The most widely offered explanation for Mitt Romney’s defeat is that the Republican party is disproportionately composed of (usually “aging”) white males.
That is, alas, true.
But the real question is what Republicans should do with this truth. […]
The Democratic party and the Left generally have done a magnificent job in identifying conservative values as white-male values. One reason for their success is that they dominate virtually every lever of influence: the high schools and universities, television, newspapers, movies, pop culture, and everything else except talk radio. Another is that they really believe that conservative values are nothing more than white-male — especially aging-white-male — values. Remember, Leftism has its own trinity, the prism through which it perceives the world: race, gender, and class. In this case, the race is white; the gender is male; and the class is the rich.
As a result of this identification, there is no debate over whether whose values are right. The Left has successfully forestalled any such national discussion by simply reducing conservative values to the dying fulminations of a former ruling class. […]
This identification seems to be working. But it’s intellectually dishonest. Aging white males are as important to the Left as they are to the Right. […]
[T]he Left may come to regret its contempt for this particular group. Without aging white males, I doubt the New York Times would survive. How many young people, females, Hispanics, and blacks subscribe to the New York Times?
Obviously the issue for the Left isn’t aging white males; it is conservatives, whether they are young or old, white or nonwhite, male or female. If female aborigines were conservative, the Left would have a problem with female aborigines.
For conservatives, the issue is that for generations now, they have failed to make the case for their values. They haven’t even conveyed conservative values to many of their children. And when they have, the university has often succeeded in undoing what they’ve taught.
It’s alarming, and disheartening, to get into any conversation with an illiberal and have to backtrack to attempt to undo their historical assumptions that are wrong. For example, they have little or no grasp of the role of religion in this country’s founding, or with the abolition of slavery or in the Civil Rights movement. Indeed, Martin Luther King is almost always referred to in contemporary accounts as “Doctor” rather than “Reverend”.
Who the hell cares the melanin content or the genital configuration of the promoters of a particular set of principles? Are those principles worthy or not? Why are they or why are they not?
To accept the Left’s premise of über tribalism over principles is to lose the Republic as founded by a bunch of aging, religious, white men.
My roommate saw a play this weekend that she thought was really cool and relevant. It was about how super racist wrestling is today. A Puerto Rican kid had to play “Che Chavez” and his Indian friend an evil Muslim. When I asked her if it was like modern day wrestling, she admitted that the muslim characters were pulled years ago since the federation got nervous about offending anyone. She didn’t like how I pointed out that it kind of makes the play the opposite of relevant.
It’s more fun to fight strawmen, but it makes for bad art.
If this is true
Why is Prager saying this?
and this
Huh?!
Since the argument against aging white males is bogus, why is Prager giving it airtime?
Perhaps it’s overly sensitive of me to expect the right to finally be the right and to dismiss rubbish on race, sex, and class outright as The Lie it is, but must the right constantly define it as faulty? Why must the right then pep-talk itself into actually being conservative versus that lie?
If Prager is addressing a general audience the leftist half isn’t listening already, while the “conservative” half doesn’t need just the fifteen-hundredth column in the last thirty years cajoling it to finally grasp conservatism by contrasting it to a failed ideology.
So who’s he talking to?
I put up a post the other day just stating that the right must stop playing at leftism and must identify conservative principles and respect them regardless. If the right does not front and honor conservative values then the right is not conservative!
Leftism is a DISORDER of reason, values, thought, logic, fairness, intent, and character. Why on earth do we insist on befriending it when it has no such capacity for normalcy itself?
The speed and intensity of this Administration’s rush into anti-constitutional statism is and shall continue to be breathtaking. Ironically, there can be no finer contrast against which conservatism shall ever define itself than right now naturally. Just showing up wins. Will the right become conservative or will it simply define itself by determining the extent of the left’s corruption and always diluting it by half, all the while delivering public fealty to its own compromise, hoping that lukewarm sells when it’s never sold?
Being leftism lite means that the right is either leftist, or it means that in the same way Prager has just compromised his own argument…
…establicans are talking openly to the entire voting population in secret code, suggesting that the right’s covert plan is to regain power and then suddenly lurch the entire country right.
The latter was the 2012 Republican plan and it all but admitted it. The majority of “conservative” influencers did too.
Yet both are failed endeavors. The right must be conservative.
And these far-Left institutions have done so so, as Jeff has ‘splained to us for years now, by classifying conservative responses as ‘hate’ speech. They’ve assumed control of the language and relegated all of our responses to unacceptable in a ‘progressive’ society. There’s no way we can defend conservatism when our defense is immediately resolved to, and decried as, ‘hate‘ speech, as defined by a controlling authority as ingrained as are these academes.
Sure there is. Don’t play. Reassert conservatism and then just don’t play any other game.
Reestablish conservatism and don’t bother redefining it, at least not to the corrupt and corruptable. The cool thing is that you don’t have to lift a finger because they’ll define themselves by their own reaction to your truth.
Jeff ridicules the progressive’s mindset. It shall not be reformed but it must be driven onto its own rocks.
When votes matter, we just can’t seem to muster enough of ’em. Our message is thwarted. When we ‘reassert conservatism’, we are losing every time. We know our speech isn’t ‘hate’ speech, but we don’t get to point that out, because our response is just more ‘hate’ speech.
A weak body politic, unaware of the history of Leftism (as massaged to fit our ‘progressive’ times) is susceptible to proffers of ‘free’ goods and services, and, because our conservative speech telling people that such free stuff really isn’t, is redefined as ‘hate’ speech. The body politic can then ignore our warnings, and vote for their own best interests. And the ridicule we heap on these controlling progressives? that’s also ‘hate speech’, don’t you know. Or, as Moran &c. puts it, ‘hate’ speech nuanced as ‘unhelpful’.
These fucking leftists have redefined the Constitution as ‘hate speech’. What’s left for us to do after that ?
Well, you can give up and forget the fact that the present logic is faulty, serr8d.
I’ll say it again: The right is either A) competing its own leftism and competing its own leftism miserably and with predictable results, or B) it’s merely faking leftism in order to pull a switcheroo and move right once it elects a Bush or a Bush or a McCain or a Romney.
Pick your scenario.
Incorrect. When we reassert either of those two bad strategies we lose every time. That much is history.
Me, I’m going to demand the right erect a conservative identity and let the chips fall. 50 States were originally designed to offer choice. Why are we seeing our own nation as the unified bloc the left insists on redefining it as?
Which tells you that “failed messaging” is a canard and that when Moran & Co. promote the notion anyway they are irrational or dishonest. Maybe they’re still convinced that electing an Establican will mysteriously lurch the country right. For its own best interest.
You could say they’re not historians then.
The situation has only gotten worse in the last 30 years. Clearly the messaging isn’t the issue. Corruption is. So carve out a new land.
I see where Prager is coming from. If they want to paint white men as the villains of history, that is fine – I just think they should give back everything discovered/invented/won by white men. I’ll call it “the second great divorce.”
Hope they all enjoy living in mud huts.
Since the argument against aging white males is bogus, why is Prager giving it airtime?
Oh for crissakes … because it’s to confront the assholes and say SO WHAT?
And just “declare it” and do not argue for it? Do not teach it? Do not make the case for it?
Hey, do you just “declare” math and let people invent it for themselves or do you take the time to sit with your kids and work through how fractions work and why it is important they learn fractions?
Principles are not conveyed by osmosis anymore than any other knowledge or skill.
sheesh
We keep hearing the message, ‘we’ve got to organize better, it ‘s just a matter of getting our message out!’ and I’m seeing our message marginalized as ‘hate speech’. We can’t get enough traction; all the ‘community organizing’ is happening on the other side. THEY have the institutes of ‘higher learning’ under their thumb. THEY have the free stuff to pass out. We can organize whom? Just those of us who have this thing called ‘virtue’, which isn’t easy to learn, and isn’t part of our societal fabric anymore, since the Left has also marginalized religion.
This isn’t ending well.
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free. ~~Ronald Reagan”
You’re not hearing me, Darleen. As of this election, and as of this era, and as of this assured upcoming implosion of constitutional America, we really don’t need a fifteen hundredth and first column acknowledging the left’s corruption by name and beseeching us to reject it.
The right failed because it wasn’t right. It wasn’t a bulwark, fountainhead, foundation. If the right cannot win at being left, and if the right cannot win in some odd covert operation to feint left and then move right later, why are the right’s spokesmodels still bitching about the left by first giving a shred of its “truths” credence?
Prager is way too late to this thing if he thinks, as he did just a couple scant weeks ago, that Establicanism works. It can’t. It’s time he reject it outright and apologize for the last four or six or even twenty years for his being a Republican during an era when that right was daily proving its incompetence by adopting any of the left’s projections. Yet here he is doing it all over again.
Erect the conservative State. Of mind, of borders, of ideology, of declaration; whatever. We had nearly 250 years ago and we had not by constantly bitching about King George on AM radio, all the while using the King’s perfect English.
Then give it up, serr8d.
How did the Founding Fathers acquire their principles? Did they just absorb them from the atmosphere of being in North America?
How are the principles of America so special that we are not to teach them?
The last I checked, Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel , Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, David Hume, George Soros, John Stewart Mill, and Saul Alinsky were all WHITE GUYS.
That’s specious, Darleen.
Noam Chomsky : WHITE GUY.
I don’t have a comment — just wanted to pull that out and wave it, maybe to rile up any “shut up those damn social cons” types that might be hanging around.
Leftism is a DISORDER of reason, values, thought, logic, fairness, intent, and character. Why on earth do we insist on befriending it when it has no such capacity for normalcy itself?
true that, Jhow.
No JH, your declaration is specious.
Oh, it might feel good to say FUCK YOU I’m taking my principled marbles and go home, they are too precious to share with you ungrateful bastards.
Humans are not born good. We have to learn even goodness, either from our parents or from the societal institutions around us.
We don’t reinvent it from scratch each generation anymore then we reinvent the wheel.
If this is an evangelical problem, and if conservatism isn’t known, why are Republicans constantly moving into active leftist policy and intellectual territory, paying service to the left’s myths on race, sex, and class, and expecting to win anything but scorn for their weakness in what some of you seem to think is a progressive nation built from the apparent ruins of classical liberalism?
Wouldn’t they better expend their efforts doing things like promoting a third party for the last 30 years? Establishing a Free State? Because all the folks who’ve seen through Republicanism had been doing so for those thirty years and more, instead of shrieking at me a couple weeks ago like s reader here did, that Ron Paul wasn’t a viable candidate?
I never promoted the man. I promoted the values that drew him crowds as large or larger than either major party candidate.
Now I recommend we reject the messaging myth, starting with admitting that Prager contradicted himself in this conciliatory, wistful ode to times when things made sense. And how to argue back on false terms.
Things don’t make sense and Dennis already knows that or he wouldn’t be on the air and in print. So leave them. Millions of his fellows already had and I can assure you that bleating on about aging white males is going to cut no ice with the left just as it’s not going to energize the established right to stop hearing that bullshit and going out and acting like independents for a change.
Why on earth do we insist on befriending
Where does Prager, or me, for that matter say we have to “befriend” Leftism?
It is our enemy and we have to demonstrate why and teach others why it is the enemy.
Like teaching the left, Darleen, or like teaching folks to, in effect, accept that we need to teach the left?
It. Is. Not. Happening.
Back later, all…
When Reagan said outloud that the USSR was an evil empire, was he defending it or getting the attention of others that hey, look here at the differences and let me make my case?
Where does Prager advocate teaching people to “accept Leftism”?
Nice attempt at marginalization, JHo.
I don’t have a ton to add, but I will note that the right HAS to find a better answer/response to women. We need to “market” our answer towards women’s issues JUST as well as the left.
As it’s core, the left has indoctrinated women that choice/birth control is an infringement on their body. We need a better answer. We need to marginalize THAT ideology somehow.
I mean, when I had a GAY man tell me that Romney was going to take away funding for Planned Parenthood, and that was one of his big concerns…
@@
Honestly.
The left is brain dead.
We can’t ‘community organize’ a virtuous people because the virtuous people aren’t native anymore. Virtue has been marginalized; conservatism has been subsumed; Reagan is dead and buried. Instead, we have Barack Obama and his free shit to pass around.
I’m not giving up to anyone or anything. I’m ready to help anyone who has a chance. Did Ron Paul have a chance? Hell, no! Did Mitt Romney have a chance? He did have a chance, however slight. I love Allen West in a non-ghey way, but his chances? Dwindling.
I’m not impressed by our side’s self-diminishments.
serr8d
In order for us to speak from the stage, we have to get control of the stage not stand outside the theater and make faces at the potential audience in line.
That also means creating our own stages … such as talk radio, the internet and (as has been suggested) use the millions poured into PACs to fund/create more communication venues (tv channel, entertainment, etc).
Darleen, those efforts are well and good. Until they get marginalized (see above). Right now, the #StopRush effort is about to silence a powerful voice. Most people ignore that effort; when it’s finalized, there will be many who say ‘how did that happen?’. I’ll hand out mirrors.
*you can give up and forget the fact that the present logic is faulty*
Sure, it absolutely is, but when you have virtually every media outlet repeating the same tired trope, with almost no rebuttal to the constant lying, what chance do you have of convincing the stupid, the naive and easily swayed, when that pillar of intellectual political thought, Jon Stewart, is telling his audience how incredibly racist every white person is.
I think you need a true, unbashedly conservative “news” outlet, which continually pushes back and rebuts the lies of the media. Breitbart wanted to be that but his death took most of the air out of those sales. Fox News is not right enough- having to listen to Juan Williams, Geraldo, that idiot on the 5, etc spew the same liberal talking points and lies, and yet still present their opinions as possible, in the interest of being “fair and balanced” is not working. The media won the last election. Conservatives failed to counter the incessant lying coming from the MSM’s mouths – I also think conservatives should get used to calling liars, liars. If only Romney would have done so in the last election and but alas, “civility” was more important than truth.
Women’s issues should be given precisely the same care and feeding as men’s issues.
We need to reject the premise, the tribalism.
The Blaze
I’m not a big fan of the ‘you must learn to think like a sick person so you can talk to sick people’ premise.
I think you provide a consistent contrast with your opponent and push back.
Leftism is a DISORDER of reason, values, thought, logic, fairness, intent, and character.
I’m going to go out on a limb here.
The human race is capable of order, reason, values, thought, logic, fairness, intent, and character, but it is the exception, not the norm. Thousands of years of people fucking up the good things they have have proven this beyond a doubt. Why should our country be any different?
I already have given up.
There’s an aphorism — I’ve heard it attributed to D. D. Eisenhower, but don’t actually know its provenance — that goes: “If you have a problem that isn’t yielding to solution, enlarge it”.
I don’t happen to know, but believe it’s possible this is good advice or at least advice worthy of some consideration. Whether that’s so or not, it seems like a bad idea to jump at conclusions which assume the solution is simple and already at hand, when it’s fairly manifest that the nominal problem has been around for years on end without solution now, leading to suffering defeat after regression after defeat.
Under those conditions, it may well be the case that the problem — while real enough and barrier enough — hasn’t been identified in its fullest generality, and so isn’t actually understood. But this is just idle kanoodling.
I’m so tired of divisive racial talk. Maybe the Republicans wouldn’t be stereotyped as old white guys if they did more to support Republicans who are female and non-white. Yes, we’re seeing more of Marco Rubio, but how about establishment Republicans supporting Allen West, Michelle Bachman, Bobby Jindal, and – gasp! – Sara Palin. The Dems have no problem supporting their own flawed pols (JJjr, etc.), but for some reason Republicans get uncomfortable with anyone that the Left has deemed “polarizing.” It’s all part of their strategy to deems squishes like Huntsman, Scarborough, and Frum as the only “acceptable” Republicans. They are the worst spokesmen for conservatism. SO why to they play into this again and again, so they get off on being Charlie Brown to the MSM/Left’s Lucy?
They let the MSM tear Palin to shreds in 2008, and did little to support Bachman & Cain during the 2012 primaries and then wonder why they’re called a bunch of old, white men. Hint: you enable the MSM and the Left (I repeat myself) in their destruction of any Republican not fitting their stereotype. You also let them lie about which party supported segregation, started the KKK, fought against school integration, etc.
By accepting leftism’s truths as truths, Darleen. By debating with the intellectually corrupted using their terms.
More directly to your question as I understand it, he’s not advocating leftism per se, just that leftism’s linguistic slant is itself legitimate, even if only to frame an element of some debate subsequent to that fraud.
Why debate?
What folks fail to grasp is that leftism is either a conscious, malicious choice or it’s, by the example of history itself, certainly including recent political history, simply not suggestible to correction on anything approaching its terms — aging, white, male, classist, etc.
Why this doesn’t give the right ample cause to quietly erect a shining example escapes me.
Incorrect. I intended to offer you a means to cope with a world in which you have no choice, as you apparently see it, except to engage your enemy on his platform.
Just leave that platform.
The Constitution of the United States of America is that response.
“they have failed to make the case for their values. ” Conservatism is the default position.
My great-grandfather had a pair of working mules. He kept a short cudgel hanging near the stall and each morning when he fed and harnessed them he would give each one a whack. He said to get anything done you first needed their attention. He claimed most people were alot like mules.
Maybe the Republicans wouldn’t be stereotyped as old white guys if they did more to support Republicans who are female and non-white.
No. No, no, no. This is the exact point that JHo made above, and that JG has made dozens of times over the past decade: stop playing the Left’s game!
If the Republicans did more to support actual liberty, self-reliance, personal responsibility, and the whole “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” thing, they could defuse any trumped-up criticism about race and sex. The Right needs to support principles, not people. It needs to promise us freedom from central authority, not “more efficient” or “smarter” central authority.
Let the Left carp on about old white men. Laugh at them. Point at the multitudes of women and minorities who have been trapped for 3 or 4 generations in the Left’s ghettos, mired in dysfunction and dependency as the Left’s policies systematically destroy their families and their neighborhoods. Outline a vision where families can find a decent education for their kids and a decent job for themselves, without having to kiss ass at City Hall for some kind of a handout. Emphasize that this vision is colorblind; heck, use MLK’s own words to show that it wasn’t so long ago that black communities respected and applauded the messengers of freedom and racial concord.
We need to stop getting defensive about the stupid, arbitrary markers the Left uses to divide us. If they want to call us the party of old white men, laugh at them and explain that we’re the party of free, successful, self-reliant people with dignity, and that every group that ever lived by our principles enjoyed the same success that we have, regardless of sex, creed, or color. Don’t get defensive — be joyful and pleasant and confident and inviting.
There’s your problem, right there equating Conservatism with Republican.
Exactly. There’s your fraud. Like crime, it’s not going to respond to rule of law, which is to say that it’s already sworn its eternal hostility to normal, reasonable, structural American principle and society. Like this:
Also exactly. Recognize your foe, state your plight, and take decisive action.
Which means that this next is circular and self-defeating:
I read that as ‘conservatism is dead ergo we’re not giving up’. Including not giving up marginalizing authentic, available conservative principle in favor of faulty center-left Establican personalities out of the myth that conservatism is not legitimate enough to stand on its own.
Except 1776.
I really don’t see how that supports itself, much less support a clear and principled strategy from this point forward, this being the point of, as you say, virtue being marginalized; conservatism subsumed; Reagan dead and buried, and Marxist statism passing around free shit.
That is to diminish conservatism. Confident conservatism — which is all conservatism can ever be and remain conservative — does not react. It leads. And it does not lead rabble and crime.
And for the record, “being old” ain’t all it’s cracked up to be, but it beats Holy hell out of the alternatives.
Wait. Am I missing something?
Is Diane Feinstein doing the right thing?
Look for a pod in her basement or something.
And for the record, “being old” ain’t all it’s cracked up to be, but it beats Holy hell out of the alternatives.
I dunno. If death means sweet oblivion, I’m all for it. If it means transcendent happiness, count me in.
If it means being mobbed by all the dead relatives I’m glad to be rid of, well…
“If death means sweet oblivion,” Been dead several times, didn’t much cotton to it. Watched others embrace it like a long lost child.
One more time, these are your logical alternatives:
1. The establishment right wishes to beat the left by diluting leftist principle, such as it is, and offering a nice pleasant inoffensive choice. To a nation we admit is gone hard over in favor of enormous, unbalanced, sexist, racialist, classist, unconstitutional central government.
2. The establishment right is running a covert scheme where it says all the stuff in #1 to glean mad vote tallies, but once elected swings back hard right. Neither of which have ever come true. Naturally you’re in on the scheme, as are all few hundred million of your fellows, because if this thing is to succeed, it has to be agreed upon. Among a lot of voters not going to the polls already.
3. After decades of the ostensible right rushing to centrally drive The Economy, Stupid to artificial heights so the left can take credit for ratcheting it higher and then claiming it, the Party of Suddenly Responsible Financial Cliff Avoidance balanced it with massively higher taxes, you can peer over at $16T in official national debt — an entire year’s national GDP — and ten times that in unfunded SOCIAL liabilities and admit it’s over.
And that doesn’t even include all the religious race, gender, class, and identity bullshit the left has forwarded for 50 years without the slightest meaningful retracement forced by the right.
At which point you do what we all should have done for decades and act independently and vote independent for the legions of folks who, if you would just act on principle and not from fear, are already standing there to restore sanity to this trainwreck we keep carping about.
“If it means transcendent happiness” That is made here.
“If it means transcendent happiness” That is made here.
Not on this planet, in this plane of existence, with this effing mortal body, surrounded by other idiotic mortals.
When I say the party should support women & non-white Republicans I don’t mean they should seek them out and promote them because of these qualities. Instead, it is the Left that targets these Republicans – specifically because of these characteristics – because if people like Palin and West succeed they will help dismantle their “old white men” stereotype. I don’t want them to buy into the Left’s obsession with gender & race so much as I want them to recognize and combat attacks on their own specifically because of them.
Several MSM pundits & feminists on occasion have admitted that Palin initially scared them because (given her charisma) she seemed to be a viable first female president. So they set about destroying her. While establishment Republicans distanced themselves from her because of her accent, that she wasn’t intellectual enough, her family drama, etc. Republicans allow the MSM to destroy those who strongly communicate conservative values (regardless of gender & complexion) and then wonder why someone less “polarizing” like Romney didn’t inspire more voters.
“are already standing there to restore sanity to this trainwreck ” Sometimes you need to fail to appreciate your successes.
While establishment Republicans distanced themselves from her because of her accent,
She had a reputation for busting up Republican games of footsie and holding Republican malefactors accountable.
We can’t have that.
“Not on this planet, in this plane of existence, with this effing mortal body, surrounded by other idiotic mortals.” It absolutely is. That you can’t, (or don’t), is not relevant. You want it? Do it. How many shots do you think you have?
“When I say the party should support women & non-white Republicans” Have you ever churned milk? Why do you think everything is screwed up?
Aaaaand again. #PrincessBrideFiscalCliff
Prepare to see enough “inconceivables” to choke a horse.
It absolutely is.
“Transcendent” means “not of this world,” or, something that by definition cannot be had in this mortal plane.
Hence, either sweet oblivion or transcendent happiness await us after death.
Or the eternal torments of hell for not being Muslim.
Whatever.
1. Surpassing others; preeminent or supreme.
Do and ye shall be. Kant
Be and ye shall do. Goethe
Do Be Do BE Doo. Sinatra
Sorry, old joke.
How, by perfecting your fellow man?
“How, by perfecting your fellow man?” I guess you believe man is perfectable? Who knows. I don’t. I work on myself, daily I might add. I only have influence over my life and not much control at that.
*Maybe the Republicans wouldn’t be stereotyped as old white guys if they did more to support Republicans who are female and non-white.*’
Following up on Squid’s response, the Right has done that. There were not just “viable” but excellent minority and woman candidates running in the last election cycle as Republicans. There were minority speakers at the RNC convention. And these are good, successful people- not just window dressing minorities, like so many the Left conjured up. Allen West and Mia Love lost, while relics like Alcee Hastings and clownshoes like Jesse Jackson Jr won. Hell, Jackson was under federal indictment and hadn’t shown up for work in months and he was re-elected in a landslide. Showcasing minority candidates doesn’t work- the Left demonizes and Uncle Toms them. THe only thing that will work is a focus on explaining conservative values. My fear, ultimately, is that self reliance and limited government will always be rejected by the majority of people in this country, who are scared about their future and think the government safety net should be bigger and more helpful.
Which idealization of perfection are we talking about?
The Left believes that if only they could perfect their fellow man, all could have transcendent happiness in this life.
Hence, we on the Right are suspicious of such notions as “transcendent happiness in this life.”
“transcendent happiness in this life.” Until someone steps forward with definative evidence to the contrary; one shot is all ya got. Make the most of it.
“The Left believes that if only they could perfect their fellow man, all could have transcendent happiness in this life.”
They break a few eggs to make an omelette but they don’t know how to make omelettes so they end up with burned runny scrambles and a pan that will never come clean.