When a “political party” operates primarily as an opposition party championing the other half of Neoliberalism, only to find itself unable to govern its own nation, it does not take too long to figure out that they are incapable of genuine political statecraft. Barring empty rhetoric and meaningless platitudes that have since lost their meanings long ago, one may even be inclined to argue that they have become as philosophically bankrupt as the other political party which they claim to oppose. What keeps this one political party distinct from the other party is that they have chosen to follow the personality of one individual instead of the beliefs that said individual professes. Is it better to follow whatever the personality preaches or the personality itself?
A political party that derives an overwhelming majority of its legitimacy from a personality is not going to last. What will become of that party once the personality becomes unable to govern a nation, let alone their own party? Would the party find new followers who could carry on the legacy of the personality, abandon that legacy in favor of another personality, or would it try to create an everlasting Cult of Personality?
A Cult of Personality is a sign of weakness in any political party, regardless of its nation’s political system. It demonstrates the refusal to learn from the mistakes of past leaders and an unwillingness to provide constructive criticism where it is due. The CPSU and the CPC had both demonstrated that abandoning Stalinism and Maoism does not signal an abandonment of their actual Ideology, Scientific Socialism and the Worldview which ultimately drives it, Marxism-Leninism. If anything, they have shown that there are times when it is necessary to move on from their legacies and to seek leadership from other contemporaries or younger generations. Ideologies are guided by Worldviews, which in turn are influenced by a shared body of values, beliefs, ideas and concepts from various people committed to those Worldviews and Ideologies.
A similar circumstance would have occurred within the German-speaking world, had the German Reich survived past 1945 with the NSDAP still in charge. Hitlerism would also undergo its own replacement by another Ideology, one that is far more beneficial to the aims of Pan-Germanic Socialism and less disastrous for both the German Reich and the rest of the world. In its case, Pan-Germanic Socialism would have continued to maintain the demarcation between German-speaking world and the rest of Europe. As demonstrated by history and geopolitics, such a demarcation does not necessarily have to devolve into the senseless tirades of Antisemitism and Racialism.
A comparable episode is already playing out inside the Republican half of the Democratic-Republican Party here in America and has been for some time now. I am convinced that it preceded the Trump Presidency, back when Neoconservatism had fallen out of favor between the Bush 43 and Obama Presidencies in the 2000s. At this stage of the 21st century, a Republican is more likely to gain support from GOP constituents by swearing absolute loyalty to the legacy of Trump instead of Reagan. Absolute loyalty to Trump means that there can be no dissent among Republicans.
Thus, the old Reaganites have since returned to their point of origin, the Democrats, out of opposition to Trump, yet they struggle to differentiate themselves from the Democrats. That is because these “Never-Trump” types are waiting for the moment when Trumpism no longer animates the Republicans, which they would use as an opportunity to reassert themselves. As long as Trumpism remains prevalent among the Republicans, that possibility remains unlikely. Reagan did say that he never “‘left the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party left me.’”
I cannot help but notice that Jeffersonian Conservatism in America remains stuck at a crossroads. Reaganism may have died out a while back, but it would be neglectful on my part to not realize that Trumpism is not going to define the Republicans forever. Like the Democrats, the Republicans backing Reaganism and Trumpism merely pick and choose the various aspects of the broader Jeffersonian Worldview that caters to their own interests. The various players, factions, constituents, special interests and so forth may change, but the original form and content will always remain constant. Unwavering commitments to the Empire of Liberty and the Market/Mixed Economy, for instance, only made sense in an America where there was ample Kapital to spend on the Military-Industrial Complex and an ambivalent, technocratic Corporate America that promised to stay out of the Culture Wars. But even those two are being brought into open question these days.
Apart from the concerns of “Wokeism” influencing the conduct of Corporate America, there has been a recent interest among Jeffersonian Conservatives to rein in the Military-Industrial Complex, but not for the same Intents as might expect from the likes of Eisenhower or even Vidal. It is significant for the Heritage Foundation, a think tank that unscrupulously promoted the Military-Industrial Complex for decades (as in the case of the F-22A), to suddenly promote policy proposals tantamount to defunding the Military-Industrial Complex in “How to Cut the Pentagon Budget without Gutting Defense.” This comes as part of a broad plan to drastically remodel the Federal Government to establish a Republican Deep State and replace the Democratic Deep State, which would be achieved by bringing the Federal Civil Service more in line with the diktats of the Presidency. The Heritage Foundation is expecting that if Trump or some other Republican manages to win the Presidency in the 2024 US Presidential Elections, the remodeling must begin as early as Inauguration Day in 2025, hence this plan’s designation as “Project 2025.”
There is an old Dengist saying that goes “it doesn’t matter if the cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice.” Here in Jeffersonian America, a comparable adage is “one doesn’t have to be straight to shoot straight.” Whether the cat is black or white and whether somebody considers themselves homosexual or heterosexual are nowhere near as important as whether either will fulfill their Legal Duties. Here, I am inclined to believe that the Heritage Foundation was thinking in the inverse while they were commissioning Project 2025: even if the cat catches mice, it does matter whether the cat is black or white, just as how being straight is the same as shooting straight.
If one does not already realize this yet, then I must bluntly point out that there is no Turkish-style “Deep State” within the Federal Civil Service. It is far more accurate to describe the Federal Civil Service as something akin to a constituency where the majority consistently votes Democrat because they do not trust the Republicans to run the Federal Government. Since no third party has ever been able to establish a presence inside Congress and the Presidency, third parties are always out of the question. In the 2022 Midterms alone, 46% of them voted for House Democrats, whereas 37% voted for Senate Democrats, compared to the 35% for House Republicans and 33% for Senate Republicans. 48% of Federal Civil Service approve of the Biden Presidency, the remaining 52% in disapproval.
It has been known for years that the Federal Civil Service tends to vote Democrat because the Democrats themselves treat them as one of their own constituents. This infuriates the Republicans, whose “small government” and “fiscal conservative” stances are antithetical to the interests of the Federal Civil Service. Since the Federal Civil Service is never going to vote against its own interests, it makes sense for a think tank like the Heritage Foundation to remodel the Federal Government by replacing personnel with those who are guaranteed to vote against the interests of the Federal Civil Service.
Of course, one must realize that the Democrats no longer hold the high ground in the Federal Civil Service. If the Federal Civil Service thinks that there is a better opposition outside the Democratic-Republican Party, they will jump on board with that opposition. The decision to vote in one’s interest is hardly the equivalent of a Deep State. Real Deep States are always extralegal, extraconstitutional and extraterritorial entities that do not need the power of any government or even participate in elections. The best examples of Deep States are fringe cults, organized crime outfits, secret societies, and rogue military juntas. Sometimes, they are actual political organizations or movements with their own agendas. Last time I checked, the Federal Civil Service did not fit into any of those categories. As for the latter, Congress never repealed the Hatch Act of 1939, which still prevents Federal Civil Servants from getting too involved in political activism.
If there is anything to be learned from this post, it ought to be this: is it better to appeal to a constituency by simply replacing them with yes-men?
Categories: Politics
The Fourth Estate 
Leave a comment