Here is a counter example to the Greg Scalise comment. I am currently in seminary for the PCA. I am taking classes remotely (so I can keep my job and community), getting the cost nearly covered through various denominational scholarships, and participating in a coordinated cohort of seminarians in my area which meets monthly to connect and discuss practical skills with active pastors. There is also job board on the seminary's website with tons of open positions. It sounds like the PCUSA might offer more than that, but the disparity isn't nearly as bad as some are making it out to be.
I have a great deal of respect for people who do seminary online while balancing other responsibilities at work and at home and in their local church. And it’s crucial that churches make that track available to meet the shortage of pastors. However, I also think online classes and part time school can’t fully substitute for the traditional in person, full-time seminary experience. Given how wealthy and educated America is, Americans should not be paying through the nose to make sure their doctors and lawyers have top schooling and full-time devotion to their craft, while pastors do theology as a side-hustle. I have nothing but respect for the pastors who grind their way to ministry, but it’s an indictment of our churches as institutions that we don’t do a better job of recruiting and training high quality candidates for the ministry.
To your job openings point, I was curious how the numbers actually stacked up so I went on the PCA and PCUSA job boards and checked the state of Florida (just as a random sample). PCA had 16 pastoral openings and the PCUSA had 20 pastoral openings. Pretty close. But what about full time, settled, lead pastor opening? PCA 4 and PCUSA 12. If you want to be an associate pastor the PCA has plenty of openings, but there seem to be many more lead/solo openings in the PCUSA.
That sounds cool actually, getting an education without losing contact with your community and you still get the IRL experiences. That seems nicely thought out.
"It may be religious, but it’s not exactly traditional."
Paul Vanderklay coined the term: Metagelical. It's essentially how in America specifically, Catholics and even Eastern Orthodox, approach religion in Evangelical ways.
"I hope Redeemed Zoomer will be able to popularize this path for more pastors."
My question--and it's completely sincere; I don't think I already know the answer--is this: do these newly minted conservative pastors in mainline denominations have free reign to preach conservative theology? Can they freely mix with co-belligerents in politics-adjacent places without punishment? Can they organize conservative lay leaders to agitate for the hierarchy to promote more conservatives to their ranks? i.e., can they do everything left-wing pastors have been free to do for the last 7 decades without getting blackballed?
Without addressing this question, the enthusiasm for the mainline smacks of an off-putting careerism.
RZ is open about his project and is going into ministry in the PCUSA without any top-down opposition. Most of the mainlines still have formidable conservative minorities, which the denominations have not even tried to totally purge in the way that say the SBC tries to purge liberal churches.
In my own experience in the ABCUSA, I feel comfortable saying I have total freedom to do those things. There are various evangelical sub-groups and even factions that openly advocate for certain positions. You might not get picked to serve on a certain denominational board if the current board doesn’t like your positions, but that’s a universal truth. If you’re a conservative and activist pastor, you’re not going to lose your church or your job or your retirement plan or your right to vote at denominational meetings.
Most of the people I’ve met in denominational leadership are much more concerned with the health of the denomination than with advocating a particular ideology. That may not have been the case 20 years ago, but it’s my experience with the weakened denominations today. They’re Baptists who happen to be liberals, not liberals who happen to be Baptists, and therefore they’ll do what’s best for Baptists even if it means working with conservatives. Likewise in churches, I’ve had members who lean more liberal in their theology and politics, but they care more about their local church than their theology, and are willing to listen to and be led by a conservative pastor if things go well for the church.
Thanks much for the explanation. This change of the last 20 years you're describing needs to be talked up more; this is the first I've heard of it. It's a hopeful sign.
Bear in mind that I grew up UMC, never went PCUSA, did go Missouri Synod for awhile (reclaimed mainline) and have a mild awareness of Episcopalian dynamics for the below.
The UMC, especially after the limited opportunity to leave has passed, is going to be the most top-down, hostile territory. Thanks to some historical concerns of John Wesley in not wanting to fund a bunch of untrained heretics, its polity is by far the most hierarchical in major branches of Christianity, second only to Roman Catholicism. At best if you've got a moderate, broad-church bishop there, a minister might be able to be fairly conservative on core doctrinal issues.
The entry may be easy, and it might be doable to teach general evangelicalism, but they probably CANNOT be actively or even especially passively critical against the cultural issues of the day OR even a rank unbeliever as a minister who's visiting the church and would fill the pulpit. And the PCUSA most assuredly controls things like pensions, retirement funds, and the like. It'll be easy entry but not so easy exit.
The Episcopal Church USA is the most interesting, because it actually still has conservative dioceses, and my understanding of Anglicanism is essentially that Anglicanism is highly variable based on who your bishop is, to the point it's almost a different denomination. The most prominent one of those right now is the Diocese of Central Florida, headed by unquestionable evangelical in Justin Holcomb. There's even been entire dioceses that have broken off and joined ACNA. There it's a more personal form of governance in that if you have a conservative diocese, you're essentially safe but if it's moderate or liberal, you better watch out.
I think the revitalization approaches are pretty sound for less top-down denominations that allow congregations to be weird and influential or to easily leave for better denominations, but I fully expect the trap door to close on folks like RZ or require him to take an essentially fully compromised position once he and others gain institutional prominence.
The bigger problem in my mind is that one really needs to face the fact that whatever one's individual local church is like, in the top-down mainlines like these 3, a guest preacher is essentially playing Russian roulette with the souls of your congregation. It might be a social gospel, it might be a Barthian gospel that doesn't require any factual backing in history, or it might just be a vapid pep talk. There are plenty of evangelicals within the mainline, but I think these big three mainlines have all of the cards from literally decades of playing the game and LOTS of property to sell off or rent out to keep playing.
That's my biggest critique of the top-down organization reforms, because for all intents and purposes they're massive real estate investment trusts that have social causes, and there's plenty of old but not historical churches in suburban or newly expanding areas that more that keep the lights on when they sell the properties off. That will more than outlast even the wealthiest of conservative ministers.
Enjoyed this color; much more detailed than my initial take below that UMC, TEC, and ELCA, are all episcopal. It does align with my thought that strategy and chances of success are going to vary a great deal by polity. There's no one-size-fits-all strategy here, especially outside the congregational polities.
You didn't mention ELCA. I ran a quick analysis on this and it seems that ELCA churches seem to generally own their property and have the power to disaffiliate, so that would naturally provide more independence and might create a broader entryway for conservative Lutherans to consider.
Yeah, broadly speaking, when seeking after reform in a mainline, I'd look for three categories:
Property ownership including the power to disaffiliate, and the power to choose clergy/officers. If all three boxes are checked, then Reconquer away if there's a good opportunity.
Disaffiliation is not part of RZ's approach at all, but the local body absolutely needs the power to go in order to be able to stay and make good waves.
---
It's the PCUSA and UMC that are the absolute worst on this count. The real challenge for RZ will be when he gets ordained after a course of study in a PCUSA seminary. The presbytery can extract some major pounds of flesh, or his views aren't going to be as evangelical as they appear if he passes with flying colors.
From personal experience, it's profoundly demoralizing to be in an environment hostile to or at best patronizing to your evangelical faith when it's your own church and denomination. Some people can work really well in such an environment, especially if it's viewed as a mission setting, but then they have all of the challenges of a missionary without a supportive church back home so to speak.
This all makes sense to me. The valuable thing is the real estate, not the rotten denominational bureaucracy or the brand.
If, by recapturing a single church, we now control its real estate, we've taken something of value. Even if that's the only church in the entire denomination we reclaim, and that church then disaffiliates.
But if reclaiming any real estate requires reclaiming the entire denomination, we're in a pretty difficult position. Especially when now we're that real estate's caretakers; we have to put money into the upkeep of that real estate, which is value that, in all likelihood, the denomination is going to take back from us.
On your last point: I think Aaron has touched on this before, that conservatives aren't like liberals, which translates into different modes of institutional capture and influence. This might be even more true in the context of Christianity. Conservative Christians actually believe things! We have a problem with telling bald-faced lies about our beliefs!
But the denominations were captured by liars that inserted themselves by claiming to have no objections to historic creeds like the WCF, which they then set about dismantling.
I agree with this statement, which is why it's worth noting that the large majority of the Mainline is episcopal by polity: UMC+TEC+ELCA, which are the 3 largest. I think that adds up to maybe 70-80%. And while I'm not intimate with the details, that comes across to me as a very different battle. Maybe not unwinnable, but very different.
Congregational is larger than presbyterian polity though: ABC alone is roughly as big or slightly larger than PCUSA, and there's also UCC and DoC.
The problems with how business is run in America are worthy of an article in themselves if not a book.
To one point though the short version is are you paying someone enough to “build a life”. Which is to say afford a family, afford a decent home for same (doesn’t have to be ownership, although that would be preferable), eventually afford to not die at your desk. People aren’t avoiding corporate to “follow their bliss”, they’ve seen the writing on the wall that most, most not all, corporate jobs are basically only good as second incomes on top of another larger income.
Until those conditions are met corporations complain about employees not being invested while willing to try literally any other solution including mass immigration than paying them more. This is why we’re vulnerable to the “new” socialism. People who aren’t invested are being promised that they will be, same as in South Vietnam when the rice farmers were promised real ownership and not being under the thumb of the rice buyers.
Now socialism will immediately make things worse, it cannot work since it relies on force more than cooperation for all economic facets of life. But, it’s an attractive fantasy when you’re already not making a life and see no prospect of doing so.
Calling bush 2 retarded constantly and even having a "Shakespeare" expert on the daily show call John McCain a king lear are within 20 years. The idiotic thing is Eisenhower was essentially a democrat who ran as a republican to screw Taft and Bush and McCain never stopped sucking up to the left even after all the insults. Being a post new deal republican seemed like being a loyal opposition loser like Wendell Willkie. Now, it doesn't matter because this new right doesn't or shouldn't care about being completely subservient to the new deal and 1965 legacy...and that's a good thing
The old right new deal loyalists including Eisenhower, bush, McCain, McConnell and to a degree, Reagan see the 1986 immigration law, were useless and fought their right-wing allies harder than the progressive wing. Even after being called king lear, McCain went back like a good old boy to Schumer to screw trump.
Sure. Doesn't mean anything and everything ever passed is special and infallible. Use the current supreme court to get rid of all Warren and lefty precedent and use any means within the constitution and other useful laws to crush the progressive legacy.
Yeah...no. Eisenhower and the GOP were dealing with trying to figure out how to break the New Deal Coalition that had put Democrats in the White House with landslide victories for five presidential elections straight.
If you want to see what would have happened if the GOP had gone with ideological purity rather than adapting to circumstances, see the 1964 presidential election--then consider the fact that Democrats controlled the House of Representatives for 60 of the 64 years between 1930 and 1994.
Eisenhower entered the race as a moderate, progressive Republican, explicitly stating his intent to build a strong progressive Republican Party and warning that if the right wing sought a fight, they would get one, as he would not remain with the party if it did not reflect progressivism.
Eisenhower was no goddamn republican and was a new deal war loyalist. To be honest, dont consider him anything else but that.
That's an interesting way to describe a campaign where the GOP managed to get 45% of the popular vote and 82 electoral votes as opposed to 1936's 37% of the popular vote and eight electoral votes.
In fact, that actually compares pretty well to Trump's showings in 2016 and 2020, during both of which he only got 46% of the popular vote, and was running against candidates who were considerably worse than FDR.
Taft would've won. There, I said it. Instead a loyal opposition scumbag who said make peace with the new deal state and advocated for fucking fdr everywhere. He was a loser who went nowhere afterwards and should have been exiled from the party for goos.
Ah yes 1964, the year rinos and other new deal loyal opposition Republicans like the elder asshole Romney came together to screw Goldwater. Not the last time Romney and rino losers like Paul Ryan came together to protect the leftist, progressive, new deal establishment. Now, the right can shake off that idiocy onxe and for all.
Those moderate scumbag rinos gave us the wonders of that 1965 immigration act and the civil rights regime that for most progressive scum supersedes the constitution. Those moderate conservatives really were no better than that other progressive scumbag lbj.
Oh yeah. That was the thing that happened with the reaction to Charlie Kirk, it wasn’t just that it happened but we have had weeks now of left wingers baying at his blood. A lot of “normies” finally clued in “oh, they really really hate us”. The words existential threat is overused but we’re finally cluing in on there is no cooperation and never really has been.
Re: when you understand how to break the rules, then you can find a very easy way to become rich.
This has been true since the paint was still wet on the ziggurat of Ur. I'm a fan of "the Gilded Age" and I watched the first episode of "The House of Guinness" last night. Fictions of course-- but the era portrayed was a time of rich people behaving badly, and of rules being only for the Little People (Hmm, I recall a rather infamous rich lady saying something like that a few decades ago too, though she did find out otherwise). Meanwhile any attempt to reform this situation is shouted down as "bleeding-heart liberalism" or "punishing the Job Makers".
One thing I will cautiously agree with: Outside a few male-dominated industries workplaces have become overly feminized and behavior that is normal for men is treated as pathological by HR departments. No, I am not talking about sexual harassment which is never acceptable-- but I am talking about the more open and vigorous ways men handle disagreement instead of beating around bushes in a complex gavotte like courtiers in old Heian Japan.
Thing is not really. For every 100 guys who break the rules maybe one to ten are ok long term. Read Wiseguys by Pileggi, untold multitudes of guys breaking the rules to “get over”, most fail and everybody suffers.
Of course it depends on what you mean by rules, largely don’t steal. Many of those “rich people behaving badly” were providing actual services that worked and that people needed. The steel functioned as steel, the oil functioned as oil, back far enough Astors’ furs were from the claimed animal and not just repackaged sewer rat.
Not sure if already posted here, but Helen Andrews' commentary on The Great Feminization is outstanding:
https://x.com/herandrews/status/1971178399541690594
Here is a counter example to the Greg Scalise comment. I am currently in seminary for the PCA. I am taking classes remotely (so I can keep my job and community), getting the cost nearly covered through various denominational scholarships, and participating in a coordinated cohort of seminarians in my area which meets monthly to connect and discuss practical skills with active pastors. There is also job board on the seminary's website with tons of open positions. It sounds like the PCUSA might offer more than that, but the disparity isn't nearly as bad as some are making it out to be.
I have a great deal of respect for people who do seminary online while balancing other responsibilities at work and at home and in their local church. And it’s crucial that churches make that track available to meet the shortage of pastors. However, I also think online classes and part time school can’t fully substitute for the traditional in person, full-time seminary experience. Given how wealthy and educated America is, Americans should not be paying through the nose to make sure their doctors and lawyers have top schooling and full-time devotion to their craft, while pastors do theology as a side-hustle. I have nothing but respect for the pastors who grind their way to ministry, but it’s an indictment of our churches as institutions that we don’t do a better job of recruiting and training high quality candidates for the ministry.
To your job openings point, I was curious how the numbers actually stacked up so I went on the PCA and PCUSA job boards and checked the state of Florida (just as a random sample). PCA had 16 pastoral openings and the PCUSA had 20 pastoral openings. Pretty close. But what about full time, settled, lead pastor opening? PCA 4 and PCUSA 12. If you want to be an associate pastor the PCA has plenty of openings, but there seem to be many more lead/solo openings in the PCUSA.
That sounds cool actually, getting an education without losing contact with your community and you still get the IRL experiences. That seems nicely thought out.
"It may be religious, but it’s not exactly traditional."
Paul Vanderklay coined the term: Metagelical. It's essentially how in America specifically, Catholics and even Eastern Orthodox, approach religion in Evangelical ways.
"I hope Redeemed Zoomer will be able to popularize this path for more pastors."
My question--and it's completely sincere; I don't think I already know the answer--is this: do these newly minted conservative pastors in mainline denominations have free reign to preach conservative theology? Can they freely mix with co-belligerents in politics-adjacent places without punishment? Can they organize conservative lay leaders to agitate for the hierarchy to promote more conservatives to their ranks? i.e., can they do everything left-wing pastors have been free to do for the last 7 decades without getting blackballed?
Without addressing this question, the enthusiasm for the mainline smacks of an off-putting careerism.
RZ is open about his project and is going into ministry in the PCUSA without any top-down opposition. Most of the mainlines still have formidable conservative minorities, which the denominations have not even tried to totally purge in the way that say the SBC tries to purge liberal churches.
In my own experience in the ABCUSA, I feel comfortable saying I have total freedom to do those things. There are various evangelical sub-groups and even factions that openly advocate for certain positions. You might not get picked to serve on a certain denominational board if the current board doesn’t like your positions, but that’s a universal truth. If you’re a conservative and activist pastor, you’re not going to lose your church or your job or your retirement plan or your right to vote at denominational meetings.
Most of the people I’ve met in denominational leadership are much more concerned with the health of the denomination than with advocating a particular ideology. That may not have been the case 20 years ago, but it’s my experience with the weakened denominations today. They’re Baptists who happen to be liberals, not liberals who happen to be Baptists, and therefore they’ll do what’s best for Baptists even if it means working with conservatives. Likewise in churches, I’ve had members who lean more liberal in their theology and politics, but they care more about their local church than their theology, and are willing to listen to and be led by a conservative pastor if things go well for the church.
Thanks much for the explanation. This change of the last 20 years you're describing needs to be talked up more; this is the first I've heard of it. It's a hopeful sign.
Bear in mind that I grew up UMC, never went PCUSA, did go Missouri Synod for awhile (reclaimed mainline) and have a mild awareness of Episcopalian dynamics for the below.
The UMC, especially after the limited opportunity to leave has passed, is going to be the most top-down, hostile territory. Thanks to some historical concerns of John Wesley in not wanting to fund a bunch of untrained heretics, its polity is by far the most hierarchical in major branches of Christianity, second only to Roman Catholicism. At best if you've got a moderate, broad-church bishop there, a minister might be able to be fairly conservative on core doctrinal issues.
The PCUSA is very top-down and requires adherence on women's ordination and also at least in one presbytery required Barthianism. I believe it was a Presbycast episode from way, way back interviewing now-OPC minister Chris Drew (possibly this episode with his wife, https://presbycast.libsyn.com/prebygirls-persuasion-confessional-convictions-wsara-drew-charles-higham-job-dalomba) where some of these issues came to a head. Rev. David Strain, pastor of First Presbyterian Jackson, but formerly of the Free Church of Scotland, was defrocked from the Church of Scotland for refusing to support women's ordination. https://presbycast.libsyn.com/from-glasgow-to-mississippi-wpastor-david-strain.
The entry may be easy, and it might be doable to teach general evangelicalism, but they probably CANNOT be actively or even especially passively critical against the cultural issues of the day OR even a rank unbeliever as a minister who's visiting the church and would fill the pulpit. And the PCUSA most assuredly controls things like pensions, retirement funds, and the like. It'll be easy entry but not so easy exit.
The Episcopal Church USA is the most interesting, because it actually still has conservative dioceses, and my understanding of Anglicanism is essentially that Anglicanism is highly variable based on who your bishop is, to the point it's almost a different denomination. The most prominent one of those right now is the Diocese of Central Florida, headed by unquestionable evangelical in Justin Holcomb. There's even been entire dioceses that have broken off and joined ACNA. There it's a more personal form of governance in that if you have a conservative diocese, you're essentially safe but if it's moderate or liberal, you better watch out.
I think the revitalization approaches are pretty sound for less top-down denominations that allow congregations to be weird and influential or to easily leave for better denominations, but I fully expect the trap door to close on folks like RZ or require him to take an essentially fully compromised position once he and others gain institutional prominence.
The bigger problem in my mind is that one really needs to face the fact that whatever one's individual local church is like, in the top-down mainlines like these 3, a guest preacher is essentially playing Russian roulette with the souls of your congregation. It might be a social gospel, it might be a Barthian gospel that doesn't require any factual backing in history, or it might just be a vapid pep talk. There are plenty of evangelicals within the mainline, but I think these big three mainlines have all of the cards from literally decades of playing the game and LOTS of property to sell off or rent out to keep playing.
That's my biggest critique of the top-down organization reforms, because for all intents and purposes they're massive real estate investment trusts that have social causes, and there's plenty of old but not historical churches in suburban or newly expanding areas that more that keep the lights on when they sell the properties off. That will more than outlast even the wealthiest of conservative ministers.
By the way, this is a very relevant article about the very different fates of 2 Scandanavian national churches that's on point for this discussion.
https://adfontesjournal.com/contemporary-church/a-tale-of-two-churches-lessons-from-swedish-and-finnish-lutheranism/
The TLDR is that the Finnish got out early and thrived while the Swedish got stuck and had to start from zero, to a very dramatic degree.
Enjoyed this color; much more detailed than my initial take below that UMC, TEC, and ELCA, are all episcopal. It does align with my thought that strategy and chances of success are going to vary a great deal by polity. There's no one-size-fits-all strategy here, especially outside the congregational polities.
You didn't mention ELCA. I ran a quick analysis on this and it seems that ELCA churches seem to generally own their property and have the power to disaffiliate, so that would naturally provide more independence and might create a broader entryway for conservative Lutherans to consider.
Yeah, broadly speaking, when seeking after reform in a mainline, I'd look for three categories:
Property ownership including the power to disaffiliate, and the power to choose clergy/officers. If all three boxes are checked, then Reconquer away if there's a good opportunity.
Disaffiliation is not part of RZ's approach at all, but the local body absolutely needs the power to go in order to be able to stay and make good waves.
---
It's the PCUSA and UMC that are the absolute worst on this count. The real challenge for RZ will be when he gets ordained after a course of study in a PCUSA seminary. The presbytery can extract some major pounds of flesh, or his views aren't going to be as evangelical as they appear if he passes with flying colors.
From personal experience, it's profoundly demoralizing to be in an environment hostile to or at best patronizing to your evangelical faith when it's your own church and denomination. Some people can work really well in such an environment, especially if it's viewed as a mission setting, but then they have all of the challenges of a missionary without a supportive church back home so to speak.
This all makes sense to me. The valuable thing is the real estate, not the rotten denominational bureaucracy or the brand.
If, by recapturing a single church, we now control its real estate, we've taken something of value. Even if that's the only church in the entire denomination we reclaim, and that church then disaffiliates.
But if reclaiming any real estate requires reclaiming the entire denomination, we're in a pretty difficult position. Especially when now we're that real estate's caretakers; we have to put money into the upkeep of that real estate, which is value that, in all likelihood, the denomination is going to take back from us.
On your last point: I think Aaron has touched on this before, that conservatives aren't like liberals, which translates into different modes of institutional capture and influence. This might be even more true in the context of Christianity. Conservative Christians actually believe things! We have a problem with telling bald-faced lies about our beliefs!
But the denominations were captured by liars that inserted themselves by claiming to have no objections to historic creeds like the WCF, which they then set about dismantling.
Thanks for the detailed answer! I owe you a beer.
They certainly have freedom in the American Baptist Church or any congregationalist one.
I agree with this statement, which is why it's worth noting that the large majority of the Mainline is episcopal by polity: UMC+TEC+ELCA, which are the 3 largest. I think that adds up to maybe 70-80%. And while I'm not intimate with the details, that comes across to me as a very different battle. Maybe not unwinnable, but very different.
Congregational is larger than presbyterian polity though: ABC alone is roughly as big or slightly larger than PCUSA, and there's also UCC and DoC.
The problems with how business is run in America are worthy of an article in themselves if not a book.
To one point though the short version is are you paying someone enough to “build a life”. Which is to say afford a family, afford a decent home for same (doesn’t have to be ownership, although that would be preferable), eventually afford to not die at your desk. People aren’t avoiding corporate to “follow their bliss”, they’ve seen the writing on the wall that most, most not all, corporate jobs are basically only good as second incomes on top of another larger income.
Until those conditions are met corporations complain about employees not being invested while willing to try literally any other solution including mass immigration than paying them more. This is why we’re vulnerable to the “new” socialism. People who aren’t invested are being promised that they will be, same as in South Vietnam when the rice farmers were promised real ownership and not being under the thumb of the rice buyers.
Now socialism will immediately make things worse, it cannot work since it relies on force more than cooperation for all economic facets of life. But, it’s an attractive fantasy when you’re already not making a life and see no prospect of doing so.
Eisenhower was called a Nazi while he was SCAFE. It’s in his letters.
There was never a time when the left thought we were “OK”, at the time, only in retrospect.
Calling bush 2 retarded constantly and even having a "Shakespeare" expert on the daily show call John McCain a king lear are within 20 years. The idiotic thing is Eisenhower was essentially a democrat who ran as a republican to screw Taft and Bush and McCain never stopped sucking up to the left even after all the insults. Being a post new deal republican seemed like being a loyal opposition loser like Wendell Willkie. Now, it doesn't matter because this new right doesn't or shouldn't care about being completely subservient to the new deal and 1965 legacy...and that's a good thing
Re: this new right doesn't or shouldn't care about being completely subservient to the new deal and 1965 legacy
It's not really clear if this "new right" cares about being subservient to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The old right new deal loyalists including Eisenhower, bush, McCain, McConnell and to a degree, Reagan see the 1986 immigration law, were useless and fought their right-wing allies harder than the progressive wing. Even after being called king lear, McCain went back like a good old boy to Schumer to screw trump.
Sure. Doesn't mean anything and everything ever passed is special and infallible. Use the current supreme court to get rid of all Warren and lefty precedent and use any means within the constitution and other useful laws to crush the progressive legacy.
Yeah...no. Eisenhower and the GOP were dealing with trying to figure out how to break the New Deal Coalition that had put Democrats in the White House with landslide victories for five presidential elections straight.
If you want to see what would have happened if the GOP had gone with ideological purity rather than adapting to circumstances, see the 1964 presidential election--then consider the fact that Democrats controlled the House of Representatives for 60 of the 64 years between 1930 and 1994.
Eisenhower entered the race as a moderate, progressive Republican, explicitly stating his intent to build a strong progressive Republican Party and warning that if the right wing sought a fight, they would get one, as he would not remain with the party if it did not reflect progressivism.
Eisenhower was no goddamn republican and was a new deal war loyalist. To be honest, dont consider him anything else but that.
And one of those 5 elections, 1940, was pretty much forfeited by the original loyal opposition scumbag loser, Wendell Willkie.
"Forfeited"
That's an interesting way to describe a campaign where the GOP managed to get 45% of the popular vote and 82 electoral votes as opposed to 1936's 37% of the popular vote and eight electoral votes.
In fact, that actually compares pretty well to Trump's showings in 2016 and 2020, during both of which he only got 46% of the popular vote, and was running against candidates who were considerably worse than FDR.
Taft would've won. There, I said it. Instead a loyal opposition scumbag who said make peace with the new deal state and advocated for fucking fdr everywhere. He was a loser who went nowhere afterwards and should have been exiled from the party for goos.
Yeah, they tried your plan with Alf Landon. That was the 1936 election.
Ah yes 1964, the year rinos and other new deal loyal opposition Republicans like the elder asshole Romney came together to screw Goldwater. Not the last time Romney and rino losers like Paul Ryan came together to protect the leftist, progressive, new deal establishment. Now, the right can shake off that idiocy onxe and for all.
Meanwhile, in the real world, Goldwater got less than 2/5 of the popular vote and 52 electoral votes. Grow up.
Yeah, screwed over by "moderate" wing, aka leftist, Republicans like the elder Romney who taught his loser son well.
Ah yes, because millions of Americans decided to vote for LBJ due to a tiny coterie of moderates deciding they didn't like Goldwater's "extremism."
Sure, that makes sense.
Those moderate scumbag rinos gave us the wonders of that 1965 immigration act and the civil rights regime that for most progressive scum supersedes the constitution. Those moderate conservatives really were no better than that other progressive scumbag lbj.
Oh yeah. That was the thing that happened with the reaction to Charlie Kirk, it wasn’t just that it happened but we have had weeks now of left wingers baying at his blood. A lot of “normies” finally clued in “oh, they really really hate us”. The words existential threat is overused but we’re finally cluing in on there is no cooperation and never really has been.
Re: when you understand how to break the rules, then you can find a very easy way to become rich.
This has been true since the paint was still wet on the ziggurat of Ur. I'm a fan of "the Gilded Age" and I watched the first episode of "The House of Guinness" last night. Fictions of course-- but the era portrayed was a time of rich people behaving badly, and of rules being only for the Little People (Hmm, I recall a rather infamous rich lady saying something like that a few decades ago too, though she did find out otherwise). Meanwhile any attempt to reform this situation is shouted down as "bleeding-heart liberalism" or "punishing the Job Makers".
One thing I will cautiously agree with: Outside a few male-dominated industries workplaces have become overly feminized and behavior that is normal for men is treated as pathological by HR departments. No, I am not talking about sexual harassment which is never acceptable-- but I am talking about the more open and vigorous ways men handle disagreement instead of beating around bushes in a complex gavotte like courtiers in old Heian Japan.
Thing is not really. For every 100 guys who break the rules maybe one to ten are ok long term. Read Wiseguys by Pileggi, untold multitudes of guys breaking the rules to “get over”, most fail and everybody suffers.
Of course it depends on what you mean by rules, largely don’t steal. Many of those “rich people behaving badly” were providing actual services that worked and that people needed. The steel functioned as steel, the oil functioned as oil, back far enough Astors’ furs were from the claimed animal and not just repackaged sewer rat.