The Democrat Party holds this nation with an iron fist. They start off every Presidential election with 243 electoral votes, have a broad based electoral coalition, support of Wall Street and have control of the Popular culture. It is the Progressive worldview that holds sway in DC and Democrat talking points become gospel. The Democrats are the ruling Party and even when they are out of power like 2002-2006, with control of the media and popular culture, they control the narrative.

The perception of the public is that the Republicans are the party of the elite. They are able to get away with this propaganda due to their control. Elements of the Republican Party are part of the elites.  There is a growing Libertarian/Populist Wing that is tired of the elitist mindset controlling the nation. The real battle in this nation is not Democrat vs. Republican, but the Court Party vs. the Country Party.

BEFORE political movements can be understood by others, they need to understand themselves: what they want to be, what they actually are and how they might bridge the gap between aspiration and reality.

oday, the post-George W. Bush, post-Mitt Romney conservative movement is one-third of the way there. Among younger activists and rising politicians, the American right has a plausible theory of what its role in our politics ought to be, and how it might advance the common good. What it lacks, for now, is the self-awareness to see how it falls short of its own ideal, and the creativity necessary to transform its self-conception into victory, governance, results.

The theory goes something like this: American politics is no longer best understood in the left-right terms that defined 20th-century debates. Rather, our landscape looks more like a much earlier phase in democracy’s development, when the division that mattered was between outsiders and insiders, the “country party” and the “court party.”

[….]

Bolingbroke is largely forgotten today, but his skepticism about the ways that money and power intertwine went on to influence the American Revolution and practically every populist movement in our nation’s history. And it’s his civic republican ideas, repurposed for a new era, that you hear in the rhetoric of new-guard Republican politicians like Rand Paul and Mike Lee, in right-wing critiques of our incestuous “ruling class,” and from pundits touting a “libertarian populism” instead.

Theirs is not just the usual conservative critique of big government, though that’s obviously part of it. It’s a more thoroughgoing attack on the way Americans are ruled today, encompassing Wall Street and corporate America, the media and the national-security state.

As theories go, it’s well suited to the times. The story of the last decade in American life is, indeed, a story of consolidation and self-dealing at the top. There really is a kind of “court party” in American politics, whose shared interests and assumptions — interventionist, corporatist, globalist — have stamped the last two presidencies and shaped just about every major piece of Obama-era legislation. There really is a disconnect between this elite’s priorities and those of the country as a whole. There really is a sense in which the ruling class — in Washington, especially — has grown fat at the expense of the nation it governs.

[….]

Second, as much as Americans may distrust a cronyist liberalism, they prefer it to a conservatism that doesn’t seem interested in governing at all. This explains why Republicans could win the battle for public opinion on President Obama’s first-term agenda without persuading the public to actually vote him out of office. The sense that Obama was at least trying to solve problems, whereas the right offered only opposition, was powerful enough to overcome disappointment with the actual results.

Chris Christie’s attacks on Rand Paul needs to be viewed in the context of the elite vs. non-elites. Rand Paul believes our foreign policy should be based on national interest. Chris Christie believes the US should engaged in nation building around the world. Paul’s view represents more the will of the people, but Christie gets the upper hand because much of the Republican base thinks a strong foreign policy means nation building. Hence Rand Paul gets tagged with the isolationist smear when he clearly is not. What Chris Christie is doing is going Hard Right on an issue to win over base voters and cover up his Progressive views. Sadly, it will probably work.

Notice that not much coverage in either the Media or Conservative blogopshere has been  payed attention to Republican Andy Vidak’s winning a California Senate race in a mostly Democrat Hispanic district. The reason for this is becasue it does not fit the narrative for the elites in either party. Democrats want to keep Hispanic as their vote slaves and elements in the  GOP view Hispanics as boogeymen to get working class White votes. This is a classic dive the populace against itself so elites can rule over them. If the GOP had any brains, they would study this California race and seek to mimic it nation wide. But it is apparently clear that the GOP elites love being strawmen to the Democrats.

Chris Christie attacks on Rand Paul and the growing Libertarian movement needs to be viewed in the context of elites trying to destroy a popular movement. Rand Paul’s vision of a Libertarian Republic Party envisions a multiracial and national based electoral coalition. It is a Nationalist movement as opposed to the elites who are Transnational and Internationalist. Hence why they have declared war on this growing Libertarian movement within the GOP. It represents the country, while the Democrats and Republicans represent the ruling Court.

(Hat Tip Zimriel)

Here is a perfect example of how the Democrats are the ruling Party of the elites. NBC is making a miniseries about the “National Great Mother” Hillary Clinton.

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif.—A Hillary Rodham Clinton miniseries timed to precede the 2016 presidential election is part of NBC’s effort to create “event” programming that will draw viewers to the shrinking world of broadcast network TV, NBC’s programming chief said Saturday.

“We need to be in the event business. I think you’re going to hear that from every broadcast network,” said Bob Greenblatt, NBC Entertainment chairman.

The four-hour miniseries “Hillary,” starring Diane Lane as the former first lady and secretary of state, is one such bid for distinctive programming, he said.

The goal is to woo viewers who are increasingly drawn away by cable TV’s eye-catching, critically acclaimed fare like “Mad Men” and “Breaking Bad” and other media choices.

The fix is in for Hillary in 2016.

Update: Rand Paul hits back against Pro-Islamic Nation Building wing of the GOP.

 

Paul on Sunday rejected arguments that the National Security Agency’s collection of hundreds of millions of U.S. phone and Internet records is necessary to prevent terrorism.