Most of the real power of the left are relics of the late 1960s ... While that era predates me by a few years, it seems, to me anyway, that the mid to late 1960s were the first giant push by the Communists to subjugate the USA.
I often wonder if the end of that political generation will spell the end of this idiotic attempt at Communism here in the USA. They seemed to have spawned a generation of only semi-believers. They don’t seem to have anyone under 50 years old that looks promising on the national stage. They’re next attempt at the Presidency seems to be a sea hag looking malcontent that repulses people when she opens her mouth. They are relying on idiotic mantras to hold onto power (war on women, anti-science, gay-everything, etc. are all exciting for idiots at first, but grow tiresome and transparent over the course of a decade).
All of this is according to plan by the ex Soviets. I simply think they lost their true leadership after the collapse of the USSR and have been somewhat adrift. While they’ve certainly had electoral success since then, I think they kind of bet the farm on the Obama Administration and are going to be paying dearly for that mistake in the years ahead.
By no means do I feel that we have sunny skies ahead of us ... I just think we might have a bit more power coming our way that can help us to restore some sanity to this once great nation.
Sorry for the rambling ... Your post simply caught my attention and has been stuff I’ve pondered on occasion :-)
Agreed, that era does mark significant strides for them. JFK’s popularity and inclinations served as a restraint that was removed with his assassination. Our efforts thereafter in VN, costly in terms of American lives, was eagerly and effectively criticized by the left. At the same time, like a well coordinated ballet, leftists embedded in our university faculties were emboldened by “spontaneous” student revolts and felt free to emerge.
Please do not apologize for any rambling, you raise a number of interesting points (and I will now ramble back). With the clarity of hindsight and in terms of useful lifespan, they may wish they had gone with the “sea hag” first and then O. It seems possible with what we now know, that they added his "frailties" to the equation and determined he would not survive the hag’s term as a electable candidate. Even then, as you suggest, his selection may prove to have been a costly mistake.
I have not been paying close attention but you are right, they do not seem to have a deep bench, age-wise. There are some, of course, that could rise to national prominence in the next 4 or 5 years, but for the moment it looks like they are stuck with the hag.
On the other hand, I believe they continue to build one hell of base. For example, in addition to the PC state of our national K-12 education system, giving the CA university system real muscle in the form of Janet N. was a telling move. There will always be the MSM to inform the voters and, of course, the entertainment industry will continue to help mold the minds of young voters. Finally, is the voting block that will result from expanded immigration policies. Their candidates will only need to show up if they have a majority of the votes.
I just think we might have a bit more power coming our way that can help us to restore some sanity to this once great nation.
It is no doubt important that Republican politicians have the courage to dismantle or at least reshape the various socialist programs that have been installed, regain the balance of the judiciary and cause educational administrators to be more responsive to parents. Sounds like a steep undertaking to me.