While it may be true that Nixon had a coherent and potentially effective strategy for combatting illiberal political evolution in the US worth considering in our current times, putting him and his ideas forward as a model for how our country should deal with its current ideological evolution is a losing call-to-arms.
No one is going to rally around Richard M. Nixon as the inspirational martyr for action. Your video attempts to white wash Nixon’s unacceptable Watergate actions by suggesting the “deep state” did it to him. No one will believe that, mostly because it’s not true. The “deep state” certainly was trying to undermine him, and they may have laid a trap, but he himself took the bait.
Further, it’s not at all clear Nixon’s strategy would have been a winner had he continued in office: the FBI’s tactics would have eventually been discredited yet would show future bureaucrats how to use it for political purposes, sending Federal money to the States only both strengthened the Federal government’s bureaucratic control of local politics and provided funds to those looking to reshape society “in their image,” and strengthening “law and order” only gave license to police departments to brutalize the very communities that needed resurrection through the ill-considered “War On Drugs.”
While I have great respect for your thinking about DEI/ woke ideology, I think your use of Nixon as a beacon we should use to reclaim American values misguided.
The point is not to rally behind Nixon the man, but to understand what we understood and to learn from his experience, both positive and negative. He’s one of the pivotal figures in twentieth century American politics. The Right cannot jettison him without jettisoning a lot of wisdom.
> No one is going to rally around Richard M. Nixon as the inspirational martyr for action.
If we can't overcome the deep state's decades old smears against Nixon, what makes you think we can overcome the deep state's smears against current leaders?
Recall two of the key features of the Cultural Revolution have been to demonize America's traditional heroes and rehabilitate Marxist extremists. This has the effect of undermining morale while giving space to the most noxious Leftist ideas. Countless words have been written over the decades explaining why Washington and Lincoln were actually villains while the Marxists were misunderstood folk heroes. We waste valuable time and energy defending our national heritage while the more "reasonable" Left promises to be a bulwark against the extremes of the Weather Underground or Black Panther Party, accepting their premises but rejecting their means while laundering their ideas into the public discourse.
Key to pushing back against this is elevating our own heroes, especially those we've been taught to revile, and forcing the Leftists to counter us. I didn't have any strong feelings about Nixon (most of what I knew of him came from his appearances in Futurama) but knew he was a "bad guy". This is the latest piece I've read describing him as a misunderstood figure and suggesting we could learn a thing or two from him as he was essentially fighting the same opponents we are today. Having read the original article I was struck by some of Nixon's rhetoric and several of his proposals. I think there is something to glean from them despite Nixon's flaws and ultimate downfall (nevermind his more autocratic actions or his bringing of Communist China into the community of nations).
All that to say, I think rehabbing Nixon is a perfectly legitimate attack vector and shouldn't be dismissed so readily.
I agree, this is bad branding. I can see your enemies mocking you already as the guy who thinks the solution to our problems is to do what Nixon would have done.
They'll mock anything, but Nixon Forever sounds like a joke already. I'm hoping there's a method to the madness. It's easier to unite people for fresh, new ideas, so that the bad ones like CRT etc. become stale and cringe, than to get them to backtrack and admit their mistakes. I can't think of a less likely uniting figure than Nixon.
But that's the point. The Left has repackaged old,bad ideas to give us what we have now. Why not look at the ideas Nixon put forth and take the good bits. I'm open to ideas that might work to the benefit of our country's future.
Forumposter, if you’re accusing me, you couldn’t be further off-base. I’m a longtime Christopher Rufo patron. I’m vehemently anti-Democrat but I also don’t think Nixon or his ideas have merit. The only approach that is likely to give our society a chance to flourish is to dramatically reduce the size of the Federal bureaucracy. Is that at all possible? Only if enough citizens vote for representatives and senators who agree with that POV.
I'm fine with reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy, but "sending federal money to the states" is a fantastic way of doing that.
My model of taxes and spending is that long run congress spends up to the limit that causes visible fiscal crisis/inflation. This is higher at the federal level then the state level because citizens have less exit options at the federal level (its easier to move to Florida then move to Singapore) and the feds have The Fed for money printing which the states don't. Either the federal government is going to spend that money or the states are going to spend that money.
I generally trust the states to spend it better, and its also the case that federal matching funds have a tremendous record of getting states to do what you want in order to get "free" federal dollars. I'd rather be using the federal government to give matching funds for school vouchers or child tax credits or whatever as opposed to some other use of the money.
I'm in almost full agreement with you but here's the problem. Too much of conservatism in this country is negatively focused: stop federal spending, reduce the bureaucracy, stop CRT in schools, etc. It puts the vision of the Little Dutch Boy in my mind, frantically running around, sticking his finger in the holes of a dike that the Left constantly drills. Some of this is necessary but at the end of the day conservatism exhausts itself and is left without any ideas of its own. It badly needs a positive agenda.
Totally agree conservatives can’t be the party of “no.” They have to have a positive message about what it takes for America to be the country everyone wants. To start with, conservatives need to rebut the liberal believe that we are a country of systemic racism/ genderism, etc. and the proof of that is before our eyes and in the data. Conservatives need to say what the vast majority of Americans of all races and genders believe: that most…even if not all…of our fellow Americans treat their fellows of all races and genders well and that diligence and hard work do “pay off.” Conservative shave to refute the implicit message of liberals that material wealth is the core element of success and happiness. It is not. Never had been; never will be.
I could go on, but the evidence couldn’t be more clear and consistently obvious for 50+ years: government programs to “help” those seen as “disadvantaged” do not work to systemically help. In fact, against all hopes and beliefs, they actually do the opposite.
There is positive hope in a message that says families matter, that communities matter. There are things government can do to support education (e.g., make that system fully competitive and not a government monopoly), to bring back communities that are dysfunctional (s.g., broken windows policing and economic incentives to encourage businesses/ employment).
Conservatives can and must have a positive message, but it must focus on values, education, and civil order.
And, since I have been a professor at a state university, I must say that teachers and programs that teach values contrary to what makes society civil must be defunded. Freedom of inquiry is essential, but universities have allowed their faculty to be inculcators of value systems that have no base in fact as being good for the human condition (quite the opposite). Teaching ideological delusion should not be acceptable.
I think America's two major political parties deliberately confuse the conversation in order to protect the status quo. When left leaning centrists point at democratic socialist programs for universal Healthcare and higher education, the GOP equates that with communism, and the DNC responds with calls for an expansion of entitlement programs that foster dependency and poverty- the opposite of what actual democratic socialism aims to achieve. Our version of social democracy puts Wal mart workers on foodstamps whilst Wal mart pays no taxes. It's the worst of both worlds, but is marketed by dems as "a political compromise", and attacked by the GOP as another example of failed socialist policies. In fact, it's corporatism and it's supported by both parties because it serves the interests of the corporate elite, while assuaging the guilty conscience of white college educated liberals. I refuse to take the bait from the GOP establishment, and convince myself that there's no common sense middle ground where we invest in the empowerment of our kids and young adults, and protect the welfare of working families with the kinds of common sense social welfare programs that the rest of the western world adopted decades ago
As a radical centrist who is a self employed tradesman, here's my two cents- I belong to a solid majority of citizens who have no use for political or economic ideologies at this point. Trump was and is irrefutable PROOF that Americans want a more populist approach to economics/govt policy, and don't care how it's politically labelled/packaged. A solid majority of Americans think we need to take action to protect the middle and working class from the ravages of neoliberal globalization. A majority of Americans want a proactive approach to fostering a truly healthy middle class. Radical neoliberalism, which began with Nixon and accelerated with Clinton, has brought us to this point, where we have a sprawling, militarized empire that serves wall street and the beltway at the expense of working people. More neoliberalism will not save us. A truly conservative approach should put aside ideology, and focus on goals, and results. We need populist reforms, not elitist bullshit.
We should not ban certain ideologies at educational institutions save for one rationale: those that are illiberal in the classical sense. Those that deny the search for objective fact. We should ban Ideology that denies the enlightenment and its keystone of exploration. That is the greatest risks of critical theory and postmodernism. They seek not the exploration but indoctrination with dogma.
I don't know if Crit Theory needs to be banned but it def needs to be desacralized. It is obviously a political program (with a heavy cult aspect) disguised as scholarship and maybe the best way to display this would be to turn the tools of "critical consciousness" around and dissect the dissecters for a change.
A Critical Theory of Crit Theory would start by asking:
Who were its founders and what were their beliefs? How did a group of aristocratic intellectuals claim to speak for the "proletariat"? DId they ever renounce their Marxism or did they make excuses for Marxist atrocities? How many of their claims were factual vs how many were just reheated ideology? Why did they renounce America so harshly when America was where the working class lived the best lives?
And perhaps most importantly: How did Critical Theory become the reigning ideology of American academia? How did it achieve victory and how was it propagated and enforced? How is it that capitalism has seemed to incorporate Crit Theory into its daily operations yet only grow stronger?
But as I said at top, these are sacred beliefs now, and people with sacred beliefs don't allow their beliefs to be scrutinized in public.
You are so dead on here: "its power is, to a significant degree, a creature of the state, subsidized by patronage, loan schemes, bureaucratic employment, and civil rights regulations. These structures often appear permanent, but they can be reformed, redirected, or abolished through the democratic process." Absolutely dead on. This is the place to strike.
And there's clearly more to Nixon than his public perception. Pat Buchanan vouches for him. But Nixon's public perception is so tarnished that invoking Nixon could be a millstone. And to be fair, Nixon did close the gold window, opening the inflation floodgates. And he gave us EPA.
If a figurehead is needed, Reagan had the right rhetoric, he just wasn't able to rein in spending. Fulfilling the Reagan Revolution might have more traction.
Or is simple opposition to the "deep state" enough? I think that's one of the great attractions of Trump; "I'm not them." It's also one of the lingering concerns about DeSantis (Is he one of them?). The deep state or The Cathedral, or The Elites or whatever you want to call them have so discredited themselves that focusing on them as an enemy may be sufficient. And maybe the countervailing figurehead is simply "America" or "Liberty". Why give them a personage to attack instead of forcing them to defend their own record?
One thing I believe we all agree upon through these comments… The “bolshevik bureaucracy” must be taken down or at least greatly diminished. The question is how to best accomplish this.
Aug 14, 2023·edited Aug 14, 2023Liked by Christopher F. Rufo
I have checked out "Unmasking the Administrative State by John Marini, which apparently reveals evidence that Watergate was a leftist bureaucratic coup. Similarly, "McCarthyism" was a federal bureaucratic hoax. Seventy years after it was created, the false narrative of "McCarthyism" is still working to censor legitimate concerns about ongoing neo-Marxist threats to democracy. I have written a well-documented article titled "McCarthyism Facts & Fiction" on my Substack at https://2026.substack.com/p/mccarthyism-facts-and-fiction
its power is, to a significant degree, a creature of the state...
Spot on, and I also believe that like any good Ponzi, they require a GROWING state to keep the game going. That's why they so vehemently oppose even a freeze in spending (no reduction). We don't have to take away ALL their funds for their power to start failing. As soon as we start that ball rolling we'll get a virtuous spiral and the headwinds we face now will shift around to be at our backs. Only a breeze at first, but stiffening quickly.
To borrow from Nixon the tools to counter the leftist tide might be all right, but do not forget that unfortunately it was Nixon who entrenched affirmative action programs pioneered by the LBJ gang.
"As the youngest lawyer on Richard Nixon’s staff, Geoff Shepard personally transcribed the Oval Office tape in which Nixon appeared to authorize getting the CIA to interfere with the ongoing FBI investigation, and even coined the phrase “the smoking gun.” Like many others, the idealistic Shepard was deeply disappointed in the president. But as time went on, the meticulous lawyer was nagged by the persistent sense that something wasn’t right with the case against Nixon." - blurb for Shepard's 2021 book The Nixon Conspiracy: Watergate and the Plot to Remove the President
"With the 50th anniversary of the Watergate scandal fast approaching, the truth about one of the biggest political scandals in American history is finally emerging. A deeply researched new tell-all [2021] book reveals startling new evidence showing that President Richard Nixon could not have been personally involved in the Watergate scandal as prosecutors secretly alleged, and that the conventional 1974 narrative, set into motion by figures like Bob Woodward and John Dean, does not match the true historical record. Shepard’s meticulous research has uncovered internal documents by Watergate prosecutors, improperly kept hidden for decades, which form the basis for his October 2 [2021] Complaint with DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility."
"Geoff came to Washington, DC in 1969 as a White House Fellow, after graduating from Whittier College and Harvard Law School. The youngest lawyer on President Nixon’s White House staff, he served on the Domestic Council for five years, rising to associate director. He also worked as deputy counsel on Nixon’s Watergate defense team.
"He has spent much of his career researching Watergate issues and is today the foremost authority on behind-the-scenes developments, both at the White House and the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, as the scandal unfolded."
Aug 14, 2023·edited Aug 14, 2023Liked by Christopher F. Rufo
Richard Nixon as the face on the poster might be a terrible idea but a reasonable person will still ask “Does this make his ideas or viewpoints essentially bad or flawed?”. History is continually re-examined and ideas from the past examined and reexamined today to see if those past ideas have any bearing upon the situations of today. Some will submit that those ideas of the past are foundational to where we are today.
Very interesting perspective. The past is prologue. It is clear that we are at the same point in history once again. Marxists are relentless and adept at repackaging their failed ideology. That is because the do not care about good governance. The crave power and domination. Any means to that end suffices. This is why we will never be completely rid of them.
Here is a roadmap for something that would actually work. It's legal, we can do it immediately, and we don't need to win any more elections to get started: Republicans must form a CONGRESS OF REPUBLICAN STATES: https://daveziffer.substack.com/p/republicans-must-form-a-congress
Dave, your Red States Convention is an interesting idea. I was thinking along the lines of a document like the “Contract With America” but a little more detailed. Something more like the Declaration of Independence, with a list attached of grievances, demands and needed changes (positive in nature & non-partisan) - and a short appendix addressing implementation. I like the term blueprint because it clearly delineates what needs to be done, how to do it, and what the finished product will look like. It spells out tasks, sequences, responsibilities and interrelationships, as succinctly as possible.
The "Contract With America" seemed to me mostly like an election slogan. Regardless of how successful Republicans may have been in honoring it, the Contract was merely a temporary recipe for winning the election and getting short-term things done. In contrast the Congress of Republican States would be a permanent fixture. It would not be defined by a specific set of policies that are tied to one moment in time, nor would it rely on anyone winning any particular election at any given time. The Congress of Republican States would work INDEFINITELY to defeat the Deep State and resist the unconstitutional and therefore illegal federal policies of Democrats. Further, it would work to resist the relentless efforts of "blue" states to steamroll their policies into "red" states.
Christopher: I lived during the Nixon/Hoover era and in no way do I want to go back to those years and use them as a model. I got the idea from reading this that you are getting desperate to show there is a better way to succeed as a nation than what we currently have but please, do NOT give us Nixon. Once was enough for me.
The only acceptable option is the Constitutional one, to eliminate those departments and bureaucracies that go beyond those specified in the Constitution. Yes, that includes some federal “law enforcement” (sic) departments like the DOJ and the FBI. Federal marshals should be enough, and state prosecutors can bring cases themselves. The central government has gotten too full of itself and must be cut down to size.
Right but how are we going to do that? Obviously the president can't manage it. Trump, as effective as he was, couldn't do it in one term and he's not going to do it in another. Here's something that might actually work: Republicans must form a CONGRESS OF REPUBLICAN STATES: https://daveziffer.substack.com/p/republicans-must-form-a-congress
Great idea, the democrats can have their states and the republicans, as you proposed, will have their states thereby splitting the US into two pieces. Russia, China and Iran would love that. Is that what you want?
What we have now is a Democrat hegemony controlling federal agencies, the media, academia, and much of American industry, running a steamroller over us. It prosecutes conservatives and Republicans on totally fabricated charges while protecting leftists and Democrats from legitimate prosecution. It is indoctrinating our next generation against us. More than this, it flagrantly violates both the Constitution and other federal laws (e.g. our open border) with complete impunity. The idea that we have some sort of cohesive union at this point is preposterous. The only question is: will we leave our remaining Republican states to defend themselves and to be picked off one by one via Democrat election fraud and other infiltration, or will we stand as a group? History suggests that those who fight tyranny cohesively have better odds than those who needlessly tough it out alone.
If the Congress of Republican States works, then I suggest we expand the concept into a Congress of Republican Counties. The USA doesn't really have "red states" and "blue states". The USA is really an ocean of red counties, in the midst of which are some "blue" islands. Take for example New York State (see the end of my article "Republicans could be winning Biden's Immigration Game, at https://daveziffer.substack.com/p/republicans-could-be-winning-bidens): everyone imagines it as solid blue, when in fact there are 62 counties of which only 15 are Democrat controlled, five of which are New York City's boroughs. SO: with Republicans in control of probably 85% of the USA's land mass and probably 90% of its natural resources, it seems to me that we need our own informal organization that allows us to use what power and influence we have - first to resist the most insane and illegal initiatives of the Left, and then to start moving the nation back in our direction after decades of constant cultural and political retreat. https://brilliantmaps.com/2016-county-election-map/
The Nixon strategy of rallying the silent majority has merit but Nixon’s foreign policy re Russia China did not curtail the power of China or Russia Nixon did provide great help to Israel in 1973 but Kissinger refused to allow Israel to win a decisive victory
You can't curtail the power of China because there are over a billion high IQ people. You can only ensure then you aren't trying to color revolution them.
While it may be true that Nixon had a coherent and potentially effective strategy for combatting illiberal political evolution in the US worth considering in our current times, putting him and his ideas forward as a model for how our country should deal with its current ideological evolution is a losing call-to-arms.
No one is going to rally around Richard M. Nixon as the inspirational martyr for action. Your video attempts to white wash Nixon’s unacceptable Watergate actions by suggesting the “deep state” did it to him. No one will believe that, mostly because it’s not true. The “deep state” certainly was trying to undermine him, and they may have laid a trap, but he himself took the bait.
Further, it’s not at all clear Nixon’s strategy would have been a winner had he continued in office: the FBI’s tactics would have eventually been discredited yet would show future bureaucrats how to use it for political purposes, sending Federal money to the States only both strengthened the Federal government’s bureaucratic control of local politics and provided funds to those looking to reshape society “in their image,” and strengthening “law and order” only gave license to police departments to brutalize the very communities that needed resurrection through the ill-considered “War On Drugs.”
While I have great respect for your thinking about DEI/ woke ideology, I think your use of Nixon as a beacon we should use to reclaim American values misguided.
The point is not to rally behind Nixon the man, but to understand what we understood and to learn from his experience, both positive and negative. He’s one of the pivotal figures in twentieth century American politics. The Right cannot jettison him without jettisoning a lot of wisdom.
> No one is going to rally around Richard M. Nixon as the inspirational martyr for action.
If we can't overcome the deep state's decades old smears against Nixon, what makes you think we can overcome the deep state's smears against current leaders?
Exactly.
Recall two of the key features of the Cultural Revolution have been to demonize America's traditional heroes and rehabilitate Marxist extremists. This has the effect of undermining morale while giving space to the most noxious Leftist ideas. Countless words have been written over the decades explaining why Washington and Lincoln were actually villains while the Marxists were misunderstood folk heroes. We waste valuable time and energy defending our national heritage while the more "reasonable" Left promises to be a bulwark against the extremes of the Weather Underground or Black Panther Party, accepting their premises but rejecting their means while laundering their ideas into the public discourse.
Key to pushing back against this is elevating our own heroes, especially those we've been taught to revile, and forcing the Leftists to counter us. I didn't have any strong feelings about Nixon (most of what I knew of him came from his appearances in Futurama) but knew he was a "bad guy". This is the latest piece I've read describing him as a misunderstood figure and suggesting we could learn a thing or two from him as he was essentially fighting the same opponents we are today. Having read the original article I was struck by some of Nixon's rhetoric and several of his proposals. I think there is something to glean from them despite Nixon's flaws and ultimate downfall (nevermind his more autocratic actions or his bringing of Communist China into the community of nations).
All that to say, I think rehabbing Nixon is a perfectly legitimate attack vector and shouldn't be dismissed so readily.
Thanks, agree with your last point here.
I agree, this is bad branding. I can see your enemies mocking you already as the guy who thinks the solution to our problems is to do what Nixon would have done.
They'll mock anything, but Nixon Forever sounds like a joke already. I'm hoping there's a method to the madness. It's easier to unite people for fresh, new ideas, so that the bad ones like CRT etc. become stale and cringe, than to get them to backtrack and admit their mistakes. I can't think of a less likely uniting figure than Nixon.
Uniting behind a series of "fresh, new" and ever worse ideas is how we got into this mess.
But that's the point. The Left has repackaged old,bad ideas to give us what we have now. Why not look at the ideas Nixon put forth and take the good bits. I'm open to ideas that might work to the benefit of our country's future.
"No one is going to rally around Richard M. Nixon as the inspirational martyr for action."
Maybe, but the ideas that drove him are strong.
"sending Federal money to the States only both strengthened the Federal government’s bureaucratic control of local politics"
The federal government spends whatever macroeconomics will bear. You can reward allies or watch enemies reward themselves.
"only gave license to police departments to brutalize the very communities that needed resurrection through the ill-considered “War On Drugs.”"
You legalized everything and it was a failure.
Forumposter, if you’re accusing me, you couldn’t be further off-base. I’m a longtime Christopher Rufo patron. I’m vehemently anti-Democrat but I also don’t think Nixon or his ideas have merit. The only approach that is likely to give our society a chance to flourish is to dramatically reduce the size of the Federal bureaucracy. Is that at all possible? Only if enough citizens vote for representatives and senators who agree with that POV.
I'm fine with reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy, but "sending federal money to the states" is a fantastic way of doing that.
My model of taxes and spending is that long run congress spends up to the limit that causes visible fiscal crisis/inflation. This is higher at the federal level then the state level because citizens have less exit options at the federal level (its easier to move to Florida then move to Singapore) and the feds have The Fed for money printing which the states don't. Either the federal government is going to spend that money or the states are going to spend that money.
I generally trust the states to spend it better, and its also the case that federal matching funds have a tremendous record of getting states to do what you want in order to get "free" federal dollars. I'd rather be using the federal government to give matching funds for school vouchers or child tax credits or whatever as opposed to some other use of the money.
I'm in almost full agreement with you but here's the problem. Too much of conservatism in this country is negatively focused: stop federal spending, reduce the bureaucracy, stop CRT in schools, etc. It puts the vision of the Little Dutch Boy in my mind, frantically running around, sticking his finger in the holes of a dike that the Left constantly drills. Some of this is necessary but at the end of the day conservatism exhausts itself and is left without any ideas of its own. It badly needs a positive agenda.
Totally agree conservatives can’t be the party of “no.” They have to have a positive message about what it takes for America to be the country everyone wants. To start with, conservatives need to rebut the liberal believe that we are a country of systemic racism/ genderism, etc. and the proof of that is before our eyes and in the data. Conservatives need to say what the vast majority of Americans of all races and genders believe: that most…even if not all…of our fellow Americans treat their fellows of all races and genders well and that diligence and hard work do “pay off.” Conservative shave to refute the implicit message of liberals that material wealth is the core element of success and happiness. It is not. Never had been; never will be.
I could go on, but the evidence couldn’t be more clear and consistently obvious for 50+ years: government programs to “help” those seen as “disadvantaged” do not work to systemically help. In fact, against all hopes and beliefs, they actually do the opposite.
There is positive hope in a message that says families matter, that communities matter. There are things government can do to support education (e.g., make that system fully competitive and not a government monopoly), to bring back communities that are dysfunctional (s.g., broken windows policing and economic incentives to encourage businesses/ employment).
Conservatives can and must have a positive message, but it must focus on values, education, and civil order.
And, since I have been a professor at a state university, I must say that teachers and programs that teach values contrary to what makes society civil must be defunded. Freedom of inquiry is essential, but universities have allowed their faculty to be inculcators of value systems that have no base in fact as being good for the human condition (quite the opposite). Teaching ideological delusion should not be acceptable.
I think America's two major political parties deliberately confuse the conversation in order to protect the status quo. When left leaning centrists point at democratic socialist programs for universal Healthcare and higher education, the GOP equates that with communism, and the DNC responds with calls for an expansion of entitlement programs that foster dependency and poverty- the opposite of what actual democratic socialism aims to achieve. Our version of social democracy puts Wal mart workers on foodstamps whilst Wal mart pays no taxes. It's the worst of both worlds, but is marketed by dems as "a political compromise", and attacked by the GOP as another example of failed socialist policies. In fact, it's corporatism and it's supported by both parties because it serves the interests of the corporate elite, while assuaging the guilty conscience of white college educated liberals. I refuse to take the bait from the GOP establishment, and convince myself that there's no common sense middle ground where we invest in the empowerment of our kids and young adults, and protect the welfare of working families with the kinds of common sense social welfare programs that the rest of the western world adopted decades ago
As a radical centrist who is a self employed tradesman, here's my two cents- I belong to a solid majority of citizens who have no use for political or economic ideologies at this point. Trump was and is irrefutable PROOF that Americans want a more populist approach to economics/govt policy, and don't care how it's politically labelled/packaged. A solid majority of Americans think we need to take action to protect the middle and working class from the ravages of neoliberal globalization. A majority of Americans want a proactive approach to fostering a truly healthy middle class. Radical neoliberalism, which began with Nixon and accelerated with Clinton, has brought us to this point, where we have a sprawling, militarized empire that serves wall street and the beltway at the expense of working people. More neoliberalism will not save us. A truly conservative approach should put aside ideology, and focus on goals, and results. We need populist reforms, not elitist bullshit.
I agree with you totally. See my two comments in the main thread.
Amen
We should not ban certain ideologies at educational institutions save for one rationale: those that are illiberal in the classical sense. Those that deny the search for objective fact. We should ban Ideology that denies the enlightenment and its keystone of exploration. That is the greatest risks of critical theory and postmodernism. They seek not the exploration but indoctrination with dogma.
I don't know if Crit Theory needs to be banned but it def needs to be desacralized. It is obviously a political program (with a heavy cult aspect) disguised as scholarship and maybe the best way to display this would be to turn the tools of "critical consciousness" around and dissect the dissecters for a change.
A Critical Theory of Crit Theory would start by asking:
Who were its founders and what were their beliefs? How did a group of aristocratic intellectuals claim to speak for the "proletariat"? DId they ever renounce their Marxism or did they make excuses for Marxist atrocities? How many of their claims were factual vs how many were just reheated ideology? Why did they renounce America so harshly when America was where the working class lived the best lives?
And perhaps most importantly: How did Critical Theory become the reigning ideology of American academia? How did it achieve victory and how was it propagated and enforced? How is it that capitalism has seemed to incorporate Crit Theory into its daily operations yet only grow stronger?
But as I said at top, these are sacred beliefs now, and people with sacred beliefs don't allow their beliefs to be scrutinized in public.
Most, if not all, of your questions are addressed in Rufo's book lol :)
You are so dead on here: "its power is, to a significant degree, a creature of the state, subsidized by patronage, loan schemes, bureaucratic employment, and civil rights regulations. These structures often appear permanent, but they can be reformed, redirected, or abolished through the democratic process." Absolutely dead on. This is the place to strike.
And there's clearly more to Nixon than his public perception. Pat Buchanan vouches for him. But Nixon's public perception is so tarnished that invoking Nixon could be a millstone. And to be fair, Nixon did close the gold window, opening the inflation floodgates. And he gave us EPA.
If a figurehead is needed, Reagan had the right rhetoric, he just wasn't able to rein in spending. Fulfilling the Reagan Revolution might have more traction.
Or is simple opposition to the "deep state" enough? I think that's one of the great attractions of Trump; "I'm not them." It's also one of the lingering concerns about DeSantis (Is he one of them?). The deep state or The Cathedral, or The Elites or whatever you want to call them have so discredited themselves that focusing on them as an enemy may be sufficient. And maybe the countervailing figurehead is simply "America" or "Liberty". Why give them a personage to attack instead of forcing them to defend their own record?
Just my two cents...
I’m working to flesh this out into public policy.
One thing I believe we all agree upon through these comments… The “bolshevik bureaucracy” must be taken down or at least greatly diminished. The question is how to best accomplish this.
We need more than one battle front
Nicely said.
I have checked out "Unmasking the Administrative State by John Marini, which apparently reveals evidence that Watergate was a leftist bureaucratic coup. Similarly, "McCarthyism" was a federal bureaucratic hoax. Seventy years after it was created, the false narrative of "McCarthyism" is still working to censor legitimate concerns about ongoing neo-Marxist threats to democracy. I have written a well-documented article titled "McCarthyism Facts & Fiction" on my Substack at https://2026.substack.com/p/mccarthyism-facts-and-fiction
It’s one of my favorite books. John Marini is a wonderful teacher.
Here's more of that evidence re Watergate, and I agree with you about McCarthyism.
https://shepardonwatergate.com/
These books about Watergate by Geoff Shepard look very intriguing. Thanks for providing the link.
its power is, to a significant degree, a creature of the state...
Spot on, and I also believe that like any good Ponzi, they require a GROWING state to keep the game going. That's why they so vehemently oppose even a freeze in spending (no reduction). We don't have to take away ALL their funds for their power to start failing. As soon as we start that ball rolling we'll get a virtuous spiral and the headwinds we face now will shift around to be at our backs. Only a breeze at first, but stiffening quickly.
Yes it’s structured like a Ponzi scheme.
To borrow from Nixon the tools to counter the leftist tide might be all right, but do not forget that unfortunately it was Nixon who entrenched affirmative action programs pioneered by the LBJ gang.
Yes, he was by no means perfect.
For the Never-Nixons to consider:
"As the youngest lawyer on Richard Nixon’s staff, Geoff Shepard personally transcribed the Oval Office tape in which Nixon appeared to authorize getting the CIA to interfere with the ongoing FBI investigation, and even coined the phrase “the smoking gun.” Like many others, the idealistic Shepard was deeply disappointed in the president. But as time went on, the meticulous lawyer was nagged by the persistent sense that something wasn’t right with the case against Nixon." - blurb for Shepard's 2021 book The Nixon Conspiracy: Watergate and the Plot to Remove the President
From:
https://shepardonwatergate.com/
"With the 50th anniversary of the Watergate scandal fast approaching, the truth about one of the biggest political scandals in American history is finally emerging. A deeply researched new tell-all [2021] book reveals startling new evidence showing that President Richard Nixon could not have been personally involved in the Watergate scandal as prosecutors secretly alleged, and that the conventional 1974 narrative, set into motion by figures like Bob Woodward and John Dean, does not match the true historical record. Shepard’s meticulous research has uncovered internal documents by Watergate prosecutors, improperly kept hidden for decades, which form the basis for his October 2 [2021] Complaint with DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility."
From:
https://shepardonwatergate.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Geoff-Shepard_book-press-release-with-complaint.pdf
"Geoff came to Washington, DC in 1969 as a White House Fellow, after graduating from Whittier College and Harvard Law School. The youngest lawyer on President Nixon’s White House staff, he served on the Domestic Council for five years, rising to associate director. He also worked as deputy counsel on Nixon’s Watergate defense team.
"He has spent much of his career researching Watergate issues and is today the foremost authority on behind-the-scenes developments, both at the White House and the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, as the scandal unfolded."
From:
https://shepardonwatergate.com/
Geoff’s books are great.
Richard Nixon as the face on the poster might be a terrible idea but a reasonable person will still ask “Does this make his ideas or viewpoints essentially bad or flawed?”. History is continually re-examined and ideas from the past examined and reexamined today to see if those past ideas have any bearing upon the situations of today. Some will submit that those ideas of the past are foundational to where we are today.
Very interesting perspective. The past is prologue. It is clear that we are at the same point in history once again. Marxists are relentless and adept at repackaging their failed ideology. That is because the do not care about good governance. The crave power and domination. Any means to that end suffices. This is why we will never be completely rid of them.
One of my sorority sisters was a Nixonette and later was curator at the Nixon library
… he was forced to resign from office compare and contrast with recent democrat presidents, and other Democrat leaders transgressions!
The neo-Marxists have been playing the long game
Years ago a Swedish media group attended the meeting event at my best friends moms home she was a real icon of Orange County Republican women politics
The Swedish media were interviewing various people at this event
They asked me what I thought about the iron curtain coming down and I said it did not really come down. It was just moved further west.
This was back in the 1990s
I was considered a radical right winger then
I see here principles & goals, but not an actual blueprint, not a roadmap.
We need a clear, much more detailed blueprint, a plan of action - I don’t see it here.
Appreciate the work you are doing, keep it up. Great video. . . . Also, check out the link in Ken’s comment.
Yes, working on it!
Here is a roadmap for something that would actually work. It's legal, we can do it immediately, and we don't need to win any more elections to get started: Republicans must form a CONGRESS OF REPUBLICAN STATES: https://daveziffer.substack.com/p/republicans-must-form-a-congress
Dave, your Red States Convention is an interesting idea. I was thinking along the lines of a document like the “Contract With America” but a little more detailed. Something more like the Declaration of Independence, with a list attached of grievances, demands and needed changes (positive in nature & non-partisan) - and a short appendix addressing implementation. I like the term blueprint because it clearly delineates what needs to be done, how to do it, and what the finished product will look like. It spells out tasks, sequences, responsibilities and interrelationships, as succinctly as possible.
The "Contract With America" seemed to me mostly like an election slogan. Regardless of how successful Republicans may have been in honoring it, the Contract was merely a temporary recipe for winning the election and getting short-term things done. In contrast the Congress of Republican States would be a permanent fixture. It would not be defined by a specific set of policies that are tied to one moment in time, nor would it rely on anyone winning any particular election at any given time. The Congress of Republican States would work INDEFINITELY to defeat the Deep State and resist the unconstitutional and therefore illegal federal policies of Democrats. Further, it would work to resist the relentless efforts of "blue" states to steamroll their policies into "red" states.
Christopher: I lived during the Nixon/Hoover era and in no way do I want to go back to those years and use them as a model. I got the idea from reading this that you are getting desperate to show there is a better way to succeed as a nation than what we currently have but please, do NOT give us Nixon. Once was enough for me.
What did you dislike about Nixon?
The only acceptable option is the Constitutional one, to eliminate those departments and bureaucracies that go beyond those specified in the Constitution. Yes, that includes some federal “law enforcement” (sic) departments like the DOJ and the FBI. Federal marshals should be enough, and state prosecutors can bring cases themselves. The central government has gotten too full of itself and must be cut down to size.
Right but how are we going to do that? Obviously the president can't manage it. Trump, as effective as he was, couldn't do it in one term and he's not going to do it in another. Here's something that might actually work: Republicans must form a CONGRESS OF REPUBLICAN STATES: https://daveziffer.substack.com/p/republicans-must-form-a-congress
Suggest a look at the Convention of States movement. The people, via local and state governments must regain control of the federal government.
Great idea, the democrats can have their states and the republicans, as you proposed, will have their states thereby splitting the US into two pieces. Russia, China and Iran would love that. Is that what you want?
What we have now is a Democrat hegemony controlling federal agencies, the media, academia, and much of American industry, running a steamroller over us. It prosecutes conservatives and Republicans on totally fabricated charges while protecting leftists and Democrats from legitimate prosecution. It is indoctrinating our next generation against us. More than this, it flagrantly violates both the Constitution and other federal laws (e.g. our open border) with complete impunity. The idea that we have some sort of cohesive union at this point is preposterous. The only question is: will we leave our remaining Republican states to defend themselves and to be picked off one by one via Democrat election fraud and other infiltration, or will we stand as a group? History suggests that those who fight tyranny cohesively have better odds than those who needlessly tough it out alone.
If the Congress of Republican States works, then I suggest we expand the concept into a Congress of Republican Counties. The USA doesn't really have "red states" and "blue states". The USA is really an ocean of red counties, in the midst of which are some "blue" islands. Take for example New York State (see the end of my article "Republicans could be winning Biden's Immigration Game, at https://daveziffer.substack.com/p/republicans-could-be-winning-bidens): everyone imagines it as solid blue, when in fact there are 62 counties of which only 15 are Democrat controlled, five of which are New York City's boroughs. SO: with Republicans in control of probably 85% of the USA's land mass and probably 90% of its natural resources, it seems to me that we need our own informal organization that allows us to use what power and influence we have - first to resist the most insane and illegal initiatives of the Left, and then to start moving the nation back in our direction after decades of constant cultural and political retreat. https://brilliantmaps.com/2016-county-election-map/
Or could be Margaret Thatcher's blueprint? "More than thirty years since she fell from power, her record as an interrupter and repulser of that progressive leviathan is unequalled in any major Western nation - a counter-revolutionary template." https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/mrs-thatcher-and-the-good-life......https://thecritic.co.uk/reflections-on-the-counter-revolution-in-finchley/
I feel very sure you will appreciate this.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/06/20/watergate_at_50_revelations_from_newly_declassified_evidence_147766.html?utm_source=spotim&utm_medium=spotim_recirculation&spot_im_redirect_source=pitc&spot_im_comment_id=sp_v0xu5oCZ_200147766_c_2Aqn6thKLPwyVj4Pd99GI0z729h&spot_im_highlight_immediate=true
Yes, there’s more to the story!
The Nixon strategy of rallying the silent majority has merit but Nixon’s foreign policy re Russia China did not curtail the power of China or Russia Nixon did provide great help to Israel in 1973 but Kissinger refused to allow Israel to win a decisive victory
Russia first curtailed then abandoned its empire.
China abandoned Maoism.
You can't curtail the power of China because there are over a billion high IQ people. You can only ensure then you aren't trying to color revolution them.