Martin Gurri on the current Age of Revolt

The question, for me, is whether these repeated crises of authority at the national level represent a systemic failure.  After all, the disorders of 2019 are the latest installment in a familiar tale.  Governments long ago yielded control of the information sphere to the public, and the political landscape, ever since, has been in a state of constant perturbation.  From the euphoria and subsequent horrors of the Arab Spring in 2011, through the improbable electoral victories of Brexit and Donald Trump in 2016, to last year’s violence by the Yellow Vests of France, we ought to have learned, by this late hour, to anticipate instability and uncertainty.  We should expect to be surprised…

This would be a good time to bring up the pessimistic hypothesis.  It holds that the loss of control over information must be fatal to modern government as a system:  the universal spread of revolt can be explained as a failure cascade, driving that system inexorably toward disorganization and reconfiguration.  Failure cascades can be thought of as negative virality.  A local breakdown leads to the progressive loss of higher functions, until the system falls apart.  This, in brief, is why airplanes crash and bridges collapse.

For systems that are dynamic and complex, like human societies, outcomes are a lot more mysterious.  A failure cascade of revolts (the hypothesis) will knock the institutions of modern government ever further from equilibrium, until the entire structure topples into what Alicia Juarrero calls “phase change”:  a “qualitative reconfiguration of the constraints” that gave the failed system its peculiar character.  In plain language, the old regime is overthrown – but at this stage randomness takes charge, and what emerges on the far side is, in principle, impossible to predict.  I can imagine a twenty-first century Congress of Vienna of the elites, in which Chinese methods of information control are adopted globally, and harsh punishment is meted out, for the best of reasons, to those who speak out of turn.  But I can also envision a savage and chaotic Time of Troubles, caused by a public whose expectations have grown impossibly utopian.  The way Juarrero tells it, “[T]here is no guarantee that any complex system will reorganize.”

Do read the whole thing.


Democracy is a system for adopting the desires of the masses into government policy before they can turn into violent protest. Social media speeds up the process of forming a protest, but it doesn't make democracy operate any faster.

Previously, information took years, if not decades, to form desires, then produce violent protest. A basic example would be Russia, where it took almost 100 years of bad/questionable government before it evolved into an open Revolution.

Democracy was faster than those processes, so it had a competitive edge.

Nowadays, information moves at such speeds, that it takes months (sometimes weeks) for a violent protest to fully form to a degree, that it threatens the government.

Democracy does not and cannot (in any of the current implementations) move as fast. So the authoritarian states, that close ANY and ALL dissent might actually have a competitive edge currently.

We can only wait and see how social evolution will move. Perhaps new forms of democracy (some sort of AI-controlled direct democracy, maybe) will be developed or the autocracy will triumph (perhaps until some other changes in our culture/technology).

"A basic example would be Russia, where it took almost 100 years of bad/questionable government before it evolved into an open Revolution."

That's because the state was actively suppressing revolt via secret polices, arrests and murders. Certainly those type of authoritarian policies will have some effect.

The revolts all have a very simple cause. It is a battle between those who say "OK Boomer" against those who say "OK Zoomer"

Every generation gets two shots at the restructuring, one as the plaintiff and one as the accused. Each younger generation makes up its own 'This time is different' fraud. The plaintiff has the advantage of ex post data, and when that ex post data can be accelerated by technology, it will be.

This story goes back many,many, many generations; genetic. Want a list? Web, Broadcast networks, telephone switchboard, telegraph, oceanic cables, rotary steam press, Gutenberg press, newspapers; one might include Fibonacci and double entry accounting.

I'd even keep going: Giordano Bruno, Paracelsus, Nicholas of Cusa, Roger Bacon, Bernard of Clairvaux...

'It holds that the loss of control over information must be fatal to modern government as a system'

Yet another person who apparently has no problem entertaining the idea that the American Revolution, resulting in a government that was prohibited from controlling information, may have been a mistake. At least if one considers the U.S. one of the first - and most successful - modern governments.

And this obsession with Trump continues to be tiresome - all presidents leave office, and the American government continues.

'This, in brief, is why airplanes crash'

Another reason airplanes crash is that their pilots - intentionally or not - fly them into a mountain. Some revolutions can be seen through that lenses, where the people in power simply take actions that lead to their inevitable demise. And as can be seen by contrasting the American and French experience, the results may not be possible to predict, but that is the point of the Yogi Berra quip about how hard it is to predict anything, especially the future.

As Tyler says, "do read the whole thing." Tired of misinformed comments here.

The French Revolution was run by provincial lawyers, the American by provincial slave-drivers. Plain different things.

'provincial slave-drivers'

Nah, they weren't slave drivers (that work was beneath them), they were slave owners.

Saying "cancer is bad" isn't a cute way to make cancer good.

Yes, that's why nobody ironically says "cancer is bad". The point to the Orange Man Bad, is that some people have gone beyond legitimate criticism of Trump to blind hatred. That the complaints have grown so broad and so hyperbolic that you might as well hate him for his hair color as for what he's actually done.

Not really, no. "Orange Bad Man" is meant as inoculation, so that *no* criticism may be entered. As Tyler's Bloomberg colleague ably describes:

Abuse of Power? Republicans Seem OK With It.

"Not really, no. "Orange Bad Man" is meant as inoculation, so that *no* criticism may be entered. "

There's very few people on this blog, that think Trump is above criticism. So, You're obviously wrong about that. Why are you stating an obvious lie?

I stand by my interpretation. "Orange Man Bad" is meant to tell you not to listen to any criticism.

And thus boys and girls, Republicans ended up with a man who cheats on his wife with pornstars and then pays them off with campaign funds as the paragon of their virtues.

Of course you stand by your interpretation. You categorically reject any data or ideas that don't fit in your world view.

Don't you ever wonder why people here think you are a troll? Don't you ever for even a moment think that maybe the other side aren't the cartoon villains that you try and paint them as?

So that is amusing.

You totally discard your defense of the character of the President, and attack me personally.

Whilst calling me the troll.

Maybe I'm not. Maybe you are.

No, it’s pretty clear you’re the troll:

1. You derail any thread with obvious partisan bait.

2. You don’t even pretend to stay on topic, every thread has to be a trump thread

3. You only engage in partisan agitprop, never an actual discussion of ideas

4. You personally attack anyone who disagrees with you

5. You’re impervious to facts

6. You never actually state any position, policy, or hypothesis. It’s all attack, 100% of the time

Yeah, it’s definitely you.

You guys should buy some self-awareness for a dollar.

It is impeachment day.

you're taking it upon yourselves to call rational critics of President Trump trolls instead.

Such is the state of the Republican party.

Sure, George Washington was a slave holder, but the vast majority of soldiers were not. They wanted to rid themselves of an increasingly interventionist, unaccountable power.

They succeeded.

It is quite silly to see such historically normal events as the legal yes vote for Brexit, legal election of President Trump and sporadic French riots as data points trending towards the end of civilisation.

'as data points trending towards the end of civilisation'


They are certainly just data points, among a sea of other data points that do not trend toward the end of civilization but in the direction of progress and prosperity. However, taken alone, they most certainly trend toward the end of civilization.

Well, having a president surprisingly elected against the consensus is not exactly the end of civilization - Truman did beat Dewey, after all.

The UK not wanting to be part of the EU is not exactly shocking news either.

As for France and riots - yawn.

In all three cases, this was simply mundane politics in action, not data points to the end of civilization as we know it.

And isn't it Pinker who says we are living in the times that are the most peaceful in human history? After all, if you have to argue that lawful elections are signs of a decline of civilization, then it would seem one is on the side of the autocrats, who always say that.

Truman was fine. He was not elected against consensus - then as now, there were more Democrats than Republicans. He had already been president. He was elected despite being behind in the polls, that's all.

The only thing Truman and Trump have in common is the first four letters of their names.

I don't know how the UK got roped into being part of an "ever-closer" EU in the first place. It was supposed to be a common market and trade agreement.

We are, indeed, living in the most peaceful time in human history.

At infinity everything is figured out and we live happily ever after. Otherwise Newton's grammar won't work in our models.

I am beginning to a suspect finite N, sometimes things cannot subdivide anymore.

LOL. At this point it's a political tool to try and keep voters from changing the government.

Explicitly stated at this point:

"Rep. Al Green: "I'm Concerned If We Don't Impeach This President, He Will Get Re-Elected""

It's perhaps mainly a spoiling attack, an attempt to preemptively prevent bringing to justice the senior officials in the FBI, CIA, and Obama administration who abused their power before and after the 2016 elections. A number of these people should go to jail in disgrace, but that would be rather inconvenient both for them, and their associates.

The loss of status and credibility for the FBI, the press, and increasingly those leading the impeachment process in the Congress is large and probably (at least for the FBI and press) irreversible.

For example, a juror may not now automatically extend credibility to FBI testimony or evidence. That trust, build over generations, is gone.

Good God, full Russian propaganda as Republican belief now?

At the very least the FBI lawyer who altered the FISA application should be held disbarred and held accountable. He is under criminal investigation. Furthermore, his previous work for the FBI should be reviewed for accuracy.

"The FBI became close to correcting a mistake in the third and final warrant application renewal targeting onetime Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, but an FBI lawyer improperly altered a document to cover up that the bureau had erred in the previous filings.

In a report released on Monday, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz offered a detailed description of the actions taken by Kevin Clinesmith, a then-FBI lawyer who was part of special counsel Robert Mueller's team, that led to the criminal referral reported two weeks ago.

Horowitz said he “was the primary FBI attorney assigned to [the Trump-Russia] investigation in early 2017.”"

Yes. Especially given this is not a particularly tumultuous time in the U.S. (compared to the late 60s) nor in France (compared to the late 60s and many other points in its history) and how is Brexit any more a sign of systemic breakdown than, say, the peaceful exit of Slovenia from Yugoslavia or the separate of Slovakia and the Czech Republic?

I can easily offer a few. The first 4 are no-brainers, "day-one" kind of things the Dems should be saying.

- Some sort of mathematical definition of a district that applies to all level of government that eliminates gerrymandering.
- No torture on American soil or in American custody.
- No collective punishment or detention (e.g., Japanese internment, border detentions)
- Amend the 13th Amendment to eliminate indentured servitude in prisons (call it the Kanye amendment).
- The Senate becomes the legislative body of the territorial integrity of America, which covers military and land managment. Certain bills no longer require House approval before going to the President.
- The House becomes the body that represents the metro areas of America, it handles primarily health, welfare, social and economic issues. Certain bills no longer require Senate approval.

'- No torture on American soil or in American custody'

This was a day one part of the Constitution, as the 8th Amendment - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

And why only the Dems? American have been opposed to torture since before the founding of the nation. “Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” – George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

And changing the current balance between the Senate and house would be a revolutionary change, much along the lines of having the president assume the powers of a king.

My what short memories we have:

The perpetrators were never impeached nor imprisoned for violating the US Constitution.

No, they were not. But as you noted, they already violated the Constitution. There is no need for a new amendment, which one assumes would be just as thoroughly ignored as the 8th Amendment already was.

To the shame of a nation that was previously held in very high esteem for the way it treated those it captured in battle.

The Constitution only matters if a Democrat is President. When they are Republican like Bush or Trump, it is okay to ignore it.

Other than having incorrectly switching the parties you are correct.

Obama (in-)famously ignored the Constitution with his "I have a pen and a phone" method of imposing his whims on the American people.

I suppose the poor souls of My Lai were not captured in battle.

Apologies: Just a bunch of words.

The UK is in decline since 1945, the real surprise would be a trend reversal.

It is amusing to think how many Tories would blame democracy for that decline.

None, I suspect. At least I've never met one.

People of the wrong class, i.e. poor, involved in democracy ;)

The Republicans already set up the concentration camps. The Democrats can now fill them up with enemies of the state. How's that for bipartisanship?

All these revolts are mostly driven by resentment. Today anyone can instantly see how rich people live.

Today, the middle-class, can instantly see how rich people live.

Hong Kong is richer than every other part of China. Don't see why they would be resentful of other rich Chinese. Catalan is also the richest part of Spain. I'm seeing holes in your argument.

One can be resentful of the poor who fail to stay in their place as well as the rich.

The poor who fail to stay in their just described the protests in Chile.

Today anyone can instantly see how rich people live.

If you mean in the media, that's nothing from new. Glossy magazines have featured the lives of the rich and famous for a very long time. In the 1930s, Hollywood was full of 'screwball' comedies featuring the lives of the wealthy living in their mansions. And so on.

But if you mean in seeing the rich in person, that has become harder. 100 years ago, the wealthy would build their big, fancy houses in the middle of town, the better to be admired, and their daily lives were observed by a staff of live-in servants. Now, the wealthy tend to live apart and without servants.

This means that the feedback loops between political leadership and citizenry is shortening. This is on the whole a good thing though in the short term will be messy. I fully expect governments to clamp down on social media and the internet in general but I fully expect the people to resist such a heavy handed move. Like the old blessing/curse, may we live in interesting times.

Very interesting analysis of very important events which few are able to grasp. Surprised by Gurri's statement:

"A structural reform that brings the public into closer alignment with the elites is perfectly possible. But I find it hard to see how that can be accomplished, so long as the public clings to the mutism of the consumer and refuses to articulate its demands like a true political actor. One rarely gets what one hasn’t asked for. Reform depends on the public’s willingness to abandon negation for practical politics."

Why isn't the "practical politics" and "structural reform" replacement of the elites?

Because most of the people in the US (and the first world) lead comfortable lives that are better than their grandparents and parents lives. They have full bellies, are relatively healthy (with most of the unhealthiness based upon life style choices, have vast amounts of entertainment, large well built living quarters and freedom of travel. People are content. Content people don't have rebellions where they might end up out of work, actually poor or even dead.

Content people don't riot.

Well yes. And you'll note the paucity of riots in the US. I can't speak for France, since I haven't kept up with the news.

No rioting here but a clear desire for reform, at the least. I'm not disagreeing with you actually, both things are true, people are content, and unhappy. It's bizarre.

“[T]here is no guarantee that any complex system will reorganize.”
And thus, the Junker Fallacy which assumes the complex system will re-organize.,

His bigger theme is something called Information technology Shock. It has happened many times before. It is no big deal, our civil war should half as violent as that last, 4 million dead, tops, we might get our hair messed up a bit. Half of those killed will be via forced migrations, a sort of soft death, like they do in Illinois and California.

Information shock, the ability of the current generation to observed, ex post, the total amount of resources our government has wasted. And the current government carries humongous interest charges on those unsterilized losses. Debt repudiation becomes a natural right.

The amendment process is a fools game, better to assume we are stuck with what we got.

Seriously, this is the pattern. Trumpian authoritarians *imagine* bad things, and then go ahead and do them, preemptively.

They are their own slippery slope.

Neither party’s leadership would endorse Chinese style information controls.

This entire thread is delusional.

I was thinking of milder examples. For instance, convincing yourself there is so much voter fraud that you have to commit election fraud to stop it. Or convincing yourself that judges are liberal, so you have to promote rank partisans to balance them.

Does the Trump charity thing fit the pattern? Was he so convinced that there were no real altruists that he just had to create a self-dealing fraud "also?"

Or this crazy executive order about speech on campus?

I'm not fully up on the details, but it looks like Trump "needs" to restrict free speech "because they do?"

"Neither party’s leadership would endorse Chinese style information controls."

+1, Many of these comments are exaggerated at best and bordering on hysterical

Of course, the biggest example is literally everything Donald Trump does.

"If one party simply digs in and says that evidence doesn't matter, the President can do no wrong, then impeachment is impossible. Hamilton said as much. But the evidence should still be uncovered and laid out, as much as possible, for the public and for history." - @prchovanec just now

The only justification, literally the only justification, for the crimes and misbehaviors of the President is that they can *imagine* an imaginary Democrat being worse.

You wrote a lot of words, as per usual. And, as per usual they’re completely irrelevant nonsense.

Neither party’s leadership is going to institute Chinese style information controls.

Delusions and hyperbole. Your game is always to crank partisan insanity to 11 based on delusions and hyperbole.

How tiring.

And you just did what the 'rat claims never happens.

You attempted to shout down entirely reasonable, and legally informed, criticisms of the President.

It's not too late for you guys.

Just pull a Scaramucci.

He didn't shout down your claims. Nor were your claims reasonable. Here are some of your comments from this post alone:

*Trumpian authoritarians *imagine* bad things, and then go ahead and do them, preemptively.
*Or this crazy executive order about speech on campus?
*Of course, the biggest example is literally everything Donald Trump does.
*You attempted to shout down entirely reasonable, and legally informed, criticisms of the President.
*"Orange Bad Man" is meant as inoculation, so that *no* criticism may be entered.
*Republicans ended up with a man who cheats on his wife with pornstars and then pays them off with campaign funds as the paragon of their virtues.
*Good God, full Russian propaganda as Republican belief now?
* Or convincing yourself that judges are liberal, so you have to promote rank partisans to balance them.
*For instance, convincing yourself there is so much voter fraud that you have to commit election fraud to stop it.

That's just an endless litany of motive assassination and rank partisanship. And this is just the bile you've spilled on a single page. You are by far the worst offender here.

As Chairman Mao pointed out, rebelling is justified.

The new Congress of Vienna idea seems totally unrealistic. The Congress of Vienna occurred between monarchs who all shared a common culture and even family bonds; in fact, to get to the Congress of Vienna, they even had to overthrow Napoleon and put in a pliant government in France. In the world today, elites of different countries frequently hate each other more than the general public; for example polls in the US consistently show that higher education people have more negative views towards US rivals like China than the general public, and our foreign policy elites (or “blob”) who remain in power no matter and are the ones pushing for regime change and hawkish policies towards other countries. A Congress of Vienna as described in this article could only happen if our leaders overthrow the leaders of all the other major countries in the world that are opposed to our leaders and put in ideologically pliant puppet states.

Hypotheses there, metaphors here:

--explaining intra-national conflicts according to our (lagging) dominant models of physics.

"the institutions of modern government" is a rather broad brush.

While probably "obvious" the thesis fits well with how a country like China forms it's information policies and most of the western democracies do.

one of the downsides of political stability is that the sophisticated actors who participate in the system have an extended period of time to figure out how to maximally exploit it while minimizing personal risk. in most games, players who are feel like they're at too much of a disadvantage can quit, or choose to only play with other inexperienced players, e.g., chess, poker, sports, but in the present day game of globalized politics you can't quit: you're forced to interact with the grandmasters and their pupils every day.

i really think "what's wrong" these days has two primary and fairly simple causes:

i) selection acting over time: positions of power and influence have been selecting at the tails of the distribution for a few traits while ignoring other traits, which has led to a very weird group of people in positions of political power, who now select even more aggressively for their particular type of weirdness, and;

ii) the system has been stable a long time and these weird people have learned how to get away with their various grifts without triggering outrage. it's been pretty easy because normal people have it better than they've ever had it in history, but now they're vaguely sensing that something is amiss.

Since ppl like examples, imagine JFK today. As a relatively normal man, with a normal set of male preferences, would he venture into politics? Heck no. He'd head to Wall St. You know why.

But the reason why has been true a long time and it has been pushing normal men and women away from politics and influential positions of 'administration'. What youre left with is a weirder and weirder group of leaders, with ever weirder internal dynamics that select even more aggressively against normal preference bundles and the opinions and attitudes they generate.

Interesting. Is he saying we were better off when things like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, with real and one falsely claimed confrontation between ships, could go with little examination because the Government and the press were better aligned?

I liked Gurri’s recent book a lot. I think we are in the end of the beginning of a new Reformation driven by the internet instead of the printing press. The role of the Catholic Church is played by institutional science and journalism. Political power centers are not as directly affected, but US government at least seems to depend heavily on universities and major newspapers (!) for legitimacy.

As I’m learning, the Reformations of the 1500s were complicated, with multiple sets of incompatible reformers both outside and inside the church. Warren and Buttigieg are reformers firmly within the institutions, but their programs would still reconfigure the US into something we haven’t seen here before. “Burn-it-down” Trumpists and alt-righters are today’s versions of icon-burners and printers of scatological anti-church pamphlets. Sanders is ambiguous: he’s inside the senate but a loose cannon in the 2-party system. Biden is the mildest reformer and his support skews older.

I’m optimistic. Following the Reformations, western Europe was more plural, more free, and started developing liberalism as a better alternative to holy war. These societies became much more powerful and prosperous; unified China did not. Change is painful but stagnation is death.

Then you are going to love the similarity to the Reformation causing many bright minds from being unwelcome at the establishment universities which meant they were free to innovate a brighter future for all humankind but overturned the established order.

"Newcomen's religion had consequences greater than absence from a local census.  Dissenters, including Baptists, Presbyterians, and others, were as a class, excluded from universities after 1660, and either apprenticed, or learned their science from dissenting academies."

"At the same time that he chartered the world's first scientific society, Charles II had created an entire generation of dissenting intellectuals uncontrolled by his kingdom's ever more technophobic universities."

p29, Rosen, Willam, 'The Most Powerful Idea in the World'

I love that book.

The greater the transparency we have into the actual desires of our fellow man, the more tenuous the perceived legitimacy of democratic institutions. Coalition building in large democracies is an act often described as "holding one's nose" to achieve victory sufficient to advance limited or even single objectives. The challenge is that greater transparency into total views of not only opposition coalition members but even of one's own team increases the perceived cost of nose holding. Think about how say George Will viewed his coalition and how he views the right coalition now. How much horrible truth is revealed in the chans? I mean, we live in a time when chicken sandwich choices are forms of political expression. We cancel people for significant infractions but also minor ones in distant history. How can it be possible to hold any coalition together in a way that allows members to think they are expressing a common viewpoint by way of democratic participation? The left has the same problem. What's the core constituency that allows all white men to be primarily creatures of privilege in the narrative but also on the same team as the "left behinds"?

I found Gurri's thesis thought provoking but what strikes me is that no one is making connections between his work and Marx. The Revolt of the Public reads almost like plagiarized Marx (ie control of capital by elites leads to revolution by the proletariant vs control of information by elites leads to revolution by the public). I'm surprised there have been no criticisms of this old school historicist framework. Drawing conclusions from it may lead to misguided policy decisions. I'm also surprised that Gurri seems to come up more on this blog than Fukuyama's work on identity and how that approaches the same issues from a different framework. Would love to see more.

The airplane crash analogy is useful. There is never one simple reason, multiple failures or a series of bad decisions lead to catastrophe.

1 globalisation has two effects. Problems somewhere have broad effects. China right now is not growing and many countries are deeply coupled to their economy. Cost structures and standards of living are affected.
The second problem is the sense of lost control. If my provincial government is bone headed and makes mistakes I can scream at the local member. And elections come up every four years. If the us drives up the price of corn and I'm in central America, I'm simple poorer with no recourse. That is the fundamental problem with centrally controlled systems, and the globalized economy has many of the same perversions.

2 A modern nation is defined by its institutions. Which in practice are unaccountable bureaucrats who regulate, collect taxes and are the working of government. The Arab Spring started with a guy selling things on the street humiliated by a government agent. It seemed to encapsulate the broad experience of the governed. There are ways to do this week but no incentive when there is no accountability.

3 Gurri describes some of the situations as consumer discontent. That is what people who complain about socialized healthcare are called. Discontented consumers. When they treat you like cattle there are bound to be done kicking and bucking, and as usual with government they tolerate no competition so you are stuck using them. Getting to work isn't a consumer act.

4 Communication channels. It isn't that government lost control of the channels. Countries with government mandated communication don't do well. It is that they're are no reliable feedback loops. Social media enables communication but gives no succinct measure of what people are thinking. I suspect that in all cases there was ample warning but it was overwhelmed by other noise. You get blindsided when you are blind. It is easy to find out what your peers think, or activists in any sphere. It seemed really easy to put immigration as a subject beyond discussion by calling it racist, nativist and bigoted, then get blindsided by Brexit or Trump.

5 The reaction to the failures over the last couple decades has been to double down and build impregnable green zones where you are safe from the deplorable. This has amplified the dysfunction and made Revolution inevitable. Part of the green zone mentality is to think that people inside are unaffected by common human flaws. So you set up the institutions even more unaccountable. Tenure, prosecutorial immunity. You may get fired for lying to the FISA judge but the guy you are pursuing gets years in jail if they lie to you. If you set up a system like that you pretty well guarantee something going seriously awry.

These are all common problems of governance. Nothing new. Long lasting governmental systems are those that self correct because they are accountable.

55 years of progressive social policy failure is a powerful incentive to change. The welfare state is broke and collapsing. People want real change and common sense. And lower taxes. Abolish all Federal poverty programs over 18 years. Term limits. Fair apportionment of voting districts.

Comments for this post are closed