Why does the United States find itself in a political environment wherein the ruthless and fully radicalized Democrat Party was, before Donald Trump’s second term, well on the way to transforming the country into a Marxist “paradise”? It is because until Donald Trump effectively took over the Republican Party in 2024, after soundly defeating the two-party Washington Establishment and the unrelenting and vile machinations they unleashed against him from 2015 to 2024, there has not been a viable, determined, and equally ruthless opposition party.
Read more Jefferson and the Declaration
While the Democrat Party was stealthily being taken over by the American Marxist movement and subsequently employing the tactics used by the Nazi Party during the 1920s and early 30s, the Republican Party wing of the Washington Establishment was wallowing in political civility and its corollary, obsequious compromising, choosing to not only be nonconfrontational but to bend over backwards in order to continuously accommodate the Democrats regardless of the absurdity of their demands.
How did this situation evolve? While it had its beginning during the 1930s, it accelerated dramatically in 1988 with the election of George H.W. Bush. He won, not on his own merits, but almost solely because he was the beneficiary of being the vice-president during the two terms of Ronald Reagan, in many ways the most successful and popular president of the twentieth century, but who also was vilified by the Washington Establishment as being an oblivious racist who was an uncivil, uncouth, and senile warmonger.
On the other hand, the Bush family dynasty exemplified the patrician attitude of holding oneself above the fray and fulfilling their preordained obligation to society while assuming those who may disagree or are political adversaries are equally honorable people. Among the archives at the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library are the texts of 27 major speeches he delivered during his presidency referencing the importance of civility in our discourse and politics.
During the 1992 presidential election campaign, George H.W. Bush, in keeping with his penchant for civility, ran a lackluster campaign against Bill Clinton relying on the belief that his litany of compromises with the Democrats would buy their goodwill. The Bush campaign and the Republican National Committee, upon his instructions, never responded to a parade of false accusations and never went for the jugular with Clinton, who was saddled with innumerable scandals.
Clinton, not shackled by the niceties of civility, unabashedly attacked Bush’s character and integrity, accusing him of being an inveterate liar and conman. He falsely implied that Bush, despite not a shred of evidence, was not only complicit, but a major player in the Iran-Contra scandal while vice president.
This charge was seemingly coordinated with Lawrence Walsh, the Special Prosecutor for the Iran-Contra Affair. A mere two weeks before the election, he indicted Caspar Weinberger, Bush’s Secretary of Defense, for a second time while obliquely mentioning Bush in the footnotes. Four weeks later, a federal district court judge threw out the indictment, but the damage was done and Bill Clinton was president for the next eight years.
While George H.W. Bush opened the door to political civility as being applicable to Republicans only, his son George W. Bush cemented that premise as being the foundational underpinning of Republicans not only running for president but Congress as well.
In his Inaugural Address in 2001, George W. Bush stated the following as he committed himself to adhering to the ideal of political civility:
Civility is not a tactic or a sentiment. It is the determined choice of trust over cynicism, of community over chaos.
These are fine and noble sentiments if both political parties endeavor to follow them, but not if one party is hellbent on overturning the foundational tenets of the country by any means possible.
During his eight years in office, Bush was incessantly and falsely accused by the Democrats and their allies in the media of being the worst human being on earth as he was a genocidal warmonger, one of the most racist presidents in history, a prevaricator, as well as a misogynist. Therefore, he was someone who should be assassinated for the benefit of mankind.
But in keeping with his dedication to civility and reverence for the office, Bush, following in his father’s footsteps, consistently compromised with the Democrats while refusing to respond or allow his subordinates to defend him in public against any of these vile charges, thus by default cementing the caricature of a malevolent buffoon in the public psyche. By the end of his presidency, Bush’s approval rating of 22% was the lowest ever recorded.
Read more Booker’s hesitation may be beginning of end for Platner, and Dem midterm hopes
Not having learned their lesson from the George Bush experience — that the Democrats and their allies in the media would never again campaign on issues but instead focus on personal destruction and incivility — the Republican Establishment in 2008 orchestrated the nomination of the next man in line and a member of the Civility Caucus, John McCain, who ran his campaign as the model of civility and decorum against the neo-Marxist Barack Obama. Predictably, the opposition went scorched earth.
Like Bush, McCain refused to aggressively fight back and take the offensive. Unsurprisingly, he was soundly defeated by Barack Obama, thus opening the door for the American Marxist movement to fully take over the Democrat Party. Further, during his presidency, Obama unabashedly exploited the political civility and compromise mindset of the cowering Civility Caucus in Congress, who were further intimidated by Obama’s unabashed exploitation of his skin color.
The Tea Party Movement of 2010 was a direct response not only to the efforts of Obama and his henchmen to transform America culturally and economically, but more importantly, it was a gut reaction to the Republican Party Establishment and its presidential candidates, as well as the vast majority of Congressional candidates continuously surrendering while waving the white flag of civility and accommodation. Particularly as the Democrats were free to wage scorched-earth campaigns without compunction, consequence, or pushback, knowing that if the Republicans won, their dedication to compromise would allow them to still achieve their objectives.
The Republican Party Establishment not only chose to ignore this grassroots movement that was the primary catalyst in the 2010 mid-term election of an historic 63 new Republican seats in the House, but mocked and belittled the Tea Party while remaining mired in their civility and compromise mindset.
In 2012, the Establishment stage-managed the nomination of Mitt Romney, another member of the Civility Caucus. As he had no skeletons in his closet, they assumed he could avoid or weather the character assassination tactics of the media and the Democrats.
As expected, Romney chose to utilize the same bland and civil campaign tactics of his predecessors instead of exploiting Obama’s character flaws, radicalism, and the underlying factors in his historic defeat in the 2010 midterms (causing Obama to openly admit that he suffered a “shellacking” in the election),
However, it took little time for the left-wing forces arrayed against Romney to fire their volleys. A new and previously off-limits accusation was hurled as the Democrat machine compared Romney and the Republican Party to Nazis. Romney was also portrayed as a right-wing extremist, a congenital liar, a warmonger, and a corporate elitist whose only interest was protecting the wealthy. Further, he was a sexist bordering on being a misogynist. And he, of course, was a racist, as were all Republicans.
By the end of the campaign, Romney, like both Bushes and John McCain before him, was portrayed as being among the most reprehensible men on earth and the Republican Party as the personification of evil.
Yet these gentlemen and the party establishment never responded and accepted these caricatures with civility and grace. Meanwhile, the congressional members of Civility Caucus continued to unabashedly promote compromise while the country inexorably fell into the hands of the neo-Marxists and radicals in the Democrat Party.
Rank and file Republicans and conservatives instinctively knew that 2016 was a watershed election. The future of the nation as founded was hanging by a thread. When Donald Trump declared his intention to run for president, he immediately vaulted to the top of the Republican field because he made it clear he would not follow in the footsteps of the recent spineless nominees by not only confronting the Democrats but, more importantly, purging the Republican Party of its nation-destroying “civility caucus.”
Overshadowing Donald Trump’s historic second-term accomplishments in international affairs and the restoration of the American culture and economy will be the potentially dramatic transformation of the Republican Party into a formidable and determined opposition focused on defeating the American Marxist movement while permanently disbanding the “civility caucus” that aided and abetted the evolution of the Democrat Party into being America’s most dangerous adversary.
Read more Not in My Silver Lake Yard