Autocrats And Nationalists

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: Email | RSS

 

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – Thus the threat of the third-party Ross Perot scenario becomes very real.  The longer this goes on, the longer this continues, the more real and likely the Perot scenario or the Buchanan scenario becomes.  Look, I don’t have any problem with it.  I don’t want to live under Mrs. Clinton, which I think that’s what it will produce.  Check out today’s transcript for the rest….

FOLKS, a message from Mike – The Audio Clip of The Day files, Project 76 feature presentations, Church Doctrine audio & video clips and everything else on this site are supported by YOU. We have over 70, of my personally designed, written, produced and directed products for sale in the Founders Tradin’ Post, 24/7,  here. You can also support our efforts with a Founders Pass membership granting total access to years of My work for just .17 cents per day. Not convinced? Take the tour! Thanks for 18 years of mike church.com! – Mike

HERE’S YOUR FREE AUDIO PREVIEW OF THIS CLIP OF THE DAY – TO HEAR THE ENTIRE EPISODE JOIN FOUNDERS PASS NOW! FOR HUNDREDS MORE CLIPS, VISIT THE CLIP OF THE DAY ARCHIVE HERE

[private |FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76|Founding Brother|Founding Father|FP-Lifetime]

[/private]

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  Thus the threat of the third-party Ross Perot scenario becomes very real.  The longer this goes on, the longer this continues, the more real and likely the Perot scenario or the Buchanan scenario becomes.  Look, I don’t have any problem with it.  I don’t want to live under Mrs. Clinton, which I think that’s what it will produce.  But if that’s what the people want, Mike, we should give them what they want.  Back to the piece:

[reading]

Ultimately, Trump presents a choice for the Republican Party about which path to follow: a path toward a coalition that is broad, classically liberal, and consistent with the party’s history, or a path toward a coalition that is reduced to the narrow interests of identity politics for white people.

[end reading]

Mike:  That’s quite a statement, isn’t it?  How did the white guy get thrown in there?  How many of you people are old enough to remember AWM, angry white males?  Remember this?  This is what we were called back in the 1990s when the Clintons were first elected, and when Hillarycare got its first hearing and was resoundingly defeated, and so were many of the other initiatives by the Clintons, but certainly not enough.  Bill figured out how to play the game just in time to save himself a second term.  The rest, as they say, is sordid, unfortunate history.  If you were in opposition to the Clintons riding into town to save us on the backs of the alleged leadership of the Democrat leadership conference, the DLC as it was called — of course, that group is gone.  They killed that thing.  They had too many pro-life Democrats in there who are now Republicans and not Democrats anymore.  If you’re old enough to remember this, then you remember being called an angry white male.  First of all, is an angry white male to be distinguished from an angry colored male?  If both of them have guns in their hands and they’re both angry and they both are becoming violent, does it matter what color the guy is that intends to shoot you?  Back to the story:

[reading]

For decades, Republicans have held to the idea that they are unified by a fusionist ideological coalition with a shared belief in limited government, while the Democratic Party was animated by identity politics for the various member groups of its coalition. This belief has been bolstered in the era of President Obama, which has seen the Democratic Party stress identity politics narratives about the war on this or that group of Americans, even as they adopted a more corporatist attitude toward Wall Street and big business . . .

[end reading]

Mike:  You can say that again.  See Obamacare as an example.  If you need any example of the corporatism of the Dumbocrat Party now today, meaning they basically sold out to big business interests.  What they used to accuse the Republicans of doing is now bipartisan folly.  It’s very lucrative folly as well.  Of course, it’s folly because it’s presented as something other than what it is.  It’s lucrative because you and I finance it and they don’t.

[reading]

“Identity politics for white people” is not the same thing as “racism”, nor are the people who advocate for it necessarily racist, though of course the categories overlap. In fact, white identity politics was at one point the underlying trend for the majoritarian American cultural mainstream. But since the late 1960s, it has been transitioning in fits and starts into something more insular and distinct . . .

Trump’s appeal to these narrow interests is understandable and smart, given the tenor of the times. Among members of the American right and disaffected independents, voices of outrage railing against the collapse of the rule of law have increased steadily throughout Obama’s second term. Their opinion of the Supreme Court has fallen steadily . . .

[end reading]

Mike:  I have to ask a question.  Who and at what point in time had a high opinion of the Supreme Court?  When?  What sane individual has had a lofty opinion of a nine-member court that purports to be able to write and then enforce law for 310 million people without ever being elected, without ever having to run the risk of being unelected?  [mocking] “Well, he’s a Supreme Court justice.”  Guess what?  I bet you I can tell you which college he went to.  It’s one out of two.  I have a 50/50 chance here even if I don’t know.  For you, you look like a Yale guy.  Nah, he’s Harvard.

End Mike Church Show Transcript