Toward Grand Politics
Organizing genius, political solutions, parties reimagined
Organizing Genius
Behold the Indispensable Marshal, the organizing genius of Napoleon’s Grande Armée, Louis-Alexandre Berthier. Born in 1753, Berthier was primed from his youth to devote his life to the higher-science of war. His father was an officer in the Corps of Topographical Engineers, and the young Berthier was quick to follow in his footsteps. He graduated from the Engineering School of Mézières at the age of thirteen and became a lieutenant with the Legion of Flanders just four years later in 1770. Over the course of two and a half decades, Berthier rose through the military ranks earning many honors, accumulating accolades, and securing invaluable experience. Before he crossed paths with Napoleon however, Berthier witnessed revolution on both sides of the Atlantic. In 1780, he arrived in America to serve as a staff officer under the Count of Rochambeau, Jean-Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur. After he observed the British surrender following the Battle of Yorktown, it is reported that Berthier cruised the Caribbean and returned to France in 1783.
Berthier hailed from a somewhat notable family, and in the years leading up to the French Revolution he had continued to progress in his military career. At one point, he found himself serving as commander ad interim of the National Guard at Versailles and assisted the escape of two of King Louis XVI’s aunts. When the Terror erupted, he was spared the guillotine and forced into retirement. Berthier came across as a dutiful soldier that would rather study tactics and contemplate military organization than meddle in counter-revolutionary politics. In response to the revolution, Britain, Austria, Prussia, and later Russia — the premier monarchies of Europe — arrayed themselves against the fledgling French Republic. France was in dire need of her best men, so in 1795, Berthier was recalled as a brigadier general and chief of staff to the Armies of the Alps and Italy. In this role, Berthier could finally let loose and apply his genius.
— Nearly all men are sensible to the stakes of wars both won and lost and the difficulties necessarily inherent in waging war well, but the unity of mind required to master this art is an exclusive talent reserved to the most extraordinary men. Moreover, during the late eighteenth century, warfare had ballooned in scale and complexity. The marshaling of gigantic armies, their deployment across vast fronts, maneuvering with precision across every imaginable terrain, coordination between multiple independent commands, collating and translating information into accurate, swift, and decisive action without the aid of any modern communication technology — one could argue that as peoples and nations become more powerful, more is demanded of their genius if they wish to preserve and extend themselves. Warfare at this scale can be thought of as a kind of symphony, and the challenge has always been to bring every part into perfect harmony with the whole. Not enough emphasis can be drawn to the fact how, in this period, conducting good music required exceptionally talented men. —
Decades of careful study and first-hand experience made Berthier particularly sensitive to the deficiencies apparent within conventional military command structures and logistics in general. He understood that mastery in these areas could not only turn the tide of any single battle, but also determine the success of entire campaigns and even the destinies of nations. There were tremendous opportunities for innovation, and Berthier was the ideal man in the perfect moment to seize it. His legacy will forever be tied to the genius he displayed in overhauling the organization of the army’s general staff. At a high level, a general staff is the support structure set up around an individual commander. Since ancient times, commanders have always had officers and captains to assist in the primary functions of communications and logistics both while marching on campaign and maneuvering on the battlefield, but the key feature of this older style was how the individual commander’s brain was the real nucleus of the army. From the beginning of the modern era to France’s Revolutionary Wars, the scale and complexity of warfare was rapidly changing but it was not immediately obvious that a new style of military organization would ultimately be required. So, the transition of an army’s nucleus away from the individual commander and toward a more professionally organized staff was rather gradual until Berthier arrived on the scene and created the Army General Headquarters.
Berthier’s new design had three core sections. The first was a personal cabinet which comprised mainly of civilian clerks that were immensely loyal to Berthier. The cabinet was responsible for keeping a constant pulse on all troop movements, filing reports, gathering intelligence, and transcribing all of Napoleon’s orders to be sent out. The second section was Berthier’s private military staff which contained a host of senior officers that could be counted on to handle sensitive material and carry out important military and diplomatic orders. Lasty, there was the general staff which was further subdivided into three sections. Each section was commanded by a general officer who oversaw core operational responsibilities of the army. The First Assistant Major-General was responsible for troop movements, hospitals, military police, prisoners of war, and supply lines. The Second Assistant Major-General was responsible for camps, marching, and billeting. The Third Assistant Major-General oversaw more technical officers that were specialists in topography, maps, and reconnaissance. Working together, these three sections of the Army General Headquarters made conducting warfare on a grand scale much more manageable. – An entire military manual can be written covering each particular element of the Army General Headquarters, but the most interesting aspect of Berthier’s design was how it became a center of talent that attracted dutiful servants, technical experts, and most importantly, courageous young officers. Far from creating some kind of modern sclerotic bureaucracy, Berthier established a bustling hub filled with some of France’s most capable and determined men.
Drawing up new designs and staffing positions is one thing, but actually kicking an army into motion and effectively managing it is infinitely more complex. Berthier was truly the efficient cause behind the design. Without his Roman-like discipline, his diligent attention to detail, and above all, his ability to drive his staff officers to a high standard of professional excellence, it is all but certain that the armies of France would have been utterly doomed and the men denied the everlasting fame earned in the battles ahead. Furthermore, if a warlord were to become the master of Europe, he would need an organizing genius like Berthier at his disposal. Fortunately, in March of 1796, the then twenty-seven-year-old Napoleon Bonaparte was given command over the Army of Italy where he found Berthier and his staff system already established. With Berthier keeping masterful watch over all the finer details, Napoleon was free to dedicate himself to more strategic and monumental matters. This division of labor proved remarkably lethal, and together, these two men would leave to posterity many fine exhibitions showcasing their excellence in the art of war.
The brilliant success of the initial Italian campaign cemented Berthier as Napoleon’s most trusted advisor. Following a string of exciting adventures, including the expulsion of a Pope, an expedition to Egypt, a coup d'état in Paris, and a daring march across the Alps to smash the Austrians at the Battle of Marengo, Napoleon crowned himself Emperor on December 2, 1804. After the coronation, Berthier was the first of eighteen generals to be made a Marshal of France. While other Marshals like Ney, Davout, or Murat better embodied the swagger behind the motto, Terror belli, decus pacis, Berthier’s rare organizing genius made him the indispensable general. He dutifully served the Emperor for another decade having a key hand in virtually every campaign and battle from Austerlitz, to Friedland, the Peninsular War in Spain, and the invasion of Russia.
Berthier strongly opposed that last ill-fated invasion, but he nonetheless performed his duties well in the organizing and outfitting of over four hundred thousand fighting men from across the empire. When Napoleon set out in 1812, the Grande Armée was the finest force he had ever commanded. Even after the disastrous winter retreat from Moscow, Berthier faithfully remained at his post until 1814 when the enemies of France closed on Paris and Napoleon abdicated his throne. The next year, when the outlaw returned from his exile on the island of Elba, Berthier neither opposed nor supported his old friend. — Napoleon was known for having a wavering opinion of his Marshals and would deliver the most sour contempt for them in one moment and then offer the highest praise in the next. Despite feeling betrayed by Berthier, Napoleon knew how crucial his Chief of Staff was to everything he had been able to achieve up until that point. Following his final defeat at Waterloo, Napoleon famously lamented: “If Berthier had been there, I would not have met this misfortune.”
It is impossible not to be inspired by the career and talents of this man. What we find in Marshal Berthier is an organizing genius who applied himself to the higher-science of war. Under his new designs, the Army General Headquarters functioned as a terminus through which talent could best express itself both up and down, from Napoleon himself, to the other Marshals, and then to the lower-level officers. These men may have never left their mark had they persisted under the older conventional designs for military organization. In complex circumstances and facing unfavorable odds, it takes an organizing genius like Berthier to help raise up a new mountain top among the massif of monumental history. For us today, our challenge and circumstances are not militaristic, so a look into Marshal Berthier should instead provoke our imaginations to wonder: What if this caliber of genius was applied to the higher-science of politics?
Approaching this question is naturally difficult because our political imaginations are severely stunted. First, we have very limited experience, either in politics or war, witnessing an organizing genius in action. CEOs, or other types with the architectural capacity to build, design, and organize, more often than not direct their talents toward lesser banausic pursuits. Remarkable men like Elon Musk would rather attempt a dozen ambitious projects and hope to succeed in spite of the regime instead of attempting a single grand project aimed at altering the regime. Under the current suffocating arrangements, Musk will probably die of old age leaving his highest hopes unfulfilled. Erik Prince is so bored that he has started doing podcasts when the GOP or the Government of Texas should hire him to legitimize and organize the idea of a “well-regulated militia.” In the Americas, popular national leaders like Donald Trump, Nayib Buckle, and Javier Milei, have had great successes but particularly in the United States, Trump’s first term failed to cement any decisive change. Despite this, presidential populism still remains the single narrow horizon of our political imagination today.
Secondly, our historical sense is largely botched. There are many capable antiquarians and critics but most struggle to draw inspiration from anything monumental. We might read about men like Berthier and Napoleon collecting many little facts about their lives, but we do not really know how to think about these higher types. Extracting wisdom from history requires a degree of sensitivity that has seemingly been bred out of modern peoples. — Lastly, the sheer complexity of our political situation discourages all imaginative thinking. There is a feeling that grand politics have been sealed off, so we resign into a passive approach of simply enduring the regime (for our entire lifetime if necessary) and then occasionally rolling the dice with presidential populism once every four years. Even when we win elections, we can neither secure our borders nor police our cities; as a result, much more interesting reforms to citizenship, daring plans to establish new colonies, and many other exciting designs are totally inaccessible. Furthermore, there is so much distrust around even uttering the words “political solution,” that any idea an organizing genius might provide would be cynically mocked. Under this uninspired view, forget Berthier — not even Odysseus or Theseus would be able to help us.
Friedrich Nietzsche captures the core of this political problem while also hinting at an even more terrible possibility: It is not that our imaginations are merely stunted, but the organizing genius as such — as a type of man — is becoming impossible and at risk of disappearing entirely. Aphorism 356 from The Gay Science should be read slowly and deserves our careful attention:
The Greeks, having adopted this faith in roles — an artist creed, if you will — underwent step by step, as is well known, a curious transformation, not in every respect worthy of imitation: they became actual stage-players; and as such they enchanted, they conquered all the world, and at last even the conqueror of the world, (for the Graeculus histrio conquered Rome, and not Greek culture, as the naïve are accustomed to say...)
What I fear, however, and what is at present obvious if we desire to perceive it, is that we modern men are quite on the same road already; and whenever man begins to discover in what respect he plays a role, and to what extent he can be a stage-player, he becomes a stage-player... A new flora and fauna of men thereupon springs up, which cannot grow in more stable, more restricted eras — or is left “at the bottom,” under the ban and suspicion of infamy —, thereupon the most interesting and insane periods of history always make their appearance, in which “stage-players,” all kinds of stage-players, are the real masters.
Precisely thereby, another species of man is always more and more injured, and in the end made impossible: above all the great “architects”; the building power is now being paralyzed; the courage that makes plans for the distant future is disheartened; there begins to be a lack of organizing geniuses. Who is there who would now venture to undertake works for the completion of which millenniums would have to be reckoned upon? The fundamental belief is dying out, on the basis of which one could calculate, promise and anticipate the future in one's plan, and offer it as a sacrifice thereto, that in fact man has only value and significance in so far as he is a stone in a great building; for which purpose he has first of all to be solid, he has to be a “stone.”... Above all, not a — stage-player!
Our politics are totally occupied by these pathetic stage-players; where are the hard men of stone? While it has been quite some time since Nietzsche described this political softening, I do not believe the “fundamental belief” has completely died off. Great forces are always on the move and small pockets of strength have been slowly accumulating. Nonetheless, the question remains: If organizing geniuses are still possible, where are they? Is there a Marshal Berthier somewhere among us? Surely there are dozens of capable generals and thousands of would-be staff officers rotting away in otherwise unremarkable occupations. But there is still no organizing genius to tie all of these men together, and there is surely no individual great man, like a Napoleon, to take full advantage of such genius. Finding these rare men and calling them forth is the great challenge of our time. — This is also the implicit purpose of a cultural avant-garde. According to the majority belief in this sphere, cultural phenomenon become political phenomena; and today, the artistic, descriptive, and analytical power of this nascent avant-garde has not yet become a strategic, tactical, and organizing power that can be aimed decisively against the regime. Understandably, this kind of progression requires a great confluence of luck, timing, and ability, but because the possibility for real politics seems so far away, this area has been left largely unexplored.
What we require today is not a political movement, but simply pioneers — a small number of men from within and around the avant-garde making a conscience shift away from a cultural focus and beginning to explore new political frontiers. This means crafting cunning policies and bold reforms, while exploiting existing political vehicles in new and creative ways. Most importantly, this would involve maintaining and creating a portrait of the type of man who is most worthy of the honor to rule and why. Frequent surveys of the political landscape would also be necessary to develop a keen sense for what is possible at any given moment and where investments should be made. If done in the right style, these pioneers might be able to call forth an organizing genius and entice the right people to suddenly become inspired in ways they are not currently. — It must be remembered that nobody wants to die a dissident; this is not a cultural and political situation one should wish to pass on to future generations. There exists within us a noble Apollonian drive not merely to survive but to win and rule. But this desire must not be misled or squandered; it must be directed only toward the truest and best solutions. The Iron Prison is to be overcome, and that will require enterprising people to take hold of politics with great cunning and skill. It is in this spirit that I wish to focus on political parties: namely, to reimagine what we think is possible within a political party and consider the effect creating a new political party would have.
Political SITREP
If there is already skepticism about the possibility of a political solution, focusing on political parties might seem like a dead-end. People hate political parties, nobody is inspired by them, and their operatives are the most contemptible kinds of people; but how they exist today is a shallow husk of what they could be. The political challenge we face today is extraordinary, and the range of potential solutions seemingly limited. A brief review of this situation will show that political parties deserve reconsideration.
At the most basic level, politics is simply the question: “Who rules?” The primary problem with our country today is the individuals ruling over it. Collectively, these individuals constitute a regime which we refer to colloquially as the establishment, the Global American Empire, or in the broadest terms, liberal democracy. There are certainly more extensive genealogies that explain who these people are and how they came to power, but the most direct story begins after the end of the Second World War when the victorious elites from Western nations stood-up new totalizing systems of governance and control that now stretch across the globe. This led to the declaration of new aims for humanity, the telling of new narratives, the flourishing of a certain type of person, and the esteeming of certain “virtues.” After nearly eight decades in power, the stage players of this regime have not only proven their incompetence in the art of ruling, but also an active hostility toward the most basic yet vital necessities that contribute to the well-being of a people, a nation, and a culture. It is not hyperbole to suggest that the continuance of this regime threatens to poison life for years ahead, for thousands of years ahead.
Opposition to this threat best resembles a standard one-two punch. The leading fist in this combination is cultural (or rather counter-cultural) which acts like a persistent jab. The strategy here is to sustain a critique against the regime and cultivate opposition toward it. We see counter-culture at work in everything from movies, books, comedy, and renewed interests in history, to localism efforts, attempts to create parallel institutions, punditry, activism, and much more. Psychologically, a counter-culture has a red-pilling effect where individuals undergo a kind of metamorphosis. Usually, someone will experience a situation or be exposed to information that leaves them with a sense that they are being lied to. In a thousand different ways, they will begin to doubt the legitimacy of the regime and become increasingly irreverent toward its most sacred idols. It is important to clarify that with this metamorphosis not everyone ends up in the same place and many err along the way. Nonetheless, the best will emerge having taken a look inward to refine themselves by overcoming any pathetic ordeals in their lives, learning how to artfully conceal their ideas, becoming physically stronger, healthier, and most importantly, forming closer friendships with a few trusted companions.
All of this I would classify as the cultural, and it serves as the basis for dissent — nothing more. An organizing genius would never come forth to fight on this front because culture requires artists, not tacticians. Even more, the mere existence of a regime such as ours will naturally produce a counter-culture in opposition to it; an organizing genius would reject the notion that he could plan or manufacture culture in a way to make it anything more than the basis for dissent. Culture is just a jab, it is the most basic punch, anyone can throw it, and no matter the strength behind it, a jab alone will never win this kind of fight. The purpose of a jab is to keep your opponent at bay and then open him up to more powerful combinations. In other words, if the goal is to remove those currently in power and position better men to rule, culture must be followed up with politics of some kind at some point.
It was mentioned earlier that presidential populism is the single narrow horizon of our political imagination today. This should not be a controversial statement because presidential populism actually makes a good deal of sense. Aside from sustaining a counter-culture and waiting for the regime to miraculously collapse due to some unforeseen reason, it is the only real political means (both today and in the foreseeable future) capable of affecting regime change. Presidential populism is our haymaker, and we throw this punch expecting it to end fights. Every four years the accumulated momentum of the people comprising all their energies, desires, and frustrations, is distilled down into support for a single man. Then there is always this desperate hope that electing a populist president will carry the same effect as winning a great battle. To borrow and twist a great saying from Winston Churchill, with one election we expect a president to “change the entire course of events, create new standards of values, new moods, new atmospheres, to which all must conform.” I do not believe this hope is necessarily inordinate, but recent experience has taught us that an election is only the initial skirmish; the real battle begins after the inauguration. — Recall 2016, which was truly a once in a lifetime moment. In many ways, Donald Trump was the perfect populist candidate as he rapidly captured the spirit of a long abused yet resolute people and ascended into becoming the most beloved political figure in living memory. The expectations behind presidential populism were enormous, and his entire first term is full of proof showing just how difficult lading a haymaker can be. Even Trump’s common sense “America First” and “Law and Order” themes proved to be radical departures from the regime’s status-quo. They fought bitterly to oppose the nation’s MAGA moment, and ultimately won the initial clash.
It would be foolish to explore alternatives to presidential populism at this exact moment. In Trump’s second term we should place all of our energy and hope. Many who were disappointed by Trump for not becoming the perfect Machiavellian Prince he could have gotten away with being should realize that his window is still wide open. Again, he is a powerful populist with tens of millions of loyal supports behind him — opportunities like this do not come around every election cycle, and it could be decades before another political phenomenon like Trump arrives on the scene. Seeing what Trump does the second time around costs us nothing, and there is actually good reason to be hopeful. It would be a great relief if Trump’s second term is the political solution we have been looking for and that it turns out to be wildly successful in terms of securing the border, deporting illegal immigrants, and “draining the swamp.” Nonetheless, it would be wise to scout the political landscape ahead to the best of our ability and be realistic about how far presidential populism can take us in the future. New exigencies could arise at any moment and affect this analysis, but there are two general situations that seem most likely: either Trump is denied outright in 2024 or his second term fails to place the country on a better long-term trajectory. In either case, the political path forward should ultimately center around the creation of a new party.
We should come to terms with this fact: whether it be 2024 or 2028, Trump will eventually exit politics without a worthy heir. His son Barron exudes a kind of power that needs no proving, but much will happen between now and when that conversation becomes relevant. Post-Trump, MAGA populism will be a rudderless ship with pretenders grasping for the helm. It will survive only as a grift kept alive by political commentators, marketers, and content creators because the Republican Party will still be the rotten vessel by which all real politics must be ferried. Presidential populism will and should continue to be tried, but future candidates will have a much harder go of it under the current arrangements. Trump was his own man; he was a once in a lifetime exception to all the rules of the political game; he arrived on the scene one day and immediately propelled himself into becoming the leader of one of America’s two legitimate political parties. Even with Trump’s blessing, people like JD Vance, DeSantis or Vivek are not only going to have a much harder time getting elected but will also run into the same issues Trump ran into once in power. — Within any mature regime, populists are interlopers. The GOP is an establishment entity, and any populist trying to take it over and use it as their own political vehicle will be thoroughly resisted at every turn. We learned from Trump’s presidency that populism has political limitations whenever it must graft itself onto an existing party. To effectively govern, a populist president must firmly be in command of his own new party and retire the old legacy party.
Parties Reimagined
Admittedly, the need for a new political party to overtake the GOP is not a popular conclusion (although after the RNC spectacle last night, I'm sure many more of us might now be more sympathetic to this point). In the first place, many are convinced that the Republican Party just needs reformed. Not only does this opinion ignore how the GOP is an establishment pro-regime entity that will never allow itself to be reformed, but there is never any clarity on what “reforming the party” even means. I will leave the task of paving that road-to-nowhere to someone else; I am of the belief that if there was ever enough momentum to “reform the party” it would be better spent retiring the old and building something new in its place. In the next, many are convinced that the importance of political parties is overstated and our search for ways to overcome this regime should be focused elsewhere. This demoralized and unimaginative view is a result of what we observed at the outset: political parties are a fixture or our system yet people hate them, nobody is inspired by them, and they are a constant point of disappointment and frustration. In our dejection and apathy, we have lost sight of the fact that a political party is effectively a legalized mafia. The best in our society should ask themselves why they continue on being extorted by lesser men when they are free to become the leaders of their own organization.
Within a party, people are free to organize with their most trusted friends to acquire political power and change the regime. Traditionally, a party’s work involves writing a manifesto, coming up with policies, and running slates of candidates in various elections. However, an organizing genius searching for a solution to our particular challenges might instead see in a political party the opportunity to create a new polity within our existing polity. What does this mean? Consider these three elements of a polity and how they could function within a party, the first of which is membership.
Since citizenship is essentially universal in the United States, it no longer has any meaning. A wealthy partisan of the Chinese Communist Party could fly to America, give birth anywhere within our borders, and that child would be the political equal of a tenth generation American whose ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War and tamed the Western frontiers. The essential principle of inclusion by means of exclusion is completely lost, and with it citizenship no longer serves as the mechanism by which the people of a nation defines and maintains their particular identity. Membership in a new political party could help reestablish some meaningful distance and distinction among the mass of bodies in this country that citizenship no longer provides. There should be a basic level of membership in the party that is open to anyone, but the most obvious thing to do here is to create at least one elevated tier of membership that provides tangible benefits, privileges, and subsequently — responsibilities.
Do not limit your imagination for what could be done in regard to membership by the example put forward here but imagine a political party that had a $1,000 yearly membership fee. Perks would include access to gyms, investment funds, and talent networks; eligibility to participate in yearly athletic competitions, invitations to private shows, events, and schooling; security in the form of legal free speech protection — if the government, media, or private business harasses party members over their affiliation with the party or something they say online, legal warfare will be waged and swarms of investigative journalists will dig into any politician, journalist, or employer that brings harm to any member. "If you are unjust to one of us, we will all come after you with every legal means at our disposal." — This is how a political party should protect its members. In addition to providing a wide array of perks and privileges, membership could also be contingent on responsibilities. Here too we can think of many things that would be desirable, but this is just one idea that would be sure to instantly attract tens of thousands of young men: Imagine if a tier of male members aged eighteen to forty-five had an obligation to pass routine fitness evaluations and serve in newly formed militias organized by Erik Prince in full accordance with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. In following an important Greek tradition during their most glorious age, these men would also have to be of sufficient means to outfit themselves with an adequate rifle, ammunition, armor, night vision goggles, and other equipment.
Another element of a polity that can exist as a function of a political party is the distribution of honors. People desire rank, titles, and distinction. Political parties need staffing and there would be hundreds of positions and responsibilities that could be filled with young talent. More importantly, a party needs to field candidates to compete in various elections across the country. Ideally, once a new party matures, they would maintain a map of every elected office in the nation and have the best people ready to compete for every seat. The current GOP not only runs its own hacks to sabotage emerging populist candidates, but the representatives of their party often look terrible and lack any natural gravitas. There is absolutely no quality control. Nobody thinks to ask: “By what virtue does this person have the right to represent our party and hold this office?” Just look at Nicki Halley’s campaign against Donald Trump as a prime example of how shameless the competition for our nation’s highest honors has become! A new political party would create entirely new bylaws and include much more stringent criteria around who is eligible to represent the party. Lineage, health, physique, age, intelligence — these are just a few of the dimensions that could be explored and considered.
The final element of a polity that can exist as a function within a political party is actually a byproduct of the first two. All the criteria and rules set up around membership and the distribution of honors provides a kind of education in the most complete sense. Membership teaches people distance and distinction — who is part of the polity and who is not, while the distribution of honors teaches people who is most worthy of the honor to rule and why. Part of the reason why our nation finds itself culturally and politically lifeless is that these essential functions of a polity have been hollowed out through generations of continued universalization and democratization. Rather than ennobling a people to greater beauty and strength, the arrangements of the current regime aim at reducing the individual to caput mortuum — a dead inert mass. Within a political party, there might be an opportunity for the best Americans to at least begin the process of recovering their vital instincts, and ultimately reconstituting themselves as a people.
We Pioneers
The effect of creating a new political party must not be understated. If formed in the right style by the right people and launched at the right moment, it would completely upend the current regime. There is no reason to fear that creating a new political party might “cost us elections.” Do we need reminded how we rode into 2020 with both the GOP and Trump yet still lost to a mentally handicapped old man who did not even actively campaign? — Nietzsche’s plain observation should be enough to overcome any looming anxieties: “There is no harder misfortune in all human destiny than when the powerful of the earth are not also the first human beings. Then everything becomes fake and crooked and monstrous.” The best Americans really have no election in the matter: either they betray themselves and accept everything becoming fake and crooked and monstrous, or they dare to be noble and face with courage whatever may result from their striving. Yes, it is true…we do not know what will happen if there is a serious attempt to create a new political party, but ask yourself: Can we not afford to find out? Can we not endure one more electoral defeat at some point down the road? Does the Democratic Party suddenly become invincible in this scenario? Do the American people just then lay down supinely on their backs and cease all means of effectual resistance?
Nothing could be further from the truth! What we do know is that there is a tremendous yearning in our country for the best to take command and lead our nation to greatness. Now, more than ever, people would be extremely reactive to sudden changes in our political landscape. The creation of a new party is exactly the kind of shock required to begin sifting men — driving the weak to decisions, and the strong as well. So many young and intelligent men in this country are completely closed off from any meaningful participation in political life. Only through the excitement of something new, and something supported by respectable leadership, can we evoke the right energy and attract the best people. Beyond Trump no real politics is possible, and until the GOP is supplanted by a new party, the best will very rationally remain outside of politics as untapped potential wasting away. The best young people are excited about the thought of serving in the Trump administration; they are not excited to be in the Republican Party. It is very important to understand and reflect on what kind of signal this represents.
To capitalize on this signal, an organizing genius might recognize the remarkable opportunity lying right before us and begin his work shortly after the 2024 election on the presumption that Donald Trump wins. After dealing with the border and illegal immigration, Trump should shift his focus to the challenge of permanently cementing his legacy. The best way to gurantee that his MAGA movement will not suddenly get stabbed in the back or slowly retrogress into GOP mainstream conservatism is to retire the GOP and set us up to be in possession of a new party following his retirement in 2028. While Trump's new administration can effectively form the basis of this new political party, there should be plans outside of his administration developing at the same time. Wealthy friends should begin organizing a Congress of 500 young, handsome, and intelligent men who will go on tour stirring the nation and presenting themselves as an attractive alternative to the current lot of nursing home patients and theatre kids that are running our country into the ground. Erik Prince should begin forming a really well funded and really well regulated militia. Now imagine if these various elements joined together under a new party that was endorsed by President Trump himself and they all swore oaths to one-another publicly at a grand event in dramatic fashion. It is undeniable that millions would rally to their leadership overnight and their ranks would swell. How could the GOP possibly survive this? They would be finished! There would be a new political reality in this country, the doors to grand politics would be thrown wide open, and the men responsible for bringing this about would secure for themselves everlasting fame.
All of this sounds great, but what about the details? Unfortunately, nobody knows precisely. As pioneers, all we can do at this point is attempt to anticipate future political landscapes and start exploring in many different directions. Certainly, the aspiration of a political party becoming a new polity within an existing polity is ambitious, and this argument might only attract a certain type of person. Alternatively, thinking of a political party as a legalized mafia might broaden the appeal to others. Either way, putting any variation of this idea into action will require the help of an organizing genius to come forth and apply his talents. The impetus behind this essay is to inaugurate a new effort from individuals in and around the avant-garde to begin thinking about political solutions in a way that will draw out and excite the right man or group of men. Some pioneers are needed because no one else is giving grand politics any serious attention. It is astonishing how so many smart and influential people devote so much of their energy toward things like Mars, crypto, activism, or creating parallel institutions. These are not necessarily bad things, but we are told to believe in these efforts, to put hope in them, and to value the people behind them as innovative leaders. You see, these are all supposedly serious ideas, but for some reason creating a new political party, positioning better men to rule, and retaking control of our country is laughed at and disregarded as a ridiculous impossible thought. To survive, we must have pioneers who will not shy away from the words “political solution.” With a political party, there is incredible freedom to create, maneuver, and concentrate force. It is the ideal mechanism to achieve exactly what is required, and it is just lying out right in front of us. We ought to explore this idea, let our imaginations run with it, and perhaps actively petition specific individuals that are better positioned to set great plans in motion.
"Does the Democratic Party suddenly become invincible in this scenario?" meh, importing new voters and enforcer looks a lot like a permanent solution to me...
There is already one model for it with a mission, hierarchy, drive a long time ago. The Communist Party. Ex-Commie turned Catholic Douglas Hyde wrote how it was done in Discipline and Leadership.