steel-manning Republicans.

trash-manning Democrats.

In 2000, the election was stolen for George Bush.¹

For the next 8 years, a “born-again Christian” ruled America and started two wars against “Muslim terrorists.” Fast forward, and the number of born-again Christians has shrunk, while the number of “nones” has doubled. Even when Republicans win elections, they lose the culture. How can Republicans grow America, when they can’t even grow their own base?

I predict that Vance will lose in 2028. But I was wrong on Ukraine in 2022, Kamala winning in 2024, and Assad remaining in Syria until 2025, so I have a bad track record of predictions. What if I’m wrong about 2028? Republicans could be in power from now until 2036, with Vance serving two terms.

Usually I bash Republicans and steelman Democrats, but I’m going to try to do the opposite. Is there any area where Republicans could be better than Democrats?

In this article, I will imagine the best case scenario for Republicans, and criticize my own side. I will then make a bunch of predictions and state their likelihood.

My Projection for Deportations

Data through 2019 is from this DHS page, then the last four years from this DHS page. 2024 is undercounted because the data is not yet complete for this year. This makes it look like there is a massive dip between 2023 and 2025, but this is an artifact of incomplete data.

I predict that in 2025, Trump will slightly exceed Biden’s record in deportations, with much brash fanfare and bravado. He will claim to have CRUSHED ms13, and DESTROYED the gangs, and DEFEATED the criminals. He will then claim,

“Mission Accomplished.”

In comparison with the population, Trump’s “removals” will be historically high, but his “returns” will not be even half of what Eisenhower, Reagan, or Clinton accomplished. The difference between a return and a removal seems to be somewhat semantic, at least in the outcome. Trump will declare victory, but it won’t be anything historically unusual or Hitlerian.

Percent with respect to total American population.

Despite libertarians and liberals declaring that Trump’s deportations will destroy the economy, this was not historically the case under Eisenhower, Reagan, or Clinton.

Trump’s deportations will have little effect on crime (which is mostly due to native born blacks and Hispanics, not immigrants), little effect on the economy, and little effect on culture. It will change the demographics of America by less than 0.6%. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Tariffs will be much more important.

tariffs.

The worst case for tariffs is that they crash the economy. The best case scenario is that Trump uses tariffs as a negotiating tactic to win political victories, but doesn’t end up following through on them. For example, if Canada could unify its immigration, law enforcement, and homeland security policy with America’s, Canada and America could form a Schengen Zone. Or in the case of Mexico, he forces the Mexican military to form a joint task force with the American military to eliminate or integrate the cartel networks.

NATO.

Trump has threatened to pull out of NATO, but this could be a negotiating tactic to force NATO states to meet and exceed the 2% benchmark for defense spending. Trump could offer a peace plan to Putin, and if this is rejected, he could increase secondary sanctions on China. This would hurt China, and as a result, would damage Russia’s economy.

8 million Indians

Source: depts.washington.edu/moving1/map_asian_migration.shtml

• Trump-Vance will LEGALLY import 8 million Indians into America by 2036. I expect Vivek to run as Vice President in 2028, which if successful, would make him the second Asian American Vice President in history. After two terms of Vance, that would give him a good shot at the Republican nomination in 2036, making him the first Asian American President.

• Vivek is only 5’9”, which would make him the shortest President since Harry Truman. But with his DeSantis Brand Platform Shoes™, he looks as tall as 6’3” Trump. Those shoes are really leveling the playing field, which is going to give Asian American a leg-up against the Caucasian competition.

• By 2036, Tim Cook will be 76, and he will step down so that Sabih Khan can be appointed the new CEO of Apple. This will mean that three of America’s biggest tech companies — Apple, Google, Microsoft — will be under the control of Asian(ish) Americans. The exceptions might be Amazon under Bezos, and Facebook under Zuckerberg. I expect these guys to try to beat Warren Buffett in longevity.

• Due to a rollback in Affirmative Action, the number of Asians in college will exceed the number of blacks by 2036, but the number of whites will continue to decline.

• Republicans will beat the HR lady with the hicklib. “My half Indian son is 100% American, just like my grandpappy!”

Total Bathroom Victory

• Republicans will force men who wear dresses to use the bathroom with little boys instead of little girls. The libs are owned, and liberal tears flow endlessly, solving the drought in Lake Mead.

• Republicans will ban transgender soldiers from receiving free cosmetic surgery. They will have to pay for their own surgeries. BOOM. Wokism defeated.

Source.

• 6% of 18 year olds will identify as transgender by 2036.

• The sanctity of lesbian sports will be defended from biological men.

• JD Vance will win 25% of LGBTQ+ voters, which he calls “the normal gay guy vote.” But the increase won’t be from gay men, but from butch TERFs who are happy to have their female-only spaces back.

$5 trillion in Iran

Republicans will wisely and judiciously abandon the costly and wasteful war in Ukraine, which cost humble American taxpayers $200 billion, to embark on a reasonable and measured $5+ trillion war with Iran.

Remember, I am steelmanning the Republicans in this thought experiment. So in this universe, Iran becomes a pro-Israel liberal democracy. Iranian Americans actually believe this is possible.

If this actually happened, I expect all of the theocratic terrorists to flee to Azerbaijan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Kuwait, and Bahrain. In this scenario, Iraq would become the new center of Shiite theocracy in the Middle East.

The best case scenario would be that Trump organizes some kind of super-omega ultra-instinct Abraham Accord with a defeated Iran which achieves peace in the Middle East. But this can only be accomplished if he brings back Jared Kushner.

Trash-manning Democrats:

Here are my concerns:

• NATO maximalism

• Animal rights

• Toxic Pollution in the air and water

• Decaying infrastructure

• Education

• Genetic, sexual, reproductive freedom

I’ve laid out the case for where Republicans might exceed my expectations. How have Democrats underperformed in the last four years?

Source: gispub.epa.gov/air/trendsreport/2024/

Biden was not a NATO maximalist compared to Bush’s expenditures on Iraq and Afghanistan; he did nothing against factory farming; air pollution got slightly worse or stayed the same under Biden.

Biden passed major infrastructure spending, but it wasn’t sufficient to solve the long-term problems which will become more costly as time goes on. Furthermore, he failed to stand up against the Longshoreman’s Union, which is preventing port automation.

On education, Biden barely increased college enrollment, and was not able to make up the losses since 2010. He did not propose reforms to halt grade inflation at a K-12 or college level. He was not able to provide student debt relief, which would be the best way to transfer wealth to his base (young educated voters).

Comparing the two sides:

Now that I’ve steel-manned the Republicans, and trash-manned the Democrats, it’s time to compare each side in a head-to-head. For each issue, I will give percentages for how likely Republicans are to beat Democrats on an issue:

• 0% chance that Democrats are worse than Republicans on animal rights and factory farming. I cannot see any future scenario where animal rights activists are thrown a bone by Republicans.

Source: rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9955z6.html

• 1% chance that gays in the military causes Russia and China to beat us. Wars of the future will be fought mostly by equipping 2nd world proxies with weapons. The sexual identity of pencil-pushers in the military-industrial bureaucracy does not decrease the lethality of a drone.

• 10% chance that Democratic policies create more toxic pollution than Republican policies due to mass immigration. Population growth is the greatest generator of pollution, but it’s not certain that Republicans will decrease immigration in the long term.

• 30% chance that Democratic policies cause worse economic and infrastructure decline. Democrats are historically good on GDP growth. Even Carter did a relatively good job, despite the global economy contracting due to the Iranian Revolution and oil shortages. Obama was not good, however. If Democrats were to institute another COVID lockdown, for example, the Republican position would probably be preferable. I give this a 30% likelihood over the next 12 years.

• 40% chance that Democratic policies worsen educational outcomes through affirmative action and wokism. I have defended both wokism and underwater basket weaving, but these defenses are contingent on the ability of reformers to curb excesses and maintain rigorous standards in STEM. I’m hopeful and optimistic at 60%, but the chance of failure is worth talking about.

trash-manning the “war on men”

Democrats are generally excellent on genetic, sexual, and reproductive freedom. The exception to this is hysteria and Puritanism around age gap relationships, consent theory, and sexual harassment.

I hate Matt Gaetz for many reasons. Dude looks like a freaking alien. He adopted a teenage boy from Cuba, which sounds like a Harvey Milk situation to me. The guy is weird and has bad political positions. He is a cultist for Trump.

But Democrats want to hyperfocus on his alleged consensual relationship with a 17 year old girl, and insist on calling him a rapist on this basis alone. Newsflash: only 12 states regard that act as “statutory rape.” You can call it creepy, weird, disgusting, whatever you like, but calling it “rape” is hypocritical if you aren’t simultaneously campaigning to raise the age of consent in 38 other states.

If you genuinely believe that having sex with a 17 year old is rape, wouldn’t you lobby to make rape illegal, and to establish a national age of consent at age 18? If not, why? They hypocrisy of these performative rape accusations is part of a larger “moral creep” of Democrats away from sexual freedom and toward a culture of guilt and shame aimed at heterosexual men.

First result on google.

To be clear, I’m not arguing for lowering the age of consent. What I am complaining about is that Democrats simultaneously want to teach kindergarteners about oral sex with the slogan “never too young,” and will then turn around and ignore all the signs of Matt Gaetz’s predatory behavior toward teenage boys and hyperfocus on his alleged conduct with a 17 year old girl.

I support sex education in public schools, and I don’t think it is “grooming” to teach children anatomy. For all of human history until the last 100 years, most kids grew up on farms where they watch animals have sex; urbanite children in tenement housing shared a cramped one bedroom apartment with their parents. The idea that teaching kids about anatomy is a form of “grooming” is a form of post-modern neo-Puritanism. It’s a hyper-bourgeois revisionism. Before 1950, all the boys were naked with the men in the YMCA locker room. No one considered naked boys and men swimming down by the creek to be “grooming.”

The problem isn’t sexual libertinism or growing hedonism, but a two-tier system where LGBTQ+ porn-culture is given infinite tolerance, but heterosexuality is always one anonymous decades-old accusation away from “rape.”

These trends undermine patriotic military culture. You can’t expect men to fight and die for a country which outlaws masculine aggression. At the same time, these trends also intensify McGenics. My question is, “do I want to plummet the birth rate, or do I want the country to function?”

There is an optimal balance between the two concerns. America as it currently exists is functional, but there is a threshold beyond which military recruitment will plummet. The state then becomes a mercenary enterprise, like the Gulf Arab states, which is dangerous for our democracy. A state which relies on mercenaries over a volunteer army is fragile and vulnerable to corruption.

I’m not sure where the threshold is, and it’s difficult to quantify.

• How many men need to lose 50% of their wealth to divorce?

• How many men need to lose custody of their kids?

Despite all the panic about 50% of marriages ending in divorce, if you have a PhD, the divorce rate shrinks to 26%.

In the optimal situation, high-status men will be insulated from these sexual taxes, while low-status men will bear the brunt of feminism. But the trend could swing in the opposite direction of “anarcho-tyranny,” where low-status men are free to rape, while high-status men are hunted down by Puritan accusers.

Democratic Sexual Paternalism:

To be more specific:

• 99% chance that Democrats will more aggressively persecute men for assertive but non-violent sexual behavior. In general, the concept of “sexual harassment” is legally tenuous, since only a single comment is said to constitute “harassment.” The proper definition is “sexual obscenity;” but that proper definition cannot be used, because it would expose the Puritanism at the heart of the crusade. Persecuting low-status men for sexual aggression isn’t the worst thing in the world, but when the crusade focused on high-status men, it fuels the rise of populism.

• 99% chance that Democrats will more aggressively attack rich men for using their power to have sex. The problem with this behavior is that it encourages high-status men to turn against feminism and the left generally. Using 2024 norms to persecute unreported cases of creepy behavior from 20 years ago based on hear-say is not a good use of political capital, especially when it is targeted at high-profile Democrats like Harvey Weinstein or Andrew Cuomo.

• 70% chance that Democrats will more aggressively persecute age-gap relationships. For example, attempting to frame a consensual sex between an 18 year old and an older celebrity as a form of statutory rape. This would occur by appointing liberal judges who are willing to legislate from the bench. Since age-gaps can be shoehorned into the LGBTQIA+ category of “kink among consenting adults,” I don’t expect this to be as likely as the two former categories. There is a woke case to be made via “power imbalance” that an 18 year old cannot consent to sex with a 40 year old. But it’s also possible that gay men will come out to save the heterosexuals on this one.

• 50% chance that Democrats will more aggressively persecute men who purchase sexual services, including massage parlors. On the one hand, some feminists really hate men who see prostitutes. On the other hand, Republicans could just as easily claim to be “fighting human trafficking” by cracking down on Johns. Not clear who would be worse.

These issues, in my opinion, are the nastiest aspects of the Democratic coalition. I am not a rich old fat balding Jewish man like Harvey Weinstein, but if you guys keep subscribing to my Substack, I might become one someday.

By supporting the Democratic Party, I am increasing the chance that men like me are put in jail for making a rude joke or getting a handjob for $200. I would feel pretty silly if I voted for the Democrats and the leopard ate my face. But conservatives are hyper-focused on lesbian sports, transgender bathrooms, and “groomer” kindergarten teachers, so I don’t see them coming to my rescue.

• 50% chance Democrats will be more aggressive in pursuing child support and alimony payments from men.

• 99% chance Democrats will be more aggressive in favoring mothers over fathers in custody disputes

Democrats favor women in all instances, including custody battles. Regarding child support and alimony, there is this sense in which Republicans seem oddly eager to persecute divorced men. The idea is that a real conservative man will “man up” and pay his ex-wife or baby-momma to raise his kids, forever.

The McGenics argument is that persecuting men for having sex and kids helps lower fertility and increases sexual selectivity. You have to think twice about getting married and having kids. I support making marriage harder and imposing higher costs on marriage in order to gatekeep the institution and make it less feasible for the unemployed, uninspired, and undedicated. It’s better for the country that marriage continues to get worse for men, as a disincentive for weak men to not become fathers.

Other Sexual Issues:

• 100% chance Democrats are more pro-abortion

• 100% chance Democrats are more pro-condom, IUD, Plan B, and planned parenthood. This doesn’t really matter, but if someone was going to ban condoms, it would be Republicans.

• 99% chance Democrats are more pro-LGBTQ+. I suppose the defense of lesbian sports could be counted as “pro-LGBTQ,” so there’s the 1%.

• 99% chance Democrats are more pro-IVF. Trump has supported IVR, but Mike Johnson opposes it

• 90% chance Democrats are more pro-embryo selection

I could see a future scenario in which woke activists begin to attack embryo selection as a form of eugenics. But we aren’t there yet. So long as Democrats remain ultra-hardcore in favor of women's rights, I think Republicans are much more likely to oppose embryo selection.

Conclusion.

The conservative perspective is that:

• BLM is the greatest racial threat we face;

• Mexican immigration is an INVASION and requires MASS DEPORTATIONS;

• LEGAL immigration makes the country better;

• THE GAY (6% of the military) will collapse the entire armed forces;

• Democrats are more corrupt than Republicans;

• DEI engineers cause bridges to collapse and planes to fall out of the sky;

• Hamas controls Harvard;

• Education is trapped in a downward spiral of credentialism and wokism.

In terms of policy, I am not overly concerned about any of these conservative boogeymen, with the exception of the decline of education. I am opposed to the Musk/Vivek/Sachs fetish for LEGAL immigration, although I don’t expect Democrats to be any better on this, and it’s not my #1 issue.

I would prefer that Democrats signal their opposition to rioting, DEI, open borders, transgender surgeries on illegal immigrant minors in jail, and Hamas. Rhetorical concessions on these issues are important for winning elections.

The policing of male sexual behavior has negative externalities. Hounding and exterminating frat-bros will probably lower total social risk-tolerance, and this can lead to pathological risk aversion, which suppresses innovation.

Source: vanderbilthustler.com/2020/02/23/ifc-membership-is-down-37-percent-from-2015-six-of-ten-ifc-fraternities-currently-on-social-suspension/

Fraternities are under attack for being racist and sexist. These fraternities then reform themselves to revolve purely around alcoholism, removing whatever particular cultural or masculine character they originally held. Fraternities are being colonized by drunk nerds.

But conservatives aren’t focused on saving the dying American fraternity system; they are hyper-focused on saving kindergarteners from LGBTQIA+ propaganda, protecting lesbian sports, and making sure that men who wear dresses go in the bathroom with little boys. These are the real issues facing our nation.

The decline in educational standards might be due to a general decline in IQ, and cannot be helped without addressing the root of the problem. If the IQ was higher, the schools would be better. Perhaps it would be more productive to address declining IQ in general rather than symptoms (like college admissions essays as a mask to disguise a decline in standards).

Besides education, the area of society where I see Democratic policies being potentially worse than Republican ones is in the area of prosecuting elite male heterosexual activity. I can’t think of any military power in history which hunted down elite men in this way, and America is a military power.

Positive correlation between TFR and wealth is forming.

One approach to this problem would be to increase the social importance of physical fitness. For example, require students to perform 40 pushups on their first day of college. With an exception for women.

Unlike RFK, I don’t wish to “make America healthy again” in the aggregate. Obesity destroys fertility, and dysfunctional people are more likely to be obese. I wish to insulate competent, technical experts and necessary psychopaths from warlock-hunting by sigma females. I want to limit the hyper-fixation on patrolling elite heterosexual behavior by chronically-ill moral narcissists.

If physically fit men are granted Affirmative Action in educational opportunities and the government bureaucracy, this might help to mitigate the demoralizing effects of childlessness, divorce, and sexual policing. The idea is to prevent an overzealous persecution of the warrior class, while maintaining the McGenic protocol.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans will enact Starship Troopers reforms, so this problem will remain unsolved unless/until there is an intervention of paradigm-shifting reproductive technology, like embryo selection. For now, I give Republicans a point for valorizing cops and the military. Still, in the long term, I the Democrats on genetic, sexual, and reproductive freedom.

1. Just kidding! (unless…)