Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The GOP Is Split between Primary Voters and the Donor Class
It seems quite clear to me the split in the GOP is not mushy-middle vs. hard right, but Donor Class vs. Primary Voters. It is about following the money.
The Donor Class, by and large, is fine with the way things are. It works for them. It works for their families. It works for everyone they know. They are doing OK. These are the Republicans who have money to put into investments. They have wonderful homes, secure incomes, and look forward to retirement. They are looking to sell their successful businesses, and buy property because prices are just going to go up, up, up as soon as the Fed lowers the interest rates. Their kids go to nice schools and then nice colleges. They know each other and the right people.
They are not, for the most part, the liberal superrich, but still get direct access to the politicians. Let’s face it, most of us are not paying $2,500 a head to attend a political fundraiser for our local politician. We don’t get to do that sort of thing. Nor are most of us pundits in safe jobs that allow us to rub elbows with the politically powerful.
The Primary Voters are horrified at what they see and horrified at what is happening to their ways of life. And this is given no real voice, anywhere except when a man came along who did not need the Donor Class. He was his own man. You want to know has happened to good ol’ Ron? Donor Class getting into his campaign and his ear. Why does National Review, the supposed flagship of Conservatism, do things like jump on the Covington kids and lead the charge against the GOP nominee winning the election? Follow the money. Their Donor Class supporters want that.
The majority of the GOP politicians don’t give any more care to their Primary Voters than do the Democrat ones. It is all about keeping their real base happy. That is not you and me, brothers and sisters. It is the near-rich who are going to be just fine no matter what.
That is what this speaker battle is over.
Published in General
There is a third group in this, the wannbees. These are the people who support the Donor Class without being in it. They are like the outsider kids trying to suck up to the cool kids.
Consider this my wave for the many of you here at Ricochet.
And the Donor class and wannabes hold primary voters in abject contempt. They are elites, and we are ignorant peasants.
When the TEA Party emerged it was a profound threat to them. Then it metastasized into Trump, an even bigger threat. They then exposed themselves and don’t understand they are walking around in the sun wearing see-though pants and dresses with their asses hanging out. I never thought before they were actually that ugly. But now I’ve seen them.
The lines are drawn. “Republican” is just a word meaning ‘not democrat’. Democrat is a word meaning ‘not republican’.
Once people are bought out, their hands are tied, they are gagged and controlled.
I no longer see DeSantis as a good governor and a possible President. I see him as beholden to the forces who hold ordinary Americans interests in contempt . That’s how it works nowadays.
He can’t defy them. They would destroy him like they are trying to destroy Donald J. Trump. They refuse to come to the defense of an American (and other Americans) who is being unconstitutionally railroaded.
“America First” is a slogan equivalent of cloves of garlic and a crucifix to these vampires. They are corporatists and globalists. America is to be overrun, plundered and pillaged and they will remain unscathed and likely benefit.
Nice try with co-opting DeSantis. Will he run third party after he loses the primary? Will he support Trump? That will be interesting to watch.
Maybe they can finagle it so that Trump picks a VP they like, and then once elected, they remove him and they have their VP in office.
I’ve got my bases covered. I just hate everyone.
The GOPe has been playing the same hand since the Tea Party came on the scene. Pull the rowdy upstarts to one side and promise them a lifetime of political influence and a steady stream of lobbyists so long as they toe the party line. Definitely don’t try to follow through on your promises; we all know those were just to get elected.
That ploy worked until a certain businessman ran for President who didn’t need their money. That’s when they decided he must be stopped.
Remember Mississippi.
This does seem to be the way. Maybe Jeb! would have been okay. Supposedly he’s the more capable brother but timing didn’t work out for him to run in 2000. Whatever. By 2016, the country appeared to be tired of the Bush family. However, he shows up to the primary with a buttload of donor money and the establishment is ready to push another Bush family member on the electorate.
It was the House mandarins on the Appropriations and Armed Services committees who tanked Jim Jordan.
I would need to know more details. If Jordan doesn’t understand the Ukraine lesson that we should have been producing a lot more military equipment/ammunition for decades already, then I’m happy he didn’t become Speaker.
And I already thought he was more effective where he’s been, chairing committees etc where he eviscerates Biden and other liars.
So you think that the Republican donors to National Review wanted NR to incorrectly believe the propaganda about the Covington kids? Why would they do that? Isn’t it a much more likely explanation that some writers at NR reacted to a story in the national press, and then later realized it was baloney? Why would people who have an axe to grind against pro-life Christian kids be donating to NR in the first place?
The diocese of Covington, the diocese these kids belonged to, also fell for the false story. Did they do it for “the money”? No, they made a mistake, as did a writer for National Review. National Review pulled the story when the truth came out. I don’t see this as a “follow the money” instance at all, but rather an instance of jumping to conclusions before all the facts were available.
I don’t speak for Bryan, but what I see in the donor class is the disdain for people like the Covington kids and a reflexive reaction leading NR and the like to believe the worst about the “country” class. Rednecks and racists. Religious “extremists.” Oh, and did you hear? — President Trump praised
Putin,Kim,Nazis in Charlottesville,Hamas. . . fill-in-the-blank?As the saying goes, Trump haters take him literally, not seriously. Similarly there’s a bad-faith assessment by the donor class with regard to the country class. It’s not just that we don’t see eye-to-eye. We often don’t even speak the same language.
I think they don’t care if National Review is willing to sign on to the MSM narrative. They care far more about NR toeing the lines they set.
Against Trump. NR led the way and they are the Flagship of Never Trump.
Did the writer get let go?
Hmmm
Yet, they dropped Ann Coulter for a hot take days after 9-11 attacks for daring to criticize Islam.
And Derb for speaking some truths someplace else.
Who they keep and who they let go speaks volumes. Follow the money.
You may not speak for me but you sure are talking my language.
No.
Because the Deep State needs another CIA-connected lackey in the Oval Office to perpetuate the endless wars. The exclamation mark being a dire warning to those with eyes to see.
Pro-life, Christian kids from flyover country wearing MAGA hats tripped every trigger those Ivy League feebs had. Those takes of theirs were pipping hot – who needs facts?
So you have been present with NR editors when writers are taken on and when writers are let go? You’re aware of all the details?
Didn’t think so.
That’s why we watch what they DO.
If nothing else, Matthew 7:16 NMV. “By their deeds you will know them.”
I think you’re projecting a conspiracy theory onto a benign statement.
Its crazy. My interpretation is that their thinking, their worldview, is primed to believe these young Christians are bigots, defiant of other cultures, and mean. The only evidence for that is left-wing propaganda that’s where they are getting their cultural information. The second charge is being insufficiently skeptical of the corporate media.
They are unwitting dupes of the lefty zeitgeist. And they presume to lecture us?
So we unsubscribe and they run to donors to make up the shortfall. M’kaaaay.
Everyone is influenced by money. I trust sources who profit from subscriptions to their publications more than those who are subsidized. The subscription model will eventually become a captive to its base, the ad model is immediately beholden to its sponsors.
Unfortunately, non profit organizations are just as money-hungry as any capitalist-pig, hedge-fund manager.
The amount of money behind propaganda is beyond counting.
So, who funds the NR should be noted, but the main point for me is that it’s no longer a subscription dependent. It’s subsidized, like PBS.
What they don’t get is that NR had status as a conservative/libertarian, thoughtful opinion magazine with great writing, was destroyed by the taking an extremely strong rebuke of a man who was reflecting at least a very similar sentiment among NR readers. It was a surprising descent into politics that was beneath the standard of NR being a thoughtful, conservative, objective discernment of the zeitgeist, into more a partisan, temporal rag with good writing.
Against Trump
Each writer laid out his case. There were some good points, but it seemed very heavy- handed for a distinguished opinion magazine.
And they were mostly wrong on several levels.
Great that they eventually realized it was “baloney”. The point is, they jumped to conclusions.
Doesn’t the globalist donor class promote hatred of Christian white males. Isn’t that what DIE, ESG, and decolonization is about?
And yes, he was wearing a MAGA hat, which is a crime in itself.
And yes, pro-life.
Wow. No I haven’t. So what?
I’ve watched them do it, and I have seen what they said as they did it.
What is so funny about Ann is, we Did invade their countries. Just did not convert them. Not sure that worked out.
But, cant help but notice you latched on to this argument. Totally fine with them being against the GOP nominee.
Yes, this. So much this!
Not only do they presume, when they have a hot take, it is “no bid deal” but when someone in the deplorocon camp, or such as Franco describes, that is an unforgiveable sin. The hot take excuse only works for them, it never works for us.
It’s true also of the striver class. They may not be big-money donors, but they want to be among that class and so they’ll adopt all the necessary luxury beliefs. Including a disdain for those they see as beneath them.
And now that they’ve seen “decolonization” in action (from the river to the sea) I wonder if some of them will wake up.
Or, having been temporarily awakened, will they now go back to sleep?
(I suspect the latter. When BLM talks about destruction of the nuclear family, aw . . . they don’t really mean it. They’re just being those goofy kids . . .)
I mean, I still know people who claim the global warming/climate change religion stands in opposition to the status quo. No, it IS the status quo. It’s the luxury belief broadcast from every vector of influence in the world.