Jonathan Bowden and Richard discuss the GOP primaries and the spectacle of "democracy."

Richard Spencer joins James Edwards on "The Political Cesspool" radio program to discuss "The Majority Strategy" and The National Policy Institute's upcoming conference.

Registration for "Towards a New Nationalism" can be completed here.  

The chart Spencer references: 

Spencer's discussion of these data, "Evangelicals and Immigration," can be read here.  

Peter Brimelow's discussion of John McCain's share of the White vote can be read here.  

Sure, there’s much that is praiseworthy about a budget that would cut some $6 trillion over the next decade. But Paul Ryan’s plan—and the reaction to it by politicians and the media—amount to little more than Kabuki theater.

1. Ryan isn't serious. This is a man who voted for George W. Bush’s Medicare expansion and the 2008 Wall Street bailouts.  He also recognizes that nothing like what he proposes would ever be passed in the Senate or signed by the White House. He thus is able to put forward a make-believe budget that will convince the Tea Party of the GOP’s dedication to “limited government.” Note, too, that Ryan doesn't suggest ending a single department or major entitlement; the cuts are “across the board.” This allows Ryan to appear as a “budget hawk” without threatening to push any voter off the gravy train.

2. Washington liberals are, most likely, fully aware of everything mentioned above; however, in order to score points, they’ll squeal that Ryan is a dangerous Social Darwinist who seeks to starve the poor and elderly.

3. The debate that has consequences—at least short-term consequences—is taking place between John Boehner and the Democrats, who are playing brinkmanship over whether to cut 30 or 60 billion from the budget. Yet even here, the battle is over figures that are utterly meaningless. 

Robert Ian put things in perspective in his latest commentary,

Last week, the U.S. debt jumped $72 billion in one day. That same day, the U.S. House voted to cut spending by $6 billion.

The media spotlight was put on all the debate surrounding the $6 billion worth of cuts.

The $6 billion worth of cuts is 100 percent totally irrelevant against the backdrop of raising the debt $72 billion the same day.

Oh, and by the way, this fiscal year, Congress has already increased the debt by 676 billion. Just to put it in perspective, they would have to cut $6 billion every three weeks for the next six and a half years just to equal the 676 billion the debt has increased so far this year.

Debates like this are the equivalent of arguing about who’s going to pay the bar tab on the Titanic. The game is already over. The ship is already sinking.

Republicans in Wisconsin did something unexpected today—they acted in defense of themselves.  Forget the talk about "a better business climate for Wisconsin" or the inherent unfairness of public sector unions.  All of that may be true but it also doesn’t matter. The Republican Party, at a stroke, ripped out one of the main supports of the organized Left in this country on their home turf.  

The Democratic Party is less a party than a coalition of mutually hostile tribes. These tribes band together occasionally to remove wealth from white Americans and redistribute it among their various constituencies.  Even the low ranking progressive activists understand that politics, in the end, comes down to who is doing what to whom.  The Saul Alinksy Rules for Radicals community organizers are not forming a socialist vanguard party but conning corporations or the government into funding various slush funds in the inner city or in academia.  The huge disadvantage the American Right (such as it is) faces in this country has less to do with philosophical problems or flawed tactics than it does with the simple fact that the Left has far more full time activists and that they are mostly funded by taxpayers or clueless corporations.  One Peter Brimelow is worth 500 community organizers. The problem is that there are about 50,000 and they are funded by the Fortune 500 and the government.

In contrast, the very homogeneity of the white, Christian GOP gives it a significant disadvantage—surrounded by people like them, they deal in abstractions all day. As a result, they actually believe their own propaganda.  In my dealings with the Beltway Right, whether watching David Keene speak rapturously about reaching out to minority voters at a CPAC planning meeting, listening to George W. Bush talking about the universal desire for freedom in the Muslim world at a Republican fundraiser, or wearily debating someone at a CATO Institute function who thinks open borders would end the recession, I keep getting the uncomfortable feeling that they mean it. It really is that simple—they believe what they are saying. A depressing experience is explaining to a libertarian or conservative how a certain policy (like mass immigration) will actually undermine limited government in the long run and receiving the response, “that doesn’t matter—we must remain true to principle.” Conservatives believe in self-interest in the economy, but not in politics—unless you can justify it by the writings of a man in a wig 300 years ago or a Jewish economist from Austria, it is not allowed.

Conservatives often bemoan the lack of “good faith” in the sacred institutions of Congress, elections, or the courts, ignoring that those very institutions far more often work to the advantage of progressives. Liberals don’t stop until they get what they want whereas conservatives believe in the “process” until they lose, whereupon they go home and prepare to lose again.

Therefore, it was shocking to see Republicans actually do what it takes to win a political battle. By removing the fiscal considerations from the bill, the GOP was able to ram through the removal of collective bargaining for public sector unions without needing the Democrats who fled the state in order to avoid the vote. Of course, this also essentially admitted that the real issue was not some financial emergency, but the Republican desire to cripple public sector unions. To which I can only say—good. Unions are perhaps the one force that keeps working class whites voting Democratic. Also, far from the “hard hat Republicans” of lore, anyone who has been at protests in Wisconsin can testify that not just public school teachers but many rank and file white union members have accepted the propaganda that Republicans are “racist.”

The Stupid Party, of course, is still well on its way to committing suicide. However, this victory should not be underestimated. Public sector unions are not just a fiscal threat, but a huge part of the left wing coalition on every issue. Even if this was just a handout to big business and the open borders Kochtopus, this is a real victory, this is real politics, and it was performed in a gutsy fashion I did not expect from Republicans. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Dick Morris gives us a glimpse of how Republicans will govern the country once they've defeated "Obama's Socialism." 

One of the great ironies of what Peter Brimelow calls the “Sailer Strategy”—the idea that to win, to the GOP should expand its support within White America and not worry about the much-hyped “new demographic”—is that it is already working, in spite of the designs of the Republican leadership.

Every year, the GOP falls over itself with “outreach” efforts to Blacks and Latinos, each new program more embarrassing than the last. And yet at election time, the GOP relies on White, Middle America to send its gaggle of cowards, sociopaths, neocons, and used-car salesmen back to Washington.

This irony leads me to conclude that the phenomenon Peter and Steve describe bodes quite poorly for White America. As the White vote—particularly the White, male vote—becomes more and more reliable, the Republican Party (as it’s currently constituted) would seemingly become less and less likely to do anything on White people’s behalf, like halt mass immigration.  “Taking back America” will essentially mean the opportunity to hoot and howler at the TV set as a FOX News blonde announces the latest round of Republican victories; it will not mean White Protestant hegemony, or even smaller government.

Does anyone here actually think that the emotional John Boehner and his GOP colleagues are going to cut spending in any significant way?

Here's an assessment of the last Republican "Revolution" by Ed Crane.   

Consider: Over the past three years the Republican-controlled Congress has approved discretionary spending that exceeded Bill Clinton's requests by more than $30 billion. The party that in 1994 would abolish the Department of Education now brags in response to Clinton's 2000 State of the Union Address that it is outspending the White House when it comes to education. My colleagues Stephen Moore and Stephen Slivinski found that the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%. Republican congressional candidates are frightened to be associated with George W. Bush's sensible proposal to allow Americans to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in real assets.

Take a glimpse into the minds of the superior individuals who are vying to become Chairman of the Republican National Committee. (This selection comes from National Review Online, so you can be sure it's not a parody.)

The candidates had some interesting answers to the question of what their favorite book was. In order, their answers were:

● Ryan Strevis: The Reagan Diaries.

● Ann Wagner: “My kitchen table.” (When told that the question was “favorite book,” not “favorite bar,” she amended her answer to George W. Bush’s Decision Points.)

● Saul Anuzis: The Law.

● Maria Cino: To Kill a Mockingbird.

● Michael Steele: War and Peace. (He then said, oddly, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times” — which is, of course, from A Tale of Two Cities.)

The Republican Party made tremendous gains in the recent midterm elections, winning an astounding number of legislative and executive seats in states across the country. If the GOP is to accomplish anything, and not squander yet another opportunity, it must fire the soon-to-be Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, and soon-to-be chair of the House Budget Committee, Paul Ryan.

Congressmen Ryan and Cantor have depicted themselves as reformers dedicated to cutting the deficit and ending corruption. These claims have no basis in their combined 20 years on Capitol Hill.

Congressman Cantor and Ryan voted "yea" on the following:

• the expansion of Medicare Part D (creating a $9.4 trillion unfunded liability over the next 75 years)
• the Iraq War ($742 billion cost),
• the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (annual budget of $52 billion)
• TARP ($50 billion)
• the bank bailout ($700 billion),
• No Child Left Behind (an annual cost $141 million a year by 2007 standards).

Iconic leaders amongst traditionalist conservatives, libertarians, and independents like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and Ross Perot all soundly rejected these items.

With our debt becoming so large it threatens to wreck the nation, our currency on the verge of becoming nugatory, the views of Congressman Cantor and Congressman Paul are dangerous.

Recently, Congress Ryan released his “Road Map to America’s Future,” which included entitlement reform, tax reform, and reduction of the debt.  All of which would be a good start… but the proposals remain dubious, to say the least, coming from a party that's been all about guns and butter.

To paraphrase Jack Hunter, watching the two congressmen speak out against "big government" is like watching Ron Jeremy condemn pornography. The freshman class of Congress should take a lesson from the American people and throw the bums out.

Yesterday, I shook off the hangover from the open bar at the Election Night party and read about our historic victory.  The conservative movement has heroically stopped Obama’s diabolical scheme to make America socialist, with John Boehner as our weepy Leonidas. Conservatism is flush with victory and all throughout the land, ambitious College Republicans, my fellow think-tankers, and unemployed scribblers are dreaming of staff jobs, committee assignments, and midnight tangos with the supple interns of Capitol Hill. The “beautiful losers” made excited references to 1994, seemingly blind to the reality that the “Republican Revolution” did nothing to stop the growth of government or reverse cultural decline and President Clinton cruised to victory two years later.  Nonetheless, young conservatives are cute when they are happy, and I tried to hold my tongue as wild proclamations were made around the office about the imminent end of Big Government.  

It was satisfying to see the Democrats go down to defeat, in the same way it was satisfying to watch Jon Stewart’s pained expression while reporting on President Bush’s re-election in 2004. Evil, or rather, the Evil Party, was justly punished. At the same time, let us be under no illusions about the Stupid Party.

It gives me no joy to say this, not even the contrarian Schadenfreude expressed by denizens of the Alternative Right when the conservative movement, yet again, fails to move. Despite years of disappointment and the cynicism that can only come from working in DC, there was something that suggested this year would be different. The Tea Party is not Astroturf -- it is remarkably decentralized, grassroots, and leaderless, and though corporate front groups like FreedomWorks claim to speak for it, the Tea Party’s feelings on immigration and Islam suggest that there is something more here than Republican strategists slapping a new label on a program of tax cuts for millionaires. With Tom Tancredo mounting a spirited third-party run, Sharron Angle actually speaking up in defense of actual Americans, and institutions like the New York Conservative Party openly defending White advocate Jim Russell, this actually seemed like more than politics as usual.