristol as a more “viable” alternative to Trump then goes onto ironically spell out that imaging and branding if he wants to stave off impeachment.

Trump has a much greater degree of control over his own popularity…

Trump should view improving his public perception as a priority of the second year of the first term. But “less drama” is a tough sale for a president who’s dramatic by nature, built his brand on drama, and won a presidential election even as he crammed the news cycle with controversy.

In fact, with a modicum of self-discipline, it’s entirely possible to flip the script on hysteria and instability. All too many Democrats have pitched childish temper tantrums in response to conventional Republican reforms.

They apply the same sky-is-falling, we’re-all-going-to-die hyperbole to tax cuts or individual mandate repeal that they do to the prospect of accidental nuclear war with Korea. A few months of peace and quiet in the White House — accompanied by peace and prosperity on the home front — could make a material impact. The first adults to act like adults may well win the day.

(Bold Emphasis Mine)

In other words the portrayed “tribalism”, outlets marginalize disenfranchised voters between disenfranchised Democrats and Republicans due to Trump’s upset of Clinton in 2016 election cycle over authenticity of candidates as Clinton, J Bush, Rubio, Kasich, Cruz, and includes Pence among others  who adhere to the “fiscal conservative”, “social conservative”, and “moderate conservative” imaging and branding of the Republican Party possess “character” and “principle” albeit are not authentic given once elected adheres to globalization, W. Bush installed 9/11 security measures to maintain open border policies, and expansionist foreign policy, and they are using the threat of Trump’s impeachment for the 2018 mid-term election cycle.

Thus far, I’m compelled to stick to my previous assessment of 2018-2020 found here

Therefore, if we’re going to evaluate political ideologies, 2018 is largely a skirmish that determines how intense the 2020 election cycle will be.

The 2020 election cycle is shaping into an Republican electoral bloodbath akin to the 2008 election cycle.

Republican Leaderships indifference and arrogance is going to cost them particularly in 2020, and they won’t really worry until voters realize their imaging and branding determines their intellectual wing’s assessment of “character and principle”.

Clearly, Democrats don’t mind given the ultimately consequence leads to an Democratic House-Senate and Presidency.

The real question becomes if either Party is beyond redemption, or a Independent Party finally gets its idealism out of the sky to pick a State to become its base of operations to expand from? Their model thus far amounts to “an attack in all directions is in point of fact an attack in no direction”. Claiming the moon as the Independent Party stronghold doesn’t do much good if you can’t stand on it. The model is a major pet peeve for me that’s beyond aggravating.

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s