The new year and those thereafter offer many unfamiliar tests.  First and foremost is the test of the resilience of the United States.  Based on recent evidence, the new President will take dramatically different courses at home and abroad.  The Rooseveltian consensus on a social safety net and more recent progress on a variety of other public programs will be tested.  The post-World War II world order based largely upon the Atlantic Alliance is also being seriously challenged..

Nominations for cabinet offices in Departments having to do with public housing, environmental protection and climate change, health care, education, and energy, among others, have gone to those with outspoken antagonism to current law and policy and more enduring traditions such as public education.  These nominees are committed to reverse course and destroy the respective consensuses that brought us to today.

Our commitment to broad based public education traces to Jefferson who made it the cornerstone of democracy itself.  A well-informed citizenry was the backbone of citizen participation in the affairs of governance.  Competition in education is one thing.  A parallel system of private education primarily available to financial elites is quite another.

If the next one or two presidential terms takes the nation in a radically different course in each of these public policy areas, how long thereafter will it take to return us to the status quo ante?  In a nation of the size and diversity of ours, considerable time is required for consensus to form in all of these domestic policy fields.  Restoring that consensus will not be as easy as electing a more traditional and mainstream executive.

Likewise, in terms of America’s role in the world.  If the incoming President is serious about restructuring NATO and related seventy-year-old institutions which have formed the basis of global stability, those institutions or reformed versions of them will not be restored overnight.  As with our domestic institutions and structures, creating a new Western democratic alliance, and negotiating positive relations with emerging powers such as China, will require hard work, patience, and especially statesmanship over time.  Most of all, if confidence in the United States is seriously eroded, as it may well be, years will be required before that confidence is restored.

Perhaps most importantly, confidence by American citizens in their own government will have to be restored.  Those on the right particularly who have made distrust of our own Government the centerpiece of their ideology will continue their undermining efforts even as they occupy power and will never appreciate the irony of their position.

As some of us have said repeatedly, you cannot claim to love your country and hate its government.

There is every evidence that political parties of the neo-right (as distinct from traditional conservative parties) are networking and sharing goals and methods.  Their methods are strikingly similar regardless of country: demonization of the opposition; the use of social media to target individuals for attack; purging those who disagree from positions of responsibility and even from public platforms; disregard for facts, including proven scientific ones; reliance on fear and repression; intolerance; and alienation of racial and religious minorities.

Left unchallenged, these forces will continue to use false media and the security of the mob to propagate hatred of minorities and immigrants and to align with authoritarian leaders in Russia and elsewhere.

None of these promised radical departures is a foregone conclusion, and, even with a complacent Congress, Americans who disagree must be heard from.  Authoritarianism invites a Resistance and, I for one, am joining that Resistance.  Voices of conviction, rooted in our Constitution and obedient to our principles, will not be silent.  Fortified by our ancient ideals and convinced of the rightness of our cause to uphold and protect America’s noblest ideals, we will be heard and we will be as defiant as circumstances require.

It requires no courage to be a summer soldier, a patriot when the sun is shining.  What our nation needs now are winter soldiers.

The spirit of our Founders awaits our response.  We must be faithful to that spirit and the generations of sacrifice and duty it represents.  At stake once again is the future of our Republic.  It is in our hands.  Loyal Americans must summon the courage to stand up and be counted, to defy voices of bigotry, ignorance, fear, and hate.

For if we do not stand up and do so now, who else is there.

11 Responses to “What the Future Holds: A Call for Resistance”

  1. Gary Hart Says:

    I take this occasion to send warmest wishes for the Holidays to the hardy, intelligent, and thoughtful readers and commentators at this site.
    Gary Hart

  2. Paul Borg Says:

    Dear Senator Hart,

    Thank you for your warm wishes and expression of confidence in those that come to this meeting place.

    This is my vision and the sum of my experience heretofore.

    It is also a warning.

    The clarion call is sounded and those of us with the capacity to respond are in a state of readiness. We must remember that this Resistance can only succeed if we can recognize the extent that that which we Resist has taken root within our own souls. This is a process of Spirit; a process that has rules and demands. It demands the Highest in the Human Being. It demands the humility to know that it is the Great Spirit that commands and effects all processes. We have been allowed to make mistakes in our own freedom in the Hope that we might realize there is a straight and narrow path created for us that is native to our Nature. Deviation brings dangers to our souls and the distinct possibility of never reuniting with the Great Spirit. When we face the adversary and challenge it, be sure it has no agency within us.

    The accomplishments of this nation’s founders live in the DNA of its People. Let us activate them by a sincere expression of gratitude to them for having prepared the ground for this Republic. Since then, others have come and built upon their success and have been agents of its continuing evolution.

    We have Allies in the precolonial nations that share this land with us. There are points of nexus if we would just take advantage of them. What damage that has and is being done to our relationship with them must be remedied. America will never be whole without them.

    My hope is that we emerge as a wiser People and a humbler People and a People that is empowered to express all that is truly Divine in our nature as human beings. If that is the case, then those of other nations may look to us as an inspiration and a guide in their unique struggle for transcendence. We must not intervene in their affairs. It is for them to take their own path in their own freedom as we have taken ours otherwise it would have no meaning for them.

  3. Jack DuVall Says:

    I am of the generation that had not yet reached college when we watched, mainly on television, the Civil Rights Movement in the early 1960s. But the assassinations of John Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and Robert Kennedy showed us that fully achieving the dream of equal justice in America had to depend on all of us, not on political heroes. And it is our broad resistance to the war in Vietnam, in manifold ways, in part by resisting the Nixon Administration, that helped to finally end it. That was how many of us came of age.

    But now a broader assault against longstanding public programs and environmental laws is promised by an incoming administration, more sweeping than any which Reagan wished to attempt. That attack reaches even to the point of the apparent desire to undermine five decades of progress in lowering mistrust of one another based on race and religion. It may even appear to be a kind of coup against our Constitution’s commitment of our government to the goals of justice, “domestic tranquility”, and “the general Welfare”.

    To check and neutralize the political compulsion behind these actions will take a larger mobilization than was needed when many in my generation responded to a similar call to action, as sounded today by Senator Hart. If we love our country, we must find within ourselves the affective force as well as the patient strategies and imaginative tactics that the struggle will require. As a people, we have done this before in the context of many different circumstances, and we can do it again.

  4. Paul Borg Says:

    Dear Senator Hart,

    In my imagination, I have often sat at the feet of the man who wrote the following and listened, all the while never ceasing to marvel at how America is able to give birth to such greatness. I am made hopeful and given comfort by both these facts.

    “…Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string. Accept the place the divine providence has found for you, the society of your contemporaries, the connection of events. Great men have always done so, and confided themselves childlike to the genius of their age, betraying their perception that the Eternal was stirring at their heart, working through their hands, predominating in all their being. And we are now men, and must accept in the highest mind the same transcendent destiny; and not pinched in a corner, not cowards fleeing before a revolution, but redeemers and benefactors, pious aspirants to be noble clay under the Almighty effort let us advance on Chaos and the dark….” an excerpt from “Self Reliance”, Ralph Waldo Emerson

    I felt like sharing this Gem with you in the hope it may prove to be a source of sustenance for us as we live through the coming times.

  5. Chris R. Says:

    As a citizen interested in politics, I was disturbed at the lack of media coverage on issues in the presidential campaign. I heard very few issues discussed, or pursued, by the MSM, who seemed more interested in scandal and sensationalism. So, at this point, I am still watching the president-elect and his potential cabinet picks for the details that should have been demanded by alleged journalists before election day. As Mr. Perot would say, “The devil is in the details.” I am puzzled as to why our host has not given the president-elect and his subordinates a bit more time before assuming the worst about all things.

    The educational system in our urban areas fails its students. When the local governments, school boards in such places are run by ethnic minorities, it has gotten difficult to blame the failings of urban education on racism, etc. The better explanation may be elitism. Jimmy Carter was the last American president to send his child to a public school, and in D. C. no less. (I still remember SNL spoofing the Secret Service helping Amy to cheat on her tests!) The D.C. and national elites routinely send their children to private schools, yet efforts to give the poorest Americans better options from public schools warehousing disruptive students are denounced as somehow un-American. Certainly, an educational policy might allow tax credits only for those schools districts whose testing scores demonstrate they are failing their students. Such a policy would not encourage competition where it is not needed in richer suburbs. I agree with the president-elect that all children should have a right to a quality education, not simply being warehoused at taxpayer expense. However, the details of any such plan will determine what I support, and what I would oppose. It is too early to tell.

    I will also support the president-elect in his efforts to reform the present Administrative State where law is made by the executive or judicial branch of government, or even international bodies. Juries need to again check the power of judges in the judiciary, as was guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Jefferson would be aghast at the lack democracy. It is truly shocking how little the Administrative State resembles what our constitution intended and was in the past. It more closely resembles imperial Russia before the revolution.

    Since the fall of the old Soviet Union, NATO has evolved into an offensive rather than the defensive alliance originally chartered. President-elect Trump will no longer ignore the failure of NATO members to pay their dues to the club when they can. In the past, as long as some members provided some political or military support for American interventionism in other sovereign nations, such things were ignored. Expenditures by such countries may well include purchases of military equipment and software from American companies. This is a legitimate American interest.

    Lastly, I recall that our host’s friend, Senator Cohen, served as Secretary of Defense for President Clinton. I am sure that he disagreed with Clinton on many things, especially domestic policy. Yet, he put his nation before his party and served. A colleague and I discussed how our host’s experience in doing business in the former U.S.S.R. is the kind of business experience that the president-elect has prized in his picks, (above the usual reward for campaign donations.). His friendship with Mr. Gorbachev, and knowledge of nuclear arms issues, would make him an excellent choice for some diplomatic post dealing with Russia, if not our next Ambassador to Russia. Has our host contacted Mr. Trump to offer his services to the country? If former V.P. Gore could meet with Mr. Trump, why not him?


  6. Gary Hart Says:

    In response to Chris R., there was less political distance, including on domestic issues, between President Clinton and Secretary Cohen than one might assume. Those were the days before the Great Schism between the parties and moderate Republicans, of whom Senator Cohen was one, and Democrats got along much better.
    Though I am acquainted with the President-elect from the days in the 1980s when he offered his support for my Presidential candidacy, I would not offer my services even if I had access to him, which I do not. It does not appear he will have many Democrats of my ilk in his Administration, and I did not offer my services either to Presidents Clinton or Obama. As a Jeffersonian, I believe if one has merit, he will be found. GH

  7. Chris R. Says:

    Well, I didn’t hear that Senator Hart would not serve if asked. I will take the liberty of requesting his friend Senator McCain to lobby on his behalf.

  8. J. Kane Says:

    Long and rambling, I am not working! Merry Christmas.

    I guess I will once again wholeheartedly disagree with much of the premise of this posting. How can one sit back and watch the antics that have taken place in the wake of Trump’s election by the Democratic Party and the “in tow” media and then write about “false media” and “the security of the mob” in association with “those of the right”? How is it that you can on one side think that the new president will take a dramatically different course and not concede the last 8 years have been a dramatically new course that those on the right have been forced to endure?
    “These nominees are committed to reverse course and destroy the respective consensuses that brought us to today.” That brought us to today? I don’t like where we are today. Neither do the millions who elected Trump president. What don’t we like?
    1) Most of all, if confidence in the United States is seriously eroded, as it may well be, years will be required before that confidence is restored. And the current administration has not been an abysmal failure in foreign policy and world confidence? Need we make a list of the failings and deterioration of the entire Middle East? I am sure that Israel had nothing but the utmost confidence in Hilary Clinton and President Obama! Maybe we should draw another red line in the sand or structure another unconstitutional nuclear deal that we have already circumvented by: “The United States and its negotiating partners agreed “in secret” to allow Iran to evade some restrictions in last year’s landmark nuclear agreement in order to meet the deadline for it to start getting relief from economic sanctions, according to a report reviewed by Reuters.” And published in the Huffington Post. Might we remember the chanting of death to America the next day and the statements that they never intended to honor the terms? Then we prove our ineptness by ignoring the fact that they never even met the first restrictions so we could go ahead and send them HUGE SUMS of US TAXPAYER MONEY! Why? in a blatant attempt to purchase peace through regional economic stability? Do we really think that is the model? Does the fact that the cold war was won by breaking the Soviet Union with an arms race not teach us anything about financial warfare? Do we really believe that our nation already 19.9 Trillion dollars in debt can finance NATO, nation building, foreign wars and stabilize the middle east out of US Taxpayer money? Are we that foolish or is the intent to break the US financially because it is working!
    2) “Those on the right particularly who have made distrust of our own Government the centerpiece of their ideology will continue their undermining efforts even as they occupy power and will never appreciate the irony of their position.” There is no irony. The position is the downsizing of government and government reach. The limiting of assumed powers and the transition of power back to the states. The gutting of the bloat and department of redundancy departments. The endless offices of inefficiency and waste. Those who earn paychecks and have taxes cut out of their pay want to see Washington run like an efficient business and elected a business executive who we see as having the best chance to get that accomplished.
    3) As some of us have said repeatedly, you cannot claim to love your country and hate its government. Then those have not read history. It should read:” you can claim to love your country and hate the direction its government has taken it.”
    “And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanages to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers.”“I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” “The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.” “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have ” “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” “Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.” “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency first by inflation then by deflation the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered… I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies… The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.” “The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”.” A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt…If the game runs sometime against us at home, we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake.”
    “It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.”
    ― Thomas Jefferson
    And on a personal note: “…never [enter] into dispute or argument with another. I never saw an instance of one of two disputants convincing the other by argument. I have seen many, on their getting warm, becoming rude, & shooting one another. … When I hear another express an opinion which is not mine, I say to myself, he has a right to his opinion, as I to mine; why should I question it? His error does me no injury, and shall I become a Don Quixote, to bring all men by force of argument to one opinion? … There are two classes of disputants most frequently to be met with among us. The first is of young students, just entered the threshold of science, with a first view of its outlines, not yet filled up with the details & modifications which a further progress would bring to their knowledge. The other consists of the ill-tempered & rude men in society, who have taken up a passion for politics. … Consider yourself, when with them, as among the patients of Bedlam, needing medical more than moral counsel. Be a listener only, keep within yourself, and endeavor to establish with yourself the habit of silence, especially on politics. In the fevered state of our country, no good can ever result from any attempt to set one of these fiery zealots to rights, either in fact or principle. They are determined as to the facts they will believe, and the opinions on which they will act. Get by them, therefore, as you would by an angry bull; it is not for a man of sense to dispute the road with such an animal.”

    “If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send 150 lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, & talk by the hour? That 150 lawyers should business together ought not to be expected.” ― Thomas Jefferson, Letters of Thomas Jefferson

    4)…Disregard for facts, including proven scientific ones; reliance on fear and repression; intolerance; and alienation of racial and religious minorities.
    Loyal Americans must summon the courage to stand up and be counted, to defy voices of bigotry, ignorance, fear, and hate. “Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.” I am sorry sir but many on the right feel exactly the same way. Do you not see that minorities have been used as nothing more than a pawn by the political parties for over 40 years? Was Bill Clinton a democratic governor from the southern state of Arkansas really our first black president? Of course not, so why did he play that part and use that rhetoric? Simple it bought him votes and cost him nothing. I will say one more time, if you have not read Hilary Rodham’s senior thesis “An Analysis of the Alinsky Model” you should. It is in my opinion the ground work for the modern day left. Very quickly: The playbook for years has been to organize the “black community” (now minorities) against a non realistic conflict an unwinnable situation. There is the 2% who profit wildly from the “welfare industry” (AL Sharpton, the Clinton’s), and the politicians who benefit from “the maintenance or continual readjustment of the balance of power” (Democratic Party). The goal is “to provide a channel into which they can pour their frustration of the past; to create a mechanism which can drain off underlying guilt for having accepted the previous situation for so long a time.” “Stir and agitate, get them angry, steal their power, drain off their guilt.” Who was Obama before a Senator? Who is arrested at “Black Lives Matter” riots? It’s not locals (her paper points out you can only get 2% local participation). Who buses in demonstrators? Who sponsored the 99% campaign? All straw dogs, no real solution, symbolic issues designed to agitate and be fanned while no solutions are ever proposed or actually put into effect. Read it, there is no intent to fix anything just use the people by being their champion to an issue you have no intention of addressing. Read about the advantages of controlling urban areas and the problems with rural areas who more effectively control their own local issues like school boards and local government. Then go look at an election map county by county. Remember this is her thesis written years ago! What if Trump stems immigration and actually reforms, goes into inner cities and breaks the cycle of poverty, drugs and rampant murders of young black men? What happens to the issues, the election map?
    Have you asked yourself how arctic sheets of ice covered North America and then receded, came back again over and over throughout history? Have you asked yourself how using a time period of say 50 years over the span of 4.5 billion years is scientifically statistically significant? It isn’t. Have you asked yourself why, if the Democratic Party is truly concerned with reducing greenhouse gasses, it would in effect force industries (operating in the good old USA where the EPA has offices embedded in their plants that monitor, fine, regulate, every aspect of their existence) to pull up stakes and move? Move to China, Mexico, Vietnam or any other country that doesn’t bother to regulate their pollutant output? Are those countries not contributing to our globe? Would it not make sense to reward companies for operating in our country where all of the new executive orders, regulations and laws are in place? (GLOBAL STRAW DOG). Have you ever looked at or analyzed the function of NAFTA or how the premise has been used in other parts of the world since and what it’s stated goal is when subsequently used there? Go find it for yourself. The plan is used to level the economies of neighboring countries. Bring up the economy to the same level? Say bring Mexico up to the level of the US? No, equalize by bringing one economy down and the other up! Do you remember Ross Perot’s position? So why is the EU coming apart? It is Europe’s NAFTA with more progressive twists like common currency. Why? Because Europeans have figured out that it is true socialism and “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” ― Margaret Thatcher. If you are socialist or a progressive and believe we should control the planet then climb aboard Al Gore’s jet or go help agitate a voting bloc. I think I will sit back and see what Trump actually does for a while. THINK FOR YOURSELF!

  9. Paul G Says:


    Unheralded hero of 9/11, successful businessman and lifelong dedicated public servant who authored 21 books including Restoration of Our Republic, now fills the Democratic leadership vacuum as our republic’s foremost statesman with his Christmas call to us to fight for our republic’s principles:

    “Authoritarianism invites a Resistance and, I for one, am joining that Resistance. Voices of conviction, rooted in our Constitution and obedient to our principles, will not be silent. Fortified by our ancient ideals and convinced of the rightness of our cause to uphold and protect America’s noblest ideals, we will be heard and we will be as defiant as circumstances require … The spirit of our Founders awaits our response. We must be faithful to that spirit and the generations of sacrifice and duty it represents. At stake once again is the future of our Republic. It is in our hands. Loyal Americans must summon the courage to stand up and be counted, to defy voices of bigotry, ignorance, fear, and hate.For if we do not stand up and do so now, who else is there.”

  10. Edward Goldstick Says:

    I am tempted to begin a long discourse on the difference between “opposition” and “resistance”, but as I am in Europe and only two minutes remain before this day has passed…

    … Merry Christmas, Senator Hart, and Happy New Year to all.

  11. Eric C. Jacobson Says:

    Being somewhat “long in the tooth” and having keenly observed political developments from a left-liberal POV since the suburban LA “wonder years” of my youth I have never seen anything remotely like the prevailing maelstrom of confusion surrounding the recent presidential election.

    I believe this stems from an epidemic of non-empathy (or even sympathy) by “the haves” for the plight of the everyday people of America, who have been subjected for decades to class warfare against them by the 1% (really the upper 10%) and their “bought and bossed” political minions who hold virtually all the nation’s elected offices.

    As the President-Elect alluded in his election night tweet the nation’s “forgotten [men and women]” rallied around Donald Trump, who admirably decided to become a quasi-class-traitor (AKA located within himself a sense of “noblesse oblige” not unlike the Kennedy brothers did in their day).

    The voters’ decision to do so was entirely predictable and natural, for anyone with eyes to see the true state of the American union. (Alas, that does not include anyone in the current Administration, Joe Biden’s latest “damage control” interview partially to the contrary notwithstanding. .)

    Republicans (at least post-Lincoln and pre-Trump and with the partial exceptions of Teddy Roosevelt, Hiram Johnson and a handful of their fellow GOP Progressive era pols) have been well-known (forever) for their unceasing “country club” hostility to America’s everyday people.

    So the sense of betrayal in recent decades has come most glaringly from the Democratic Party which for 4 decades (1932-1972) was on the side of the common men and women of this country.

    What caused the contemporary Democrats’ downfall (which may well be terminal) was their slow-and-steady switching of sides from labor to capital, from workers to management, from consumers to producers, etc. With the possible exception of Paul Wellstone, since 1972 no high-level elected Democrat has sounded anything like then-Democrat Ronald Reagan did in his class-conscious 1948 national broadcast in support of Hubert Humphrey’s candidacy for the U.S. Senate: .

    The host speaks of a Great Schism between the parties (implying that there are fundamental differences on non-social issues) but that overlooks entirely what I call the Democratic Party’s “unbearable Republican liteness of being” which began with the formation of the Democratic Leadership Council in the early 1980s, was institutionalized under President Clinton and continued full force under President Obama, who (in sum) completed the Democrats’ capitulation to Reaganism.

    Republican polemicists’ canard about the incumbent president being any sort of a “leftist”, “progressive” or “liberal” (apart from social issues) is laughable and simply has no basis whatsoever in reality. Indeed it was when the president ditched “hope and change” in 2009 and reverted to “business as usual” (with the partial exception of Obamacare) that the 20% of Americans who voted for Obama in 2008 AND voted for Trump in 2016 finally began to see the Democratic Party for the pro-Wall Street/pro-elites-in-general and anti-Main Street/anti-common people-in-general racket that it’s been for decades. Those 24 million (!) people swung the 2016 election to populist Donald Trump.

    Of course, had establishment Democrats not vetoed the DEMOCRATS’ 2016 populist insurgency, today Bernie Sanders might — might — be holding court to visitors in Vermont and filling posts in his Administration.

    A political Great Schism does exist but it is not one between the parties (with the limited exception of a few social issues) that Sen. Hart adverts-to. The 1%’s aggressive class war against the vast majority of the American people was put on steroids in the 1990s by trends collectively known as “globalization” (changes foisted on the American people that no U.S. citizen ever voted on).

    It is those who embrace and reject globalization-as-we-know-it who form America’s great divide today. And fervent opposition to today’s corporatist globalization is not (at all) confined to the “neo-right” (AKA “alt-right”). Rather those who comprised the entire Occupy movement, and later the far more broad-based Sanders’ presidential campaign, also vigorously opposed and oppose it.

    Among many others who have done so for many years (think the Battle of Seattle and its antecedent and subsequent anti-globalization protests), I have been personally resisting neoliberal globalism since at least the early 1990s when I began corresponding with former Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern on the subject when he was considering running for president again in 1992 (he decided not to), the same year Ross Perot broke through.

    On February 19, 1996, the day Pat Buchanan’s nationalist/Perot-esque Republican presidential primary campaign scored an upset victory over front-runner Bob Dole in the New Hampshire primary I mailed a lengthy memorandum to Senator McGovern urging in sum, the formation of a progressive political bloc or third party that would force the Democratic Party to repudiate then President Clinton’s obviously regressive neoliberal free trade doctrine.

    McGovern’s (I think historically important) hand-written reply to me of May 19, 1996 is here: . It includes the lines:

    “The political equation – including the defeat of Buchanan by Dole – has changed since your letter was written. But your essential point as to THE BANKRUPTCY OF NEO-LIBERALISM is still valid. I see nothing effective that can be done in ’96, other than the Nader effort in California….” (Emphasis added)

    So President-Elect Trump is in very good company (of Sen. McGovern!): America First (or as I slightly prefer Americans First) – the antithesis of neoliberalism – has both an alt-left and alt-right provenance.

    Objectively then (albeit merely in my humble opinion) we non-conservatives owe Donald Trump our profound thanks for his excellent works this election year:

    Although he has been rough around the edges at times, the President-Elect has demolished both the Bush family’s pernicious 3 decade domination of the Republican Party and the corrupt Clintons’ counterpart Democratic dynasty, and espoused a largely centrist political agenda with some notable center-left elements: Namely ending the 1%’s (traitorous) placement of Americans into wage and jobs competition with the world’s poorest people, stopping the march of folly towards World War 3 by abruptly ending tensions with non-Communist Russia, and winding down our elites’ diabolical quarter-century plan to make radical Islamic militancy the new Red Menace. See my increasingly prescient op-ed of approximately one year ago here: (from Wayback Machine; main website is down, presumably temporarily).

    As he transitions to governing mode, it appears likely that Mr. Trump will take Ike, JFK, the detente-side of Reagan, the balanced budget side of Clinton and the protectionist side of Ross Perot as his role models. I hope Mr. Trump will also emulate the idealistic public interest side of Gary Hart, as his support for one or more of Hart’s 1980s candidacies suggests he might.

    True: Conservative business types and pols are trying to ingratiate themselves with Trump’s transition team and usurp top posts (and are partially succeeding). But what these appointees may be forgetting that it is Donald Trump himself (who is in fact a moderate Republican “party of one” backed by 60+ million American voters and who will be keenly interested in being re-elected) who will be dictating their departments’ agendas and priorities; and that if any Cabinet member fails to do Trump’s bidding, he or she will quickly be met with Trump’s trademark line: “You’re fired!”

    Finally, I wish to align myself with some of the content and all of the spirit of ChrisR’s comment above, one part of which brought back a memory:

    On the Tonight Show in early 1993 Senator Hart was a guest I believe mainly for the purpose of promoting his then-current book. The host (I believe Johnny Carson but don’t recall for certain) and Gary were discussing the then just-commenced presidency of Bill Clinton. They got on the subject of some of the criticisms that had been leveled at the new Administration, one of which I believe was endorsed by the studio audience. I can’t recall the specifics but vividly recall Hart’s entreaty to the host and audience in response: “Let’s give him a chance!”

    Just so!

    And Happy New Year to all.

Leave a Reply

All comments are reviewed by a moderator prior to approval and are subject to the UCD blog use policy.