The late and great Sam Francis famously described the Republicans as the “Stupid Party,” pointing out that its leaders were always shooting themselves in the foot or chickening out and defeating their own declared positions.  Actually, although in general not terribly bright, Republican leaders are smart enough to take care of their own power and profits, which was all along their only real goal.  The mistake is in assuming that they ever had any ideas or principles to begin with.  The stupidity is on the part of the Republican voters who have allowed GOP leaders to get away with this forever.  In their defense, it can be said that many have stopped voting altogether, and that others vote Republican only because they can’t locate “None of the Above” on the ballot.

With the Third World President busy destroying the future of your and my American descendants in favor of foreign invaders, there has never been a greater need in American history for a real opposition party.  But, in fact, there has not been a real opposition party in U.S. politics since Mr. Jefferson sent Colonel Hamilton and His Excellency John Adams heading back north.  In the 1830’s, when there was a bitter conflict of opinion and interest between a prohibitive tariff and free trade, Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren wafted into the White House by declaring themselves stalwart supporters of “a judicious tariff,” whatever that might mean.  In 1840 the Whigs beat them at their own game.  They announced their bold program to fight the depression: “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too!”  (I omit the War for Southern Independence, in which massive and unprecedented government force was employed to “solve” the principled opposition of Southern communities and their citizens.)

It is a fact that a firmly equivocal and nice-sounding blandness has always been one of the greatest keys to success for American politicians.  When was the last presidential election in which any real issues were contested?  When the positions of the parties were anything other than variations on the same theme?  Blandness has great appeal because the mass of half-educated pseudointellectuals who make up much of the American population are fearful of conflict and scared to death of controversial opinions.  We even hear that opponents of some current orthodoxy are merely raising opposition for opposition’s sake and threatening the warm feelings of “nonpartisanship” desired by all good citizens.  One celebrity historian has promoted the idea that the lack of any real opposition in politics is one of the great virtues of the American regime.  This avoidance of ideas and principles has always been the Republican stock in trade.  For a long time they held the votes of the respectable middle and upper classes because of the vague impression that the Democrats were the disreputable party of Catholics, Jews, and Southerners.  Meanwhile, the leaders continued with the serious business of enriching themselves.

Another fact: With the exception of Reagan’s contribution to winning the Cold War, the entire history of the Republican Party in the 20th century has been grotesque betrayal—a lack of effective opposition to any leftist and Democratic initiative.  The Republican Party has won office claiming opposition and immediately abetted and institutionalized whatever revolution has been imposed.  Whenever the party leadership has been challenged, money, electoral expertise, and cunning deceit have been employed to defeat the usurper.  In 1964, when the grass roots rose up, the leaders torpedoed their own candidate.  In 1980, when there was a potential threat, the candidate was quickly co-opted.  When George Wallace showed the potential of social-conservative voters, Republican leaders held their noses and successfully gathered in the harvest, at least for a time, without ever having the least intention of pressing any of the issues.  When conservative Christians became politically active, giving great hope to many, they, too, were swiftly invited into the party and neutralized.  For some time now the party has rested on the votes of conservative Christians and Southerners.  It has never had any intention of giving these voters anything, never has given them anything, and never will give them anything.  To do so would not be respectable, would invite heightened calumny from the press, and would interfere with the real objective: power and profits.

When George W. Bush launched an unnecessary war of aggression on the basis of lies to the American people and Congress, there was no effective opposition.  The Founding Fathers would have instantly recognized this as treason—the most unquestionably impeachable offense ever committed by one holding high office.  No effective political opposition—although Bill Clinton could be impeached for a bit of ambiguous verbiage.  Then both parties colluded to subsidize the financiers so that their immense wealth would not be threatened by their evil acts against the people.  No opposition.  There is no reason to think that the illegal-immigration juggernaut will be any different.  In the future, intelligent observers (if there are any) will judge that the years of George W. Bush marked the de facto end of the American experiment in freedom and self-government.

The Republican grass roots have never been in a more ornery mood of disgust with their leadership.  Meanwhile, the Republicans are busy trying to provoke a conflict with Russia.  Possibly, this will be a short-term diversion that will boost their support, as is usual in such a situation—at potentially grave cost to Americans and to humanity.  Some sincere people have been led into a campaign to impeach Obama.  This is a standard Republican red herring for the rubes to let off steam to no purpose.  The number of Republican senators with enough guts to convict the first black president of high crimes can assemble in a couple of old-fashioned phone booths, with room to spare.

If by some miracle the party in 2016 nominates a presidential candidate who is an uncompromised opponent of the current regime, it will be interesting to see what ensues.  Such a candidate’s toughest opposition will be from the leaders of his own party, especially as they will feel it is their turn to have two terms in the executive mansion.  He or she will have to be a person of extraordinary courage and principle, with the eloquence to speak directly to the people over the noise of the media.  But it is more likely that the dog will return to its vomit, and the Republicans will nominate another photogenic, superficially sincere and intelligent empty suit from the Deep North, possibly with a white Hispanic running mate.  If this does not happen I will buy the entire Chronicles staff supper at that “French” restaurant in Rockford, if it is still there.  [Editor’s note: Café Patou has been replaced by Hacienda El Patron.]

What is likely is that the demographic changes which they abetted will determine that the Republicans will never again win a national election.  So, Sam, you were right after all.  They are the Stupid Party.