Archive

Posts Tagged ‘donors’

The NRA, in its Current Form, Does Not Have a Promising Future

September 10, 2018 4 comments

I am not the first person to point out that the NRA might not have a promising future. The big difference, however, between almost every article on that subject and this one is that I support the right to bear arms- and not just in some contrived “sportsman” context. For example- it is my opinion that ownership restrictions on short-barreled rifles in the 1934 NFA act and the 1986 FOPA act which banned the civilian ownership of select-fire (automatic) weapons manufactured after that year are classic examples of legislative stupidity.

As many of you also know, I have written more than a few posts in the past stating the reasons behind my belief that ‘gun control’ is a stupid idea with no real upside to the dumbfucks who support it. In other words, I am totally on board with the core purpose of the NRA. So why do I think that the organisation in question does not have a bright or promising future. Well.. there are a few reasons, but let me start by telling you what they are not.

Many coastal LIEbrals, who I hate with the same intensity as CONservatives, want to make themselves believe that younger generations will magically support gun control. Sadly for them, that pattern is somewhat true in less than half a dozen coastal states and even is mostly an urban thing. In other words, this pattern is meaningful only within the small social bubble inhabited by the incestuous “elite” and their professional class cocksuckers.

So why did I say that the NRA does not have a promising future? And why did I use that ‘in its current format’ conditionality? So here is why I said what I did..

1] As some of you might have noticed, a lot of the media outreach effort by the NRA today is about issues not related to defense of the 2nd amendment. For example, they spend too much time and effort on trying to demonize socialism, support “free” enterprise and denigrate populist ideas such as universal health care. Now, I know they are doing that.. *cough* corporate donors. But don’t kid yourself that supporting issues which are against the best interests of vast majority of their current membership and potential future members is a smart idea.

See.. the problem with being associated with bad ideas, bullshit and outright lies is that their stench rubs onto you. That is why, for example, people in 2018 are far more distrustful of the medical profession that they were in the 1980s. That is why Trump beat all establishment republican candidates and then Hillary in the 2016 election season. That is also why the non-stop concerted effort by establishment media to demonize Trump has paradoxically helped him by making him look like a victim. You get my point.. right?

Similarly the NRA, by publicly associating itself with pro-corporate ideologies, is digging itself into a hole. To be clear, this would not have been an issue as late as mid-1990s when most people in USA were doing fine or at least OK. But they haven’t been doing so well since 2001 and most certainly since 2008. There is a reason why the alt-right and many younger conservative-minded people are quite Ok with “socialist” ideas such as universal health care, inexpensive education, job guarantees, universal basic income and restricting corporate power.

My point is that associating yourself with ideas which your most likely followers don’t particularly care about, or actively disagree with, is not a recipe for promoting your main cause. In fact, doing so will certainly hurt the viability of your main cause in years to come- and that is going to be much sooner than you think. And yes.. once again, I know why they do it. I am just saying that they are taking a stupid and unnecessary risk.

2] The other big problem for NRA in the future is that it is still widely, and correctly, perceived as a white gun owners organisation. Once again, being an organisation which drew its membership almost exclusively from whites was a viable strategy till about twenty years ago. But as any person with more than half a brain knows today, that is not a great strategy- either in the USA of 2018 or any time after that. Any organisation which wants to remain relevant even 10-15 years from now better have a realistic strategy to recruit from other ethnic groups.

Of course, the incompetent “marketing consultants” employed by that organisation have managed to find a few non-white faces. Sadly, the losers they have found so far are.. to put it mildly.. laughably bad. People with infomercial level acting skills who can’t even read off their teleprompters and cue cards with conviction are poor brand ambassadors- plain and simple. Sadly, that is only one part of this particular problem.

The other part involves the almost complete unwillingness of this organisation to defend 2nd amendment rights of non-white people, especially those murdered by the police. Once again, I know they are doing that because a non-insignificant part of their core membership and supporters today are from the “law enforcement” agencies. But here is the problem.. it might work right now, but what about 10-15 years from now? The Stasi of former East-Germany also had a lot of power and prestige until that country lasted, but not much afterwards.

The problems I see in the future of that organisation, therefore, largely come down to significant irreconcilability between their current donor and membership cadre and the ones they attract in order to stay relevant in the near future. Frankly, I don’t see them being able to make this transition. Maybe some new moment or organisation, without legacy issues, will be able to exploit this opportunity.

What do you think? Comments?

Establishment Democrats and their Obsession with ‘Bipartisanship’

December 21, 2017 9 comments

As some of you might know- I am not a big fan of Christmas, and the holiday season in general, for a number of reasons. Firstly, I find this whole thing to be highly disingenuous given that it is clearly a consumerist holiday which pretends to be about something “higher”. Other holidays such as Halloween are far more honest about what they are, namely crass consumerism and drunk girls dressed like whores. Secondly, I detest any holiday which requires stores and restaurants to be closed for even a single day of the week. What is the whole point of a celebration if you cannot get a nice lunch or dinner at the restaurant of your choice?

Also, most public places seem to be filled with too many screaming kids during the holiday season. Then there is the issue of office buildings being subject to yet another round of poorly thought “upgrades” and “repairs” during this season. All in all, this is why I have not written posts on any profound topics within the last couple of days. And today will be no different, as this post is about a fairly mediocre topic that I had considered writing about a couple of times in the last few years. I decided to finally write about it because of the supposed opposition by establishment democrats to the blatant corporate giveaway aka the Republican Tax Reforms of 2017.

Some of you might say- “but, isn’t it good that establishment democrats were finally united in their opposition to this corporate giveaway by the republicans?” Well.. that is a superficial way of seeing things. A little digging under the surface reveals that more than a few democrats opposed corporate giveaways for reasons other than it being a bad idea. Rather, they seemed to be more upset that the bill passed today did not care about their input. In other words, more than a few establishment democrats would have been perfectly happy with supporting a similar corporate giveaway as long it was not that obvious and blatant. And this brings me to why establishment democrats are so obsessed with ‘bipartisanship’ for the passage of major legislation.

Conventional “wisdom”, aka bullshit spewed by paid shills in the mass media, suggests that establishment democrats care about ‘bipartisanship’ because they are “good and decent” human beings who care about maintaining the “civility” of discourse, due “process” and “dignity” of institutions. But is that really the case? Establishment democrats had no problem passing multiple rounds of corporate deregulation in 1980s and 1990s, welfare “reform” in the 1990s, opposing single payer healthcare in 1990s and 2000s, cheerleading for many “free trade” treaties and agreements, supporting the endless losing war on “terror” since 2001 and voting for any defense budget regardless of cost.

In other words, establishment democrats have been consistent and enthusiastic supporters of policies and institutions which immiserate the bulk of their voters. But what does this have to do with their obsession with ‘bipartisanship’? Well.. think about all the legislation and policies which the democrats did not pass because it supposedly lacked “bipartisan” support. Do you see a common theme running through such legislation and policies? In case you did not, establishment democrats most often talk about ‘bipartisanship’ as an excuse to not pass legislation or policies which would benefit the majority of their voters. A smaller, but still significant, percentage of ‘bipartisanship’ talk is also used to justify their support for pro-corporate legislation and policies.

But why is that so? Why do establishment democrats pretend to care so much about maintaining “bipartisanship”? What do they get from attempting to keeping up that charade? Who are they trying to deceive? The answers to this question start become obvious once you start looking the how the two main political parties in USA are funded. To make a long story short, there is almost complete overlap between the list of major financial contributors to both the republican and democratic party. While there a few standout exceptions, it is fair to say that both parties and their elected representatives are beholden to corporate and non-corporate financial backers who also provide cushy post-political jobs to legislators who further their interests.

While this explains why democrats are so willing to work with republicans on legislation and policies that screw over almost everybody else who voted for them, how does it explain them invoking ‘bipartisanship’ far more often than republicans? To understand that, we have to consider another factor- namely, the profile of those who vote for each party. Since the passage of civil-right regulations by democrats in the mid-1960s, they have not been able to win the majority of white voters in almost every national election and most regional ones. Now, we can spend thousands of words trying to explain the stupidity of many classes of white voters voting for republicans- but that is not the focus of this post. Instead, let us focus on who votes for democrats, especially establishment democrats.

To make a long story short, establishment democrats get most of their votes from the following constituencies: non-whites, poorer whites especially women, younger whites, whites with professional degrees and university education- especially women and truly well-off whites. As you might have noticed, the bulk of their voting constituencies stand to benefit from progressive legislation such as raising the minimum wage, single payer government healthcare, inexpensive tax-funded higher education, rules against corporate monopolies etc. Establishment democrats therefore have to at least put up a facade of being devoted to the causes of the so-called 99%. But how can they put up that facade and then weasel away from those promises- one election after the other?

This is where the concept of “bipartisanship” becomes so central for establishment democrats. They can use that concept, again and again, to explain to their voter-base why they are incapable of passing legislation which would improve their lives. Increase in minimum wage.. sorry, we could not reach a bipartisan agreement on it, Medicare for all.. sorry, there was not bipartisan support for that idea, taxpayer funded university education.. sorry, there was too much opposition from republicans and so on. On the other hand, they can still participate in republican initiated gutting of the social safety net, repealing regulations and rules that hinder corporate excess and pretty much anything demanded by their corporate backers- because they are “common sense reforms” and the results of “bipartisanship”.

Readers might have noticed that this particular scam by the democratic establishment is not working as well as it used to, especially after 2008. A significant percentage of their voter-base now sees through this bullshit and has stopped voting in elections or switched their vote in protest. That is why the democratic party lost so many state level seats, governorships, house, senate and presidency since their last high-point in 2008. That is why a Jewish guy in his mid-70s came so close to beating the anointed democratic candidate of the establishment in 2016 democratic primaries. A similar process among the republican voterbase is key to understanding why Trump won the republican primaries and then the presidency in the 2016 elections.

So let us call ‘bipartisanship’ by its real name- collusion against the interests of the majority of their respective voterbases.

What do you think? Comments?