Will We Let Marxist Insurrectionists Take The Wheel?

Criticize President Trump all you want for not being a conservative and for being more of a moderate, transactional politician. You would be right. He’s never been a conservative, but consider how much things have changed over the years.

So, if you oppose Trump or Republicans because they are really not your cup of tea, then you had better understand what your lack of support actually supports.

Reagan was the last conservative president America has had to date, but even then, conservatism was defined differently in the 1980s, the Rush Limbaugh era. “Conservatism,” as defined by the Bush era, was less conservative and more moderate Republican, more of the milquetoast, country-club, “lovable loser/loyal opposition” Republican perspective.

The Bush family just showed you their true colors by endorsing and financially supporting James Talarico, a Democrat so bad you would think him impossible to exist. That this guy, somebody who embodies every possible DEI insanity (topped off with apostasy), was nominated in Texas is almost enough to mark the date of his nomination as the beginning of the biblical End Times.

The “I feel your pain with my cigar” Clinton era began to redefine the Democrats as a populist party with a twist of universal healthcare run by his Saul Alinsky devotee wife, Hillary Rodham. Both were stopped cold by Newt Gingrich, but the seed was planted. It just sat dormant for two election cycles after the Clintons left office.

And then came Obama, someone who was initially viewed as a political lightweight, a novelty candidate, but somehow parlayed white guilt and white knighting into the Oval Office. Now that enough time has passed to really use history as a judge, Mr. “Pen and a Phone/Elections Have Consequences” was the first modern president to define his party in terms of the Marxist idea of “class struggle.” Yesterday, I quoted The New Yorker saying, just before the 2008 election, “Barack Obama had already been accused of betraying the troops, wanting to teach kindergartners all about sex, favoring infanticide, and being a friend of terrorists and terrorism.” He was doing all of that, and now that IS the Democratic Party in ethos and practice.

The fact is that we are defined as much by what we oppose as by what we support, so as our opposition changes, we must change as well to maintain our opposition.

In my lifetime, I have seen the Democratic Party metastasize into the un-Democratic Party and now into its final stage of evolution, the Democratic Socialist Party.

Read the 1960 Democratic Party platform. It was unequivocally opposed to communism, condemning its ideology as fundamentally incompatible with individual liberty, constitutional government, and human dignity. The party described communist ideology as “sterile, unsound, and doomed to failure” and pledged American military, economic, and diplomatic resources to resist communist aggression and expansion. It denounced communist tyranny, defended the Bill of Rights, opposed Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and specifically condemned the spread of “international, atheistic Communism” in the Western Hemisphere. Although Democrats supported an expanded federal role in domestic economic and social policy, they drew a clear distinction between democratic liberalism and communist totalitarianism. The platform presented the Cold War as more than a geopolitical struggle, portraying it as a fundamental conflict between individual freedom and an authoritarian ideology that subordinated the individual to the state.

After the 1984 election cycle, the Communist Party USA stopped nominating a candidate for president. In 1988, the CPUSA changed its electoral strategy, deciding not to field its own presidential candidate and instead to work through broader political coalitions, particularly those associated with the Democratic Party. Communist Party leaders initially favored Jesse Jackson’s Democratic primary campaign and subsequently supported Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis in the general election.

At the 2012 Democratic National Convention, they booed the mention of God. The party platform formally embraced same-sex marriage, explicit recognition of gender identity in civil rights policy, and a defense of federally mandated contraceptive coverage. These developments also exposed a deeper philosophical disagreement about the proper role of government.

In 2026, they are openly embracing the policies and candidates of the Democratic Socialists of America and, as we have discovered through the work of DataRepublican, have been openly planning a literal insurrection. They want to pack the SCOTUS, abolish the Senate and the presidency, and achieve a goal they have argued for decades: completely ending the Constitution. Like Mao’s China, they want to get rid of all the “olds.”

If you voted for, or plan to vote for, a Democrat next week, regardless of how harmless and mundane they might seem, Marxism is what you are voting for. And when you say that’s not possible, just consider how Democrats manage to vote monolithically for whatever proposal is on the floor, votes that include your “moderate” Democrats. Don’t think that your guy or gal won’t vote you into a gulag? You had better listen to Elissa Slotkin, a Deep State CIA operative, one of the Seditious Six, who masquerades as an elected senator.

If you choose to sit this one out because you have some utopian vision of politics, the economy, or foreign policy that has never existed, and you blame Trump for not achieving your vision over the past two years, you are still voting for Marxism.

Choosing not to act is still an act.

Thomas Sowell famously noted that there are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.

This is the latter.

Marxism or not Marxism, that is the question, dear Horatio.