Now that the midterm results are more or less known, we need to reflect on why this happened. Despite favorable polling, and what should have been a red wave, the GOP underperformed. Sure, there were some victories, notably DeSantis winning Florida and Zeldin shifting all of New York to the right. President Biden will not likely be able to push his legislative agenda through, which means, among other things, that abortion will not be codified at the national level. Yet, Fetterman, a disabled pinko, is now a senator, and, what I care more about, Michigan made abortion up until birth part of the state constitution. How did this happen?
Unfortunately, I think I've seen this film before, and I didn't like the ending. Some make accusations of fraud, and either conclude that a) politics is a rigged game and, a pointless one to play, or b) they demand Cesear. Others lament that “we have still not learned the lessons of 2016” and insist that until the right has a brand-new political formula it should not rigorously engage in electoral politics, but these folks rarely contribute anything to a new formula, and are skeptical of any serious attempt at making one. Time passes on, people make more content reviewing current events and thumbing through the same books the right has been reading for decades, and when the next election comes around, we play the same film. Rinse, wash, and repeat.
A Necessary Expectoration
These typical responses to electoral defeat are easy, they require no effort. “Fraud” only takes one syllable to utter, and despondency best runs on autopilot. Caesarism is the oldest shrug in political history, and never delivers the promised result. Pushing for a “positive vision”, is noble, but noble aims can be the best excuses to kick the can down the road. Taking a second look at each of these non-answers reveal their flaws, and once they are cleared away then we can discuss a legitimate response.
Fraud happens every election, the only question is how much is acceptable. Ideally there would be no fraud, but ideally there would also be no sin. Unfortunately, since we live in a fallen world, we have to add sin to any calculus…people will do it even if we tell them not to, and even if they fight against it. If we could calculate how fraudulent an election is, assuming 1% fraudulent is the lowest it can go, what is the uppermost limit we can tolerate? 2% is livable, and 3% probably is not so bad. Once it becomes obvious to voters that a senate seat, or even the presidency, was largely dependent on fraud (opposed to just giving the candidate a gentle push), then at that point, surely, fraud has gotten out of hand. Assuming the Democrats stole the midterms, what is to be done? There are direct ways of addressing it, like enforcing voter ID and limiting mail-in ballots. One way to do this is to limit mail-in ballots to those who are physically incapable of voting in-person, and regulating this by requiring an application be sent by each citizen wishing to vote by mail and having a medical professional sign off on it. For a state like Florida, which has a governor like DeSantis, this is an option. There are indirect ways of addressing it, and I like these more. If votes will mysteriously file in at the last minute, your candidate has to get enough votes that no amount of mystery votes can swing the election. How can that be done? The short answer is winning 60% of the vote. With 60%, the number of mystery ballots needed would push the number of votes well over a given state’s population, and that cannot be handwaved away. If the midterms were rigged, the answer is not to give up, but to play smarter.
Caesarism is always a fun suggestion, and usually is preceded by a fit of anger or despondency. It always baffles me that the right is so quick to suggest it, as one of the right’s historical objections to democracy is that it will end in Caesarism. We used to call it “Bonapartism”, but maybe draping a Jacobin in imperial red and giving him a laurel crown makes it okay. In the 20th century, we tried Caesarism. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, Codreanu, Pinochet and company were all given extraordinary power in hopes that they would hold the line against communism. While World War Two put an end to Hitler and Mussolini, and Codreanu never assumed formal power, Franco, Salazar and Pinochet, reigned for quite some time. Where are these countries now? None are particularly conservative, to say the least. Why? Caesarism has a succession problem. Unlike a monarchy, where the eldest born is the next rightful ruler, or in a republic where there is a pool of gentlemen and aristocrats to choose the next rulers from, Caesar has no means of appointing successors that the public would recognize as legitimate. Why? Caesar takes power because a critical mass of voters loses faith in the system and have enough anger that they pull the plug on it. It is only part Caesar’s competence that gets him elected, the larger part is public rage. After decades of stable governance, assuming that Franco, Salazar and Pinochet delivered, the public is no longer angry and, at least historically, societies where voting was the norm, the public will eventually demand the franchise. In Portugal, Catholics and Communists joined forces to overthrow the Salazar' regime, desiring the ability to influence economic and legal decisions. Voting is not just for citizens to express their opinions, but also for segments of the economy and social groups to exert pressure. Suspending elections requires a total suppression of every economic and social group’s interest in securing their stability.
What about requiring a new political formula before engaging time and money into electoral politics? As said before, it is a noble wish. Gathering oneself before action is always a smart idea. Yet, having seen a few elections, and seeing the same talking heads ask again and again for new political formula, I am beginning to wonder if a new political formula is really desired. On a cynical level, the longer a political formula is lacking, the longer there is a demand for Youtube and Twitter intellectuals. Often times, but not always, the people asking for a new political formula would be incapable of running a campaign, or building a business that has the capital necessary for influencing local happenings. Cynicism is not healthy in large doses, and the critical eye must eventually turn inwards. Assuming the demand is not self-serving, and we should always assume honesty, what is being asked for when a new political formula is asked for? If it is something the entire right will buy into, then it is a failed project to begin with. Unless “the right” is significantly narrowed in scope, like eliminating pagans from our circles and excluding anyone who is not committed to the success of America, then it will be impossible to create a formula with universal appeal. Even Christian America disagree significantly when it comes to economics, and the place of the nation. There is the further question, “who are we trying to convince?” Are we trying to convince Twitter anons? Telegram channel admins? People who have built up their entire career holding certain positions, positions that are other than this new formula? Or are we trying to convince the general public? Maybe the elites? If we say yes to the later, then we need to know specific elites. Are we trying to convince Tavistock Institute fellows? Professors at The University of Chicago? Many who would say “yes, we should convince the elite” are completely unaware of the Tavistock Institute, and mistakenly think that Harvard has more influence on foreign and domestic affairs than Chicago.
After a disappointing election, the same excuses are made to become despondent, the biggest problem of democracy is suggested to cure it, a cure that has historically failed, and the demand for a new political formula is potentially a self-serving justification, and even when it is not, the intended audience is foggy.
An Analysis of 2022
Two types of polls came out that are of interest to us, those matching the Republican Party against the Democratic Party, and those matching specific Republican candidates against specific Democratic candidates. Looking at these polls, we find that voters favored The Republican Party, but many preferred Democratic candidates against specific Republican candidates.
Americans in 2022 cared more about inflation and gas prices than they did social issues. This is not an anomaly, for Reagan’s success was also due to “the economy stupid.” While social issues are important, most Americans prioritize economic stability. I can worry about making the world a better place once I know that my family will be fed each night, that my children will have a decent education, and I can be assured that I can afford gas. Despite Republicans targeting the right issues, candidates offered very few solutions to the economic crises, and those that had solutions decided to spend their time attacking their opponents with epithets that would only rally their base. When I watched the debate between Dr. Oz and Senator Fetterman, I saw that Dr. Oz did have a promising economic platform, but he spent every second on the debate stage attacking Fetterman. There were just a few seconds Oz spent talking about unleashing the energy sector, while there was over an hour of him playing the moderate card. Instead of calling Fetterman a radical, Oz should have kept to this simple script: “I have a plan for stopping inflation, reducing gas prices, improving your 401Ks and increasing your salary, I can show you step by step how I will do that, but my opponent would rather talk about culture war issues and fearmonger than talk shop.” All Republican candidates had to do was propose half-way decent economic plans, focus on that, and paint their opponents as activists who cared more about hot topics than the everyman’s struggles. If voters across party lines are concerned about the economy, then tell them how you will fix the economy! If someone walks into a restaurant and asks for a steak, you give them a steak…you do not bang on and on how the restaurant across town is run by a scoundrel. It sounds simple enough, because it is simple enough. There are customers who want a product, there are voters who want a stable economy, so you give them the product.
Senator Joshua Hawley mentioned just this in a recent RCP piece. As stated in the article, “Republicans certainly placed their hopes in voter resentment. They banked on the electorate rebuking a less-than-popular president overseeing historic inflation rates and high gasoline and food prices. And a policy prescription-free midterm was what Minority Leader Mitch McConnell wanted. After President Trump ran for reelection in 2020 without so much as releasing a party platform at the convention, McConnell was asked if the GOP would lay out their priorities should they retake the Senate majority.” There was intentionally no platform, the voter’s concerns were intentionally unaddressed. Two notable exceptions were DeSantis and Zeldin, with the former winning his race and the later, although losing, came close to winning the governorship in New York, and in doing moved every county in New York closer to the Republicans, with no county increasing or even maintaining its Democratic margins.1 From the article once more, “The DeSantis campaign was about something,” he [Hawley] said. “Lee Zeldin’s campaign was about something." Those two races “bucked the trend” by giving independent voters a reason other than just resentment to cast their ballot. “That was not the case, though, nationwide.”
Here I anticipate an objection: “but Rose, shouldn’t we run candidates that care about abortion, marriage, and demographic replacement?” Of course, but this is no excuse to wave your freak flag. Why risk polarizing issues when you can win 60% of voters? Let the candidate keep his or her social positions to his or herself, and once they are elected, they can act upon those private beliefs. Should a candidate run on fixing the economy, does so, and then makes abortion illegal, the vast majority of the middle class will not care. Yes, single women will be up in arms, but mothers will prefer a stable economy and a good education for their kids to legal abortion. Journalists and men who earn their living by serving NGOs will care, but the man on the street who is trying to provide for his family, no matter his stance on abortion, will not care. I am not, to repeat, saying that social questions are unimportant, but I am saying that the average American cares more about having a stable job, being able to retire, and their children having a good education than they do hot button issues.
There is now the question, “why did the GOP not understand this?” Two answers arise. The cynical answer is that they were not trying to win. Maybe they are controlled opposition, or maybe they just wanted to rake in donations. The non-cynical answer, which should always be our default, is that the GOP leadership is incompetent. Recently I have had to deal with both state and federal government, and I am still astounded how unprofessional they are. Government employees, state or federal, do not answer their phones, they take forever to respond to emails, and when they do respond, they have bad grammar, mess up appointments, and forget key information. A friend told me that the government is the problem, and with my recent experience I could only think, “Only if we had a government!” It is as if both state and federal employees booked it to the Bahamas, but still receive their paychecks. To be fair, I have not dealt with the GOP to the same extent I have had to deal with the government, so it is possible that the GOP is more competent than state and federal government, but it is an open possibility that the folks running the party are only their because daddy worked for the GOP, or because no one else stepped up. Thinking back to my days in ISI, the later might very well be it. I only attended a few ISI meetings, and while the people running it were decent human beings, they were incapable of political strategery. They would rather lose electorally, than have their specific conception of conservatism be ignored.
A New Political Formula
Since the demand for a new political formula is a just one, I do want to indulge it for a bit. Since the inauguration of this blog, I have articulated such a political formula a number of different ways:
Brooks Adams and a Positive Vision for the Right
Yet, unless I am some misunderstood genius (which I am most assuredly not), I have not been communicating myself well enough, or maybe not frequent enough. Let us assume the former, and attempt a new formulation of the same message.
All that exists is energy. Everything in Creation is moving towards something, and being moved by something. Right now, my energy is being spent on this article. Across the world, energy is being spent making Nike shoes in China. Energy tends towards surplus. Life gets its energy from the sun, because the sun produces surplus, such a surplus that it can sustain life on earth. God too, produces surplus energy, since He is no need of anything, and thus all His energy goes to sustaining Creation. Humans too, create surplus. Save for rare circumstances, humans have more energy than is necessary for their subsistence. The economy, being one domain in the larger phenomenon called life, is also energy and surplus. Sometimes energy goes towards manufacturing, other times it goes towards establishing art exhibits. Since general economy, to speak the words of Bataille, is the sum total of the world’s energy, and since energy tends towards surplus, the main question of general economy is “what should be done with surplus?” What is to be done with this accursed share?
Enter Richard Werner, who is the corrective to Bataille’s proscriptions. With the necessarily existing surplus, areas of the economy that further the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, should be targeted by “window guidance.” By “window guidance”, Werner means that certain industries should be given loans under contractually bound conditions. Ford is given two billion dollars on condition that they hire X number of new employees and raise the wages of all employees by X, all by the end of the following fiscal year. That two billion can only be spent on that goal, and its use is monitored under penalty of law. These kinds of loans do not create inflation mind you, because they immediately create jobs, and raise wages, and the host of new, well-paid employees, are putting that money back into the economy, strengthening the markets they spend in (such as the housing market). Window guidance ensures that surplus is spent, and not hoarded. When surplus is hoarded, or given to unresponsible economic actors, that is when inflation rears its ugly head.
Politics is the art of directing energy towards socially beneficial ends. In times past, the distinct privilege of government was thought to be the monopoly on the use of force. While this is certainly of a privilege of government, the more far-reaching privilege is the ability to allocate, and reallocate, surplus energy. When surplus energy is allocated via window guidance, that targeted market, or individual business, grows. Since all is energy, “growing” means the production of more energy, more surplus, and this new surplus allows even more energy to be allocated via window guidance. In short, so long as loans are given out responsibly and have strict contractual conditions attached to them, a surplus feedback loop will emerge and, with time, begin to compound.
From these considerations, a new question arises: “where should energy be allocated?” As I said in previous iterations of this formula, energy should be allocated to industries run by conservatives, to beautification projects, and directed away from industries dominated by leftists. Giving conservatives more economic control means giving them a larger say in local politics, a phenomenon that the fine folks over at Jacobin Magazine have detailed with notes of fear, and, conversely, directing energy away from leftist run industry will diminish their ability to fund campaigns. Republicans, still wrapped up in the ideology of Ayn Rand, never do this, however, and this is why the left gets stronger each year and conservatives lose more ground. Leftists fund friends, the GOP gives tax cuts to their enemies. Trump gave tax cuts to companies that bankrolled Clinton’s campaign, and then wondered why he lost in 2020! I am not discounting that pesky 103%, but that 103% would not have been possible if Trump trust-busted his enemies and reallocated that energy to friends.
Of course, this language would not be used on the campaign trail. This formulation is for nerds and staffers. On the campaign trail, during debates, and in ads, the message should be one of aiding businesses hurt by Covid, strengthening small town America, and taking on corporate greed. You are not appealing to the right-wing of the GOP base, you are appealing to at least 60% of American voters. Any and all partisan buzzwords are to be avoided, and things should be kept sui generis. Look to William Jennings Byran, Theodore Roosevelt, and Huey Long for examples.
We can always keep the formula short: give your friends money, take away your enemy’s money, and give the voters what they want. When this strategy is tried, it works.
See this article for a breakdown of the New York election