Right Wing Fighter

Category: American Right Wing

Mushy Conservatives

I want to introduce a new word into political lingo: “Mushycons.” David Limbaugh is a good example of one.

He strenuously pushes, in good but blind faith, for what he considers “conservatism.” What is that conservatism? Mostly a strong belief in American exceptionalism, a sentimentalistic view of human nature, and a strong but undefined sense that All Will Be Well if we just act like decent people.

Obviously all would be well if everyone would act decently. But many wont, and his belief that simply saying it over and over will make it happen is telling. It demonstrates that he has no real grasp on the world. He doesn’t understand people.

There are other Mushycons than David Limbaugh. Mike Pence is a good example, though his personal tastes differ from Limbaugh’s. But they both align in that they have a sappy view of human nature and a strong but vague sense that advocating decency will Make All Well.

Now if it were just these two talking this way, I wouldn’t mention it. But they are exponents of a large group on the right. Not a few right-wingers oppose Trump because he isn’t “decent.” Increasingly they’re getting on board the Trump Train. But it’s because he’s got the only train in the station.

So what are these people then? Sappy people with good intentions? Perhaps they aren’t sappy at all. Perhaps this is the answer:

We all tend to view the world from our own standpoint. As such, most of our blindness in life is due to measuring people’s actions from our standpoint instead of theirs. There is no relativism in this. This is merely a question of motive, of goal.

So let’s say folks like David Limbaugh are, and want to be, decent in their lives. They see clearly the good things that flow from this behavior and naturally urge others to act the same. Additionally, they see the evils that flow from not being decent. Their minds turn on little else, and as such they conclude that, as stated above, All Will Be Well if the goal of being decent were adopted. Thus they avoid anyone who doesn’t act in a decent way, and continually, in spite of circumstances, urge that others act decently too.

Now, an incautious decency gets you into trouble. For instance, you wouldn’t want to be president and be decent with Putin. You’d want to be cold and ruthless because that’s what he’s going to be. Anything less will put you at a disadvantage.

Decent people deserve to be treated decently. And indecent people don’t, although it may be politic to do so. But to act decently to everyone is hazardous. It sets you up for dangerous exposure.

To come back to the concept of “Mushycons,” it seems that they can be described thus:

  • They do little of their own thinking; thus their intellect is loaded with the ideas of others;
  • They know little of the world around them, and thus know little of human nature;
  • Therefore, they think that they can just advocate their core motive, decency, and that that will be enough.

I think that, to take concepts from my post on knowledge, that these people aren’t seers or calculators. They see little of the world and as such know little of it. Also, they aren’t thinking men: they don’t draw lines between the things they’ve learned to increase their body of knowledge. As such, they only know what they’ve been told. Since nothing has ever contradicted their view of human nature, they keep their unfounded thoughts. They approach the world very dimly, and measure people based on how they themselves would act. Hence the misunderstanding of human nature.

They don’t see the world as a place built out of people with different goals. Instead, they see a world in which everyone at bottom has the same goal, but some have forgotten it. As such, they think mere advocacy will do the job. It’s like the imprint is there, but it must be unearthed.

I think this is very clear in George W. Bush, and his conviction when president that everyone on earth wanted American style freedom. As such, in the case of Iraq, all they needed was to be liberated for All To Be Well. Since, to Bush, they wanted exactly what he wanted, all he had to do was give them the opportunity and they would act like Americans. This didn’t happen, obviously. It didn’t happen, because the Iraqis have different goals than Americans do. As such, liberating them from Saddam Hussein gave them free rein to do what they’d do, not what we would do.

We see the same thing with people, typically right wingers, who believe that amnesty and immigration is actually a good thing. They’ll say things like “They’re just coming here to live their lives;” or “They just want to escape oppression, like we did with George the 3rd;” or “They just want a better life for their children.” And on and on it goes. All these statements have nothing to do with the immigrants themselves: it’s purely a projection of the people saying them.

This is because, again, they aren’t seers or calculators. They know little of the world, and as such they assume other people are like them. There are bad people, like Saddam Hussein, that keep people from all acting the same: but at bottom, to these people, we all want the same thing.

That explains their naiveté. It also explains their denseness to facts. The statistics of immigrant crime and poverty, for instance, have no effect on them. This is because they don’t have the capacity to process the information, or even just see the results themselves. They are stuck in their own world, because they only understand (A), what is inside themselves; (B), what has been drilled into their heads over and over again.

So at bottom, the Mushycons are this: decent people without clear sight or strong minds for calculation. As such, they know cliches and what’s inside themselves.


The Good of American Workers

The good of American workers needs to be the central theme in politics.

The left’s love of perverse individualism must be stopped. The right’s love of business must be stopped too. There needs to be a worker’s party in American politics.

Because, firstly, the workers are America. Second, without their livelihoods being safe, their whole position in the country isn’t stable. At the present rate of outsourcing, immigration, and bad trade deals, American workers will be driven to poverty within the next half century. This will destroy him in American society. It will reduce him to the level of a medieval peasant. He will end up a dependent of the government.

This must not happen. The left’s anti-society individualism must be stopped. And the right’s addiction to business must be stopped too. We need a worker’s party in America.

Where the workers go, the nation goes.

Labor v Capital

In politics, it’s basically a conflict between globalist businesses and nationalist workers.

The old struggle of Labor v. Capital will have ramifications for the next century. Perhaps longer.

The reason for this is that globalist businesses are importing millions of cheap workers in order to make more money. This importation is changing the nature of western nations. If it isn’t halted relatively soon, it will be permanent.

Workers are instinctively nationalistic. It’s now necessary for the right to embrace labor unions and workers organizations. Not the leftist ones of course: they are merely part of the problem and don’t actually represent their workers. But the right must actively embrace workers and their problems. The right must become the faction of the worker in American politics.


“Making the Case™” Doesn’t Work

In modern politics, when a man on the right talks about “Making the Case™” for this or that, he’s signalling that he’s already lost. I’ll explain below.

If a lawyer makes a case in court, what is he doing? He’s highlighting laws and court decisions from the past, and drawing logical lines to his client’s case. In short, he’s trying to show that those laws and decisions support his client’s plea.

In politics it’s exactly the same. When a man is Making the Case™ for something in politics, he’s highlighting political doctrines and drawing lines from them to his goal.

For instance: some lame-brained people on the right have tried to say that Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to come to America because their religion does not believe in equality. What these people are doing is saying we should be unequal, because Muslims are being unequal. What they are saying is:

Equality > Muslims are violating it.

Equality > Let’s violate it ourselves, to keep them from violating it.

It makes no logical sense. And Making the Case™ is all about logic. They are bound to fail. (As a note: I fully support a Muslim ban. But arguing that we should be illiberal to keep illiberal people from coming here to be illiberal is a stupid tactic.)

I highlight the above to show why Making the Case™ fails. It utterly depends on precedent. But what is the political precedent, more or less, in America? Liberalism. As such, it can’t be used to justify illiberal things. That is why “making the case” doesn’t work: it depends on outside authority. And all the outside authorities are liberal.

So what do we do instead? Simply declare the truth. You’ve seen me do it here many times. Trump does it. Theodore Roosevelt, who was very successful politically, did it too.

You see, the majority of the American people are illiberal themselves. We can just speak to them about what we both know to be true. Instead of finding precedents and drawing lines from them to our actions, we can speak to them about what we both know to be true. We can build political strength that way. We can win elections that way.

And what other way is there? Making the Case™ has failed for decades because it depends on liberalism. Declarative statement is the way to go. Besides, the liberals aren’t prepared for it. It will give them a good pounding initially.

And finally, the media isn’t prepared for declarative statements. What they try to do is get you tied up in illiberal conclusions. They say “Well yes Mr. Fighter. But what about the poor people that are just crossing the border to come here and be free? What do you say to them?”

What he’s asking is “How do you reconcile this with liberalism.”

I would answer: “I don’t say anything to them at all. They have no right to be here and will be sent back.”

The media would faint. The people would cheer. And America would be a nation again.

And what did I do? Did I draw lines from outside authorities on why they have no right to be here? No. I simply stated it. I made a declarative statement.

Work it into your thinking to make declarative statements in politics. Making the Case™ fails.

Deductive Thinking: One of the Main Reasons the Right is Liberalized

Deductive reasoning is one of the main reasons that the right is liberalized. This probably sounds crazy, so let me explain.

Deductive reasoning is reasoning from a settled start point. Here’s a famous example:

Socrates is a man,
and all men are mortal,
therefore Socrates is mortal.

Deductive reasoning is just drawing logical lines from a start point. In this case, it’s that Socrates is a man.

Thus deductive reasoning is only as good as its starting point. In the above case, it’s true, because Socrates is a man. But what if it wasn’t something so clear? What if it wasn’t something true? Say for instance, it was that all people are equal. Now, if you’re a good logical thinker, and you accept as your start point that all people are equal, you’re going to have a lot of bad thinking. That, in fact, is one big reason why modern intellectuals are useless: they are deductive thinkers, and their starting place is liberal principles. As such, they just draw logical lines from what is false. This is one big reason why they are so dense.

It’s also why, as they say, most people have their world view fully settled by the time they leave college. This is largely because their youth is when they pick up their ideas, or starting places. After that, it’s just a process of drawing logical lines from those starting points.

And that is one big reason that the right is liberalized. There is really nothing conservative about the modern right, because the modern right is drawing lines from liberal starting points. The right is famously more logical than the left is. And in this case, it’s doing them, and us, a lot of harm.

This is why control of the schools is so important. The schools are the biggest shapers of public opinion. This is because they get 12 years of unfettered access to young minds. With these minds still shaping, and with the parents safely tucked away at work, there is little that the schools can’t teach. As such, they teach that Christianity, Europeans, and the West are bad with little opposition. This is because they control the environment they are teaching in. You can’t just waltz into a school and begin arguing with a teacher about what he’s teaching. As such, he’s free to teach what he likes, as long as it isn’t so outrageous as to be inarguably wrong.

Again, deductive thinking is a big reason why the right is liberalized. It gets its premises from the liberals, and then draws lines from them. This largely accounts for the cluelessness of the right. It also accounts for their dense minds. They are deductive thinkers, not creators. As such, the liberals can blather out whatever they want. And the right can either draw logical lines from what the liberals have said, and surely lose; or they can draw lines from something that has gone out of date. They lose either way.


Outsourcing is a particularly bad example of globalism. Sending our jobs to other countries to get things made cheaper is little more than a betrayal of our own citizens. How can they support themselves without jobs? How can the country be strong if it produces less and less each year? Yet business by and large doesn’t seem to mind, except some small businesses. To the bigger ones, it’s just about getting the bigger buck.

And why is this so? Did companies in the past sell out their own country’s workers for a better bottom line? Didn’t they feel any loyalty to their fellow citizens? To a greater extent they did. Of course there were globalists, even far in the past. But local business ties were stronger, say, a century ago. But nowadays, business is focused, again aside from smaller ones, on bigger bucks. They aren’t loyal to their own countrymen. This is a disgrace and a good reason why workers don’t tend to trust their employers as much as, say, the GOP does. The conduct of the Chamber of Commerce, which is basically a union for businesses, is telling.

The Chamber of Commerce is focused on more workers and less regulation. That’s why for several years now they’ve been considered an asset to a number of people on the right: some on the right are simply anti-government, and the Chamber’s anti-regulation goals line up pretty well. And since not a few on the right are mere anti-government ideologues, the fact that the Chamber also supports increased immigration and amnesty isn’t a deal breaker. This is because some on the right don’t recognize that the nation exists. They don’t see a country, they see an economy. Because of that, they have no loyalty to it.

But with the rise of Trump and what might be called the American Worker’s Revolution, the Chamber has been under increased attacks, as have big businesses that put profits ahead of their workers and countrymen. American workers are natively patriotic, and this is driving a wave of nationalism as they get reengaged in politics. The Democrats should beware: these are the same blue-collars that gave Reagan a landslide victory in ’80 and ’84. They’re setting up to do so again. This is also a warning and a call to action for GOP members of congress and of state governments. If they want to win at the ballot box, they’ve got to support pro-worker policies.

These policies include:

• No amnesty for illegals

• Decreasing legal immigration

• Cutting guest worker programs

Additionally, they should support commonsense worker education at the state level to get young workers and people who have lost their jobs ready for work. They should also actively encourage business to help with worker training for our native stock of citizens.

If the GOP were to become the worker’s party in America, they would have incredible success. As it is now, they squeeze by as the “Not Democrat” party. That’s why there’s no enthusiasm for the GOP. To be successful, they must embrace workers.

The Right Wing in America is Locked in the Cold War

The reason that the American right wing is so useless today is that they are still fighting yesterday’s battles. In the 80s there was a real threat of totalitarianism in the world. The Soviet Union was on the march, and many leftists here at home still hoped to bring about Soviet style communism here in America. American patriots were trashed day in and day out in the liberal press.

But Reagan ended all that. Now, the Soviet Union is gone, and communism only exists in backwaters like Venezuela. Nobody in America is serious about bringing about communism anymore. But the modern right, the X Generation, who are in their early to late 40s, think politics is still a struggle against a crushing, tyrannic philosophy. The problem is the X Generation came into adulthood right at the end of the Cold War. Thus their minds were shaped right before an epoch shift. Their view of politics was outdated almost as soon as they got it. This has led to a kind of trauma, where the world they had just settled into was suddenly ripped out from under them.

You can especially see this in their dealings with Bill Clinton in the 90s. The right was utterly lost. They didn’t get some kind of footing until he was already halfway through his administration. Even today, they still struggle to reconcile their Cold War thinking to the Obama administration. They never actually figured Obama out, because he didn’t fit the communist mold they carry around with them. If you listened to a lot of talk radio like I did for the first six years of Obama’s administration, you could hear them day after day trying to figure him out. You may have been surprised at this, like I was.

The thing is this: people like to get cozy with a particular frame of thinking. People don’t like to change their thinking once they’ve settled into it. The X Generation settled into Cold War thinking, and then like I said it was pulled out from under them. It became irrelevant. For years they stumbled along in the wilderness, so to speak, trying to find their footing. They’ve never actually managed to do so. They just get kinda used to a president after a while. Since the right was more or less in its youth during Clinton’s administration, their aimlessness was harder to see. During George W. Bush’s administration, they didn’t want to oppose him since he was a Republican, and so again it wasn’t very noticeable.

But with Obama, it was stark and clear, though very confusing to look at. I kept asking myself “Why don’t these guys really nail Obama? Why do they keep dancing around the edges?” The answer is they are lost, like I mentioned above. That’s why they look like a bunch of half-balding old guys, intellectually speaking. They look like people whose prime has long since passed. The fact is they never had a prime to begin with – Reagan ended that when he won the Cold War.

So now we have a bunch of irrelevant kooks trying to be relevent in a world that has passed them by. That is why they’re always, embarrassingly, trying to get people fired up by talk about “liberty” over and over again, like it is self-evidently the purpose of life. Declaring “liberty” over and over again made sense when the left in America was doing the exact opposite, and was trying to stampede us into a top-down society. But nowadays it’s out of date because communism is dead.

And that, as a side note, is why they can never stop talking about Reagan and communism: they’re going back, in their minds, to a time when they were relevant.