Against "Fishback-ism"
How Rubio can win my vote.
Vance’s absence from Twitter during the last week has been stark and disturbing. He appears cowardly and unfit for leadership.
Trump rose to prominence between 2011 and 2015 because of his incessant tweeting. He had an opinion on EVERYTHING. While this was sometimes alienating, it showed boldness.
The key to winning a presidential primary is not just to be “nice,” otherwise that sleepy black guy would have won. What was his name again? Herman Cain? Sorry, no, that was the other likeable black Republican.
Anyway, Trump didn’t win by being “nice,” he won by energizing the base. Vance has proven in the last week that he prefers the former over the latter, and thus, he is a total loser.
Of course, we already knew that. Anyone who goes from “Trump is Hitler” to “Trump is Jesus” in the span of a few years is obviously a spineless slave. We could accuse Rubio of taking the same course, but it was over a longer period of time, and less dramatic.
Vance supported Obama and advertised himself as a liberal critical of “white working class” grievances. That’s what his entire book is about! Rubio, on the other hand, has formed his entire identity around opposing Obama, and his signature legislature in the Florida senate revolved around supporting rural teachers over urban ones — an effective form of rural parasitism and welfare.
Rubio has what it takes — Vance does not.
I hate Vance for a number of reasons, even putting aside his obsequious personality. His “heritage American” racist socialism is the worst of both worlds.
I can respect an authentic racist, to be honest. Someone who instinctually hates others for their appearance or behavior is understandable. That’s not an endorsement, but an admission that this is a familiar human sin, like gluttony or lust.
But with Vance, this is the guy literally married to an Indian with Indian kids. The only thing worse than a racist white guy is a racist white guy with non-white kids. The hypocrisy is disgusting.
I can’t imagine being non-white and listening to clips of my dad talk about “heritage Americans.” What the fuck is wrong with you?
It’s one thing to be a self-hating racist. I know plenty of blacks and Asians who are racist. There’s something weirdly honorable about betraying your own people for the sake of “the truth.” Hence why I think woke white people and self-hating non-whites both tend to be more moral than ethnocentrics of either tribe.
But to choose to marry an Indian woman, then to betray her and your kids by playing to racist voters, there’s nothing honorable about that.
Hence, if Rubio runs against Vance, I would strongly consider supporting Rubio as the Republican nominee.
It seems to me that Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson, and JD Vance are all part of an “anti-war” pro-Russia alliance. Their reasoning in each case is diverse.
ELON
For Elon Musk, I believe his motivation is simply to cause chaos and delegitimize existing elites so that he has more latitude to operate. According to Elon, if Kamala was elected, he would be in jail right now. Under a LHC regime, Elon has free reign to act with impunity.
THIEL
For Thiel, his motivations may be more complex. War in Ukraine is “small potatoes,” and I believe he seeks an ultimate confrontation with China. By destabilizing the world order, Thiel’s services will be in higher demand. Although Thiel is currently tied to the United States government, he might also like to offer his services to Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines, or many other countries.
For Thiel, war is good, and anything that makes war more likely is good. Hence, he opposes Ukraine, because a revisionist Russia is more destabilizing than a humiliated Russia. A Russia which succeeds in its goals provides inspiration to other countries to challenge America, which creates more demand for security servics. Thiel profits.
Vance is downstream of Thiel, and has few opinions of his own.
CARLSON
Tucker is allied with what I call the “Chinese dissident faction.” This is a school of thought within the state department and military industrial complex which seeks to decouple from Europe and focus on China. Douglas MacGregor is the most public-facing figure from this faction. Steve Bannon is directly tied to the “dissident Chinese” faction via Guo Wengui. Calling this a “conspiracy theory” is dumb, given that these people have obvious public connections to the foreign policy establishment.
Can we dispense with this fiction that Bannon, Tucker and MacGregor are not well-connected people, obviously tied to factions within the government? Please miss me with that bullshit.
Background
There is a difference between the “neo-cons” allied with Rubio, and the “Chinese dissidents” tied to Vance. The neo-cons want a strong America which can fight wars for Israel and Europe, maintaining global American hegemony. The “dissidents” want to abandon all of America’s alliances to single-mindedly focus on China. The neo-cons are clearly preferable.
Of course, I’d prefer a Democrat, because the neo-cons have failed in a number of respects. Their track record includes Iraq and Afghanistan; and going back further, they share the blame for the disaster of Vietnam. This idea of “nation-building” is ridiculous and destructive.
Democrats have a better foreign policy vision: using soft power through diplomacy, charity, and NGOs to influence non-allied countries to fall into America’s orbit. In 1991, Ukraine was not a NATO-allied country. 30 years of influence (you can call it propaganda, if you like) changed the calculus.
I have predicted that, in 2028, no matter who the Republicans put up, they will lose. At the time, we were not at war with Iran, and we had not kidnapped Maduro. Those two events change the calculus. If Venezuela establishes a joint oil trade with America, and Iran experiences positive regime change, the Republican Party can save itself from oblivion.
The problem with making bold predictions is that they are based on current conditions and likely events. I did not predict in 2025 that it was likely for Trump to capture Maduro or invade Iran; for both of them to occur was not in my cards. Now that both events are in progress, the calculus changes.
Republicans are still extremely divided over the Epstein files and the war in Iran. Fuentes has declared his support for Democrats in 2026. This is a hairy situation, and can still turn out badly for Republicans. I recommend that Democrats exploit this situation by appealing directly to the far right on foreign policy (“no war”), tying Trump to Epstein (despite being a truther) and boosting the profile of Fuentes where possible.
I am now less confident in my prediction that Republicans will obviously lose in 2028. The events of TPUSA, which seemed irreversibly calamitous, have now been overshadowed by other events. This doesn’t mean that the Republicans are in “the clear,” but that they now have a legitimate path to victory.
I went from 90% Democratic victory to 70% Democratic victory. Hence it becomes more important to consider who the Republican nominee will be.
Rubio
Here are some things that would make me support Rubio:
Total absence of any “pro-life” rhetoric. If asked, he says, “that’s an issue for the states — it is not the business of the federal government to interfere. I support people voicing their values through the states, which is what the Constitution requires. That is what the Trump-appointed judges of the Supreme Court decided, and that is what I will uphold as president.”
A strong and consistent statement of support for NATO and Ukraine. “We will always stand by our European allies. Russia’s aggression is unacceptable. We will continue to do everything possible to punish the Russian aggression, to see a rapid end to the war, and rebuild Ukraine as quickly as possible.”
Absence of any gerontocratic nonsense, such as lowering property taxes, or eliminating taxes on Social Security.
If Rubio promised to undermine Social Security in a credible way, I’d be knocking doors for him, but I consider that to be impossibly unlikely. Vague Heritage Foundation nonsense doesn’t count — I need a promise from the president that we will reform entitlements. Putting that black swan event aside…
Rubio could lose my vote by engaging in “Fishbackism.”
“We will ban abortion”
“Ukraine isn’t our fight”
“It’s time to lower property taxes on seniors”
Of course, this is all about the primary, not the general. In the Democratic primary, I’m rooting for Talarico and Platner, but I’ll vote blue no matter who.