Why the United States is Over

As you may have noticed, there has been a great deal of pessimism over on the right. Close to home, The Motte’s own fantastic /u/qualia_of_mercy declared:

This is not just Portland, it's not just some crazy kids on college campuses. It's everywhere. No one is going to do anything. The United States is over.

He got banned for low-effort, perhaps rightfully. But was he wrong?

He is hardly the only one that notices that right loses, loses, and loses again. Following politics in America is like following are particular point on a edge of a rolling wheel. The point at the top of the wheel is moving 2 times the speed of the attached automobile. The point at the bottom is not moving at all (consider that such a point is in contact with the pavement, and the pavement itself is not moving). And yet, both are indispensable components parts to a rolling wheel. In fact, such a motion is far more efficient than merely sliding linearly across the ground, slowed perpetually by friction. Periods of backwards (relative to the vehicle) non-movement are in fact key to progress!

Even the notorious demon-king who invented the redpill itself has chosen defeatism (or as he calls it, disengagement). He explains:

 Dissidents generally intend either to resist some powerful cause, or to oppose power in general. Being weaker than power, dissidents tend to lose to it. Their superior honor and intelligence can prevail in an ambush or even a battle, but almost never a war.

And obviously, losing to power is a way to advance power. And obviously, this is only the beginning of the many, many ways power can deploy the existence of dissidents—even the most talented and sincere of dissidents—to help tell a more convincing story.

All regimes are like fairies: they exist if people believe in them. They all specialize in processing faith into sovereignty.  This factory can process more than one kind of belief—in more than one kind of way. Pound for pound, our regime probably draws more energy from its opponents than its supporters.

So everyone should disengage. Volunteers should disengage; they are probably just propping up a bad government. Dissidents should disengage; they are probably also just propping up a bad government.

So there is no point in voting. Trump probably did more to accelerate the country's leftward shift more than anyone. He fought badly but hard, but like the bottom of the wheel all he was doing was pounding the pavement and pushing the car forward. You can vote for him again, or not. It makes little difference in the long run. The arguments regarding demographic shift are compelling. Markets for a blue Texas are on the rise. The fact is that we're all going to have get comfy with our new rulers.

This pessimism is increasingly shared by the "dissident" right. The best strategy is not activism, it's disengagement. Even /pol/ has given up. Behold, the "meme that saved /pol/". Certainly the right move was discourage any counter-protest at all rather than risk a right-wing shooter getting blasted by the media. The right's worst mistake of the past four years was a protest.

Protesting itself isn't a right wing thing. We saw during coronavirus how right-wing protesters are treated, but it's nothing new. Protesting is the Constitutional right of leftists to the hold cities hostage to force unwanted political change. Are you a leftist? No? Then you don't get to protest, you fucking fascist. I'll punch you in the face and the media will celebrate me for it. Punching a Nazi is good. Remember to pick a side: silence is violence, after all.

This is all, of course, happening under the allegedly authoritarian Trump regime. Winning elections accomplishes absolutely nothing. And the right isn't going to be able to do that for long, at least not in its current form. The Claremont Institute has noticed that what the right is doing isn't working. They call for a new mission:

It seems to me Republicans are somewhat lost. And that may be, in part, because they are not exactly sure where they want to go. They do not think clearly enough about their purpose or mission. My proposal for a mission is this: To “preserve the American way of life.”

What's their genius plan for enacting this proposal?

 What policies should Republicans support? I do not know. Determining the right policies requires expertise in various subject areas as well as the practical wisdom required of a working politician. That is not my line of work.

Wow. Inspirational. Perhaps a charitable reading is that the author's comments are simply a reflection of the fact that policy changes are not the issue here. Our policies are fine. They could use a few tweaks here and there. Even BLM raises a good libertarian point or two (though for the most part they prefer nebulous and impossible goals "end racism" over practical ones that help everyone like "strengthen the 4th Amendment" any day). But ultimately it doesn't matter what policies the modern Republicans support. This iteration of Republicans can maybe win this election, but that's about it.

Let me unambiguously clarify the Republicans future platform for the Claremont Institute: Moderate leftism. Policy proposal include decreasing the size of reparations, unbanning various works of 20th century literature, reinstating co-pays for voluntary medical procedures, and, of course, opposition to abolishing the Senate. Probably not 2024, but maybe 2028 or 2032. When the DNC approaches supermajority levels in the House it may be a good time to make the switch.

All this whinging because a few activists vandalized some statues? If only that were the case. Our new study show that 71% of self-identified "liberals" support changing to "a new American anthem that better reflects our diversity as a people", 70% percent support the "move, after public consultation, to a new American constitution", but we can take joy in the fact that only 44% "respectfully remove the monument to four white male presidents at Mount Rushmore".

Well, at least it's only 44% of liberals, not the entire country, right? You've all heard the following stats so many times you could vomit. Democrat professors outnumber Republican professors by an 11.5 to 1 ratio. Only 7% of journalists are Republicans. In the name of intellectual honestly, 50% identify as independent (with the remaining 28% identify as Democrats). But what of their ideological leanings? I can't find any data. Mysteriously neither professors nor journalists seem to have collected this information. I wonder why? I'm getting bored of this topic. You can read about Silicon Valley yourself, despite some desperate attempts to downplay it on the basis of more moderate fiscal beliefs, Silicon Valley's leanings are clear to everyone:

 Mark Zuckerberg called the tech industry “a very left-leaning place.” Similarly, Jack Dorsey told CNN, “We need to constantly show that we are not adding our own bias, which I fully admit is more left-leaning.”

So let's recap. When Republicans are in power, the country still moves to the left, and nevertheless Republicans won't be able to maintain political relevance for long due to demographic shift. Leftists already control basically every relevant institution outside of the government. And on the left, destroying America's heritage, from statues, to the national anthem, to the Constitution itself, is overwhelmingly popular.

The United States is over.