The presidential race in November will apparently be between two Democrats. Reason.com wondered which winning candidate would bankrupt the nation sooner, Trump or Hillary. But to coin a phrase, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
I've long held that unless a conservative was elected president of the United States this year, then America would be finished.
And if that conservative was not going to enforce immigration law, it was still all over, in the same way that the bankruptcy question above was merely a matter of dates rather than outcomes.
During the primaries, the battle between the conservatives was basically between Rubio and Cruz. Rubio was the amnesty guy, the one who would in the course of several years give all illegal immigrants citizenship. That would give the Democrats around 30 million new votes, and a perpetual lock on power within the US federal government.
Cruz would have enforced the immigration laws, and there would be a hell of a battle over the direction of the country. I believe Cruz would fight such a battle, which is more than I could say for the rest of the Republicans. I also believe he would win that battle, in the same way Reagan won: By reviving the American economy and becoming popular for that -- popular enough to be re-elected, and accrue political capital to expend elsewhere.
With the Democrats, I do not really see any difference in outcome.
Clinton would grant amnesty. So would Trump, as anyone knows who has been following the election closely. His NYT interview, which he refuses to allow to be released, is rumoured to include his confession that he wouldn't keep his vaunted promises on immigration.
Before he campaigned for the nomination, Trump supported amnesty, and I don't believe his position has changed.
As a result, America would go bankrupt, and no matter who the president happened to be, the Democrats would take full advantage of the situation.
Just as they did following the sub-prime mortgage crisis of 2008, the Democrats would blame “corporate greed,” and demand to be allowed to “do something." And since the way markets operate is counter-intuitive to those with no education in even basic economic principles, they will win that argument.
But it won’t stop there. Since Theodore Roosevelt, progressives and liberals have despised the US Constitution because it placed reins on their utopian schemes. Reagan spoke of this attitude in his famous 1964 speech “A Time for Choosing."
Democrats will therefore campaign to create a new constitution. The profound demographic shift created by amnesty, and the already apparent lack of patriotism even within the ranks of Republicans, means they will likely succeed. In which case, expect across-the-board persecutions of the Left's enemies: the religious, the libertarians, the conservatives, any group which today or in the future is saddled with the suffix “-phobe,” and other "dissident" groups.
The Democrats' victory will be total, and because of the totalitarian nature of the left, likely everlasting because without freedom of speech, there would be no way to spread the message of freedom, ordered or otherwise.
Conservatives and others who oppose this movement could react in one of two ways: submission or civil war.
Given the lack of principle and the fatalistic attitude common among modern conservatives, my money is on the first. An alliance of cowardly academics and welfare dependents would doom the Left to failure should the second option prevail.
And even should the Right win such a war, these are not the Americans of the Valley Forge and Bunker Hill. The America that emerged would be a wasteland of egotism and pure individualism.
See? It is all over.