10.7 F
Friday, February 3, 2023
HomeIllinois PoliticsStarkehaus: The Long Journey to #NeverTrump

Starkehaus: The Long Journey to #NeverTrump




By Irene F. Starkehaus –

Out of all the dystopian fictions that I've read over these many decades, there are only two that make me nod my head and say, "Yeah, we might just end up doing that." Only two. Most are nothing but the literary onanism of frustrated authors who have suddenly realized they will never change the world as they believed they would when they decided to matriculate in postmodernist deconstructionism back in the day.

The first book to earn the distinction of being plausible from my perspective was the requisite 1984 by George Orwell. I actually had the added benefit of reading Orwell's masterpiece back in 1984 when the mainstream media was claiming the fulfillment of his vision because Ronald Reagan wouldn't play nice with the Soviets. In the media's view, Reagan's unwillingness to negotiate with Godless, conscienceless totalitarians was a sign that America had fallen under the grip of an insane megalomaniac. His lack of conciliation was certain to bring about nuclear annihilation. Ronald Reagan, therefore, was obviously the embodiment of Big Brother.

You may have noticed that no such nuclear winter occurred, but it would seem that being a political analyst is a lot like being a meteorologist. You don't have to be right as long as the day ends up being sunny and warm. So it was for the eight years of the Reagan Presidency, and so it remained for two decades after his tenure in spite of the progressivists best efforts.

But I completely digress. Anyway, the other book that struck me as being eerily plausible was the novel Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. Huxley described his story as being what comes after 1984 (although it was written more than a decade before Orwell's story.) While I appreciate this interpretation, I've always viewed his horror story as simply a different route to the same tyrannical destination. Ultimately, the abhorrence of every freedom loving person is the system that works to obliterate free will and truth.

Brave New World is a storyline set within a primer that instructs the reader in methods for subduing the human spirit. The important thing to understand about Huxley's predictions is that most of his characters were conditioned to be happy slaves in this fictional dystopia. There were only three characters who were not content to be drug-addled, sex-addicted, consumption-driven relativists in a post-free will world.

The first was a man that Huxley called the Savage. The Savage was the son of a civilized woman who was accidently trapped on a North American Indian reservation that was considered a last vestige for self-determination in a world that had been conquered by central planners. The second character was Helmholtz Watson who was raised in civilization as a successful and privileged Alpha-Plus. The third man was a social outcast named Bernard Marx. Marx was a socially and physically awkward Alpha, rumored to have been stunted during his gestation by alcohol in his blood surrogate.

These three men could not reconcile themselves to Huxley's world and found themselves rebelling against it until an intervention was required.

Of these three men, the Savage became so inconsolable about civilization's spiritual bankruptcy that he hung himself. Helmholtz was deemed too individualistic and was sent to a place where other nonconformists lived without the creature comfort of central planning. Happily, because he was free.

Bernard was a more complex character. He was a nonconformist, but it turned out that his nonconformity was solely because society had rejected him. He wasn't a true believer. His individualism was born of convenience.

As stories often go, Bernard had a turn of fortune and found himself at the center of positive attention for the first time in his life. The novelty of acceptability caused an evolution in his thinking, and Bernard was suddenly fine with the sex addiction, intoxication and materialism that he had railed against so forcefully. His change in circumstances ultimately revealed his true character, and his true character was that of an unprincipled hypocrite.

What's this got to do with Donald Trump? Good question. Interesting little factoid. Aldous Huxley would have called what's happening right now "hypnopaedia." It works like this. "Sixty-two thousand four hundred repetitions make one truth." That's how they did it in Brave New World. That's how Donald Trump did it to Ted Cruz.

Lyin' Ted Cruz. LYIN' TED CRUZ. LYIN' TED CRUZ. Come on, Donnie Boy. Say it again. You said it once. You said it twice, so it must be true. I'd like to hear it again. Maybe this time you can get some Trumpeteering Bernards to chant it with you and make it even truer. LYIN' TED CRUZ. LYIN' TED CRUZ. LYIN' TED CRUZ. L-Y-I-N'-T-E-D-C-R-U-Z.

Ted Cruz is the liar? Really? You mean like:

"You know, his father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald's being — you know, shot," Trump told "Fox and Friends" Tuesday. "I mean; the whole thing is ridiculous. What is this?"

What is this, indeed. But Ted Cruz is the liar. Donald Trump is a thug and a bully and a character assassin. But never mind. Let's hear it again. LYIN' TED CRUZ. LYIN' TED CRUZ. LYIN' TED CRUZ. L-Y-I-N'-T-E-D-C-R-U-Z. Hmmm. I guess Ted Cruz is a liar. LYIN' TED CRUZ. LYIN' TED CRUZ. LYIN' TED CRUZ. L-Y-I-N'-T-E-D-C-R-U-Z. Oh! I See! Ted Cruz is a YUGE liar.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump – on an entirely different topic which is exactly the same as the last topic because the only unscripted thing he can manage to say coherently is that he's winning, and that ought to tell you exactly how far we have fallen as a people:

"If we win, it's over. Then I can focus – then I don't have to worry about LYIN' TED CRUZ. LYIN' TED CRUZ. L-Y-I-N'-T-E-D-C-R-U-Z.

I don't care if he endorses me or doesn't. I couldn't care less – but – but I don't have to worry about Lyin' Ted Cruz. LYIN' TED CRUZ. LYIN' TED CRUZ. LYIN' TED CRUZ. LYIN' TED CRUZ. L-Y-I-N'-T-E-D-C-R-U-Z."

It came to me today as I was driving my kids to school, and we were listening to a news story about Donald Trump talking again about Lyin' Ted Cruz. LYIN' TED CRUZ. LYIN' TED CRUZ. LYIN' TED CRUZ. LYIN' TED CRUZ. L-Y-I-N'-T-E-D-C-R-U-Z.

You know what? I am a true believer. I really, really am. I really think that what we got started in the 1980s was a great thing worth fighting for. I really believe in the conservative principles that Ted Cruz espouses and I wanted him to be president.

Since Ted Cruz didn't get the nomination, it has long been my intention that I would move on and support the nominee.

Voila. I was once again going to hold my nose and vote for the party's nominee even though the party's nominee is Donald Trump who makes me so physically ill when he speaks that I want to barf out my lung – even though I think he's so stupid that I often wonder how he manages to keep breathing without involving his teleprompter. I was willing to vote for Donald Trump even though I think that Donald Trump is a YUGE putz. I'm told that's what team players do. Team players vote for YUGE putzes.

Except…you know what else? I've heard one too many of the "Lyin' Ted Cruz. LYIN' TED CRUZ. LYIN' TED CRUZ. LYIN' TED CRUZ. LYIN' TED CRUZ. L-Y-I-N'-T-E-D-C-R-U-Z," sound bites today.

I've had a "LYIN' TED CRUZ. LYIN' TED CRUZ. LYIN' TED CRUZ. LYIN' TED CRUZ. L-Y-I-N'-T-E-D-C-R-U-Z" overdose, and all of a sudden, I'm feeling politically persnickety and I'm not going to budge this time.

The "LYIN' TED CRUZ. LYIN' TED CRUZ. LYIN' TED CRUZ. LYIN' TED CRUZ. L-Y-I-N'-T-E-D-C-R-U-Z" was supposed to put Ted Cruz supporters in our place. It was supposed to rattle the cage. It was supposed to paralyze, but the "LYIN' TED CRUZ. LYIN' TED CRUZ. LYIN' TED CRUZ. LYIN' TED CRUZ. L-Y-I-N'-T-E-D-C-R-U-Z" chant went one day too long for me. And it changed me. And I'm free at last.  I don't have to defend an idiot.  I don't have to show allegiance to a party that would sooner throw me under a bus than keep promises.  I'm going rogue.

Because I'm not going to vote for Donald Trump.

Furthermore, I happen to agree with Donald Trump on one YUGELY important political point. I don't care if LYIN' TED CRUZ. LYIN' TED CRUZ. LYIN' TED CRUZ endorses Donald Trump or doesn't.

I couldn't care less.


- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from up to 5 devices at once

Latest stories


  1. A more apt book title is “It Can’t Happen Here” by Sinclair Lewis in which a loutish candidate named Buzz Windrip secures the nomination and is elected president. His campaign closely resembled the bloviating that Trump has used throughout the primaries.

  2. Is the Illinois Review now reduced to publishing silly – almost indecipherable screeds like this?
    Let’s face facts!
    Donald Trump is the Republican nominee for President.
    Outstanding numbers of Democrats, and Independents and disaffected conservatives have rallied round him.
    Dole, McCain and Romney could not attract these voters – and they all got trounced.
    Yet we still have these holier-than-thou ideological stalwarts – like the above writer – saying they’ll not vote for our Republican patry’s candidate.
    Well – here’s a little bit of conservative history for you.
    The recently deceased, M. Stanton Evans – of the National Review – who I knew personally – used to say that there is a component to conservatism that holds to the preservation of American communities.
    Donald Trump speaks to that.
    He doesn’t think that a massive influx of 20 million illegal aliens is conducive to solid American communities. He disagrees with Barack Obama’s executive order to allow 30 thousand Muslim refugees into our communities. He opposes the notion of cheating our high school and college kids out of the chance for upward mobility, by giving foreigners H-1B work visas.
    Now if you disagree with that – please say so.
    But Trump is there – the American people are angry – the GOP has been oblivious to this – and that is why Donald Trump will be our next president.
    Get it?

  3. Good. I won’t criticize. Unlike many of you party types. Now you know how the rest of us felt when we sat out in 2012, 2008, 2000, 1996, 1988.
    Hopefully this is the end of the GOP and a real party can rise in it’s ashes.

  4. Great job, Irene. I disagree about Cruz, especially given his collusion with Kasich, but I am not going to bow to the party this year.
    Hypocrisy is the norm. Look at the “anti-establishment” Trump supporters who say the same things the establishment jerks used to say when their candidates won the nomination.

  5. Good article. I would like to add some thoughts. The planning for what is going on started many, many decades ago. Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Conspiracy which was published in 1928. Wells was part of the group doing the planning. Another book of interest is The Lord of the World which came out in 1908. It’s free to read on line.
    Much of what is going on can be described as “provisions made for dissidents” or ways to keep those attempting to learn what is going on busy. Beatrice Webb wrote that this had to be done if their movement was to succeed. Can’t let the general public really learn what is going on. Much of what goes on with the GOP is such a provision.
    Another thing to keep in mind is that 85% of the general public is described in the book 1984 by a page and a third. The text describes how that part of the population is kept busy and unaware of what is going on.
    Until we learn how Trump got on the Republican ticket for the office of the president in all of the states we will never learn what is really going on. It didn’t happen by magic.

  6. I’m able to separate individuals from their chosen candidates. If not I would be picuring you as a Cuban male instead of an American female. Too bad your rude manners make you incapable of doing the same.

  7. Ted is a liar though. A year or so before he was elected Senator he donated less than 1% to charity. Then his campaign lied about Ben Carson in Iowa. I forget the other lie, but he fired his campaign manager. Trump is very good at identifying the weakness of people. That’s why is excellent at negotiating.

  8. Isn’t it amusing that the anti-Trump doctrinaire GOP types can write for paragraphs on end about how horrible Trump is, yet they can do so without ever once using the words “immigration”, “illegal immigrant” “outsourcing” “NAFTA” GATT” or “Islam” ?
    Why is this?

  9. Because Trump is an obvious fraud who will never do anything useful about illegal immigration (unlike Ted Cruz, who blocked the Gang of 8 amnesty in the Senate).
    Because Trump is a fraud who has used the H-1A program to import foreign workers into the U.S.
    Because Trump’s rhetoric about high import taxes is economic insanity. The last time the U.S. tried that was the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff, which reduced U.S. imports by $2.9B, and provoked retaliatory tariffs that reduced U.S. exports by $3.3B, aggravating the Great Depression.
    Because his yahoo rhetoric about Islam entirely misses the point about the Moslems that are enemies, while gratuitously offending the much larger number that are not. (Pakistan has had more people killed by jihadi terrorists, and more soldiers killed fighting the Taliban than the U.S.) It’s one thing to bar so-called Syrian refugees. Or to be much more careful about who comes here from South Asia or the Middle East. But does it make sense to apply a blanket ban to Moslem investors who hold hundreds of billions in U.S. government debt? Or Moslem soldiers who come to the U.S. for training on the U.S.-made tanks and planes their governments paid billions for? Will Trump bar Moslem investors in Trump projects, or Arab princes who gamble heavily in Trump casinos? Somehow I doubt it.
    But all that’s aside. Ms. Starkehaus chose in this essay to focus on one thing: Trump lies. Even more blatantly than Clinton, which is saying a lot. He deliberately slanders anyone who opposes him.
    That’s a gross failure of character. It means he’s rotten. Maybe a lot of people want a rotten man as President. If so, then you’ve given up on civil government and the rule of law, and America is done for.

  10. 1. Actually, Ted Cruz showered illegals at the border with gifts. – https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/05/03/remember-in-2014-when-ted-cruz-passed-out-goodie-bags-and-toys-to-illegal-aliens/
    2. The Smoot-Hawley myth has been debunked countless times. This is Jude Wanniski nonsense that died two decades ago.
    3. Yes, a ban on Muslim immigration makes perfect sense when you are at war with Islam, which isn’t nearly as extreme as interning Japanese-Americans when we were at war with Japan.

  11. Tariffs worked quite well for our country from the 1860s through the 1920s. Morrill, McKinley, Dingley, Payne-Aldrich, Fordney-McCumber. In fact, raising the tariff rates in 1897 actually helped spur the economy on after the Depression of 1893. The Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922 was part of Harding’s plan that reinvigorated the domestic economy after the horrible Depression of 1920. To simply assert that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff exacerbated the Depression is not necessarily true. It was the standard play to counteract a Depression and had worked before.
    The Great Depression was different than other depressions because there was no gold standard anymore and the Fed had juiced the economy leading to a too rapid increase in credit. That bubble burst causing the market crash and the subsequent Depression. The fact that Smoot Hawley did not work as Dingley or Fordney did was because of the lack of the gold standard. Trump has called for auditing the Fed. I think he knows what he is talking about here.
    On immigration, this country has had immigration before, but it was always followed by periods of assimilation and/or expansion to the frontier. There is no frontier anymore. We need to assimilate those already here. This will be good for us and for these new arrivals. We can become a multi-ethnic nation again rather than the polyglot we are becoming.

  12. 1. Actually, Ted Cruz showered illegals at the border with gifts.
    Lie. Cruz visited the border to show support for Border Patrol officers.
    2. The Smoot-Hawley myth… is widely held among economists. The claim that Smoot-Hawley caused the Depression has been refuted, but there is little question that it contributed, and none at all that it did nothing to help. 60 years of post-WW-II prosperity under free-trade conditions ought to be convincing evidence against protectionism, but one can’t reason someone out of a belief they weren’t reasoned into.
    3. … when you are at war with Islam… Some Moslems are at war with the whole world, including most other Moslems. No one should underestimate the venom of these people, whether Al-Qaeda or ISIS or Boko Haram or Hezbollah or Taliban or the Iranian regime or al-Shabaab, or overlook the connections between them and allegedly reasonable Moslems like Huma Abedin. Nor should we refuse to acknowledge the Koran’s directives to wage jihad. But a blanket condemnation of all Moslems is stupid on the other side.
    (This is entirely separate from the issues of shutting down illegal immigration and cutting down legal immigration from troublesome sources, both of which are way overdue.)

  13. “The Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922 was part of Harding’s plan that reinvigorated the domestic economy after the horrible Depression of 1920.”
    Fordney-McCumber was passed in late September 1922. But industrial production returned to normal in October 1922, before the new tariff could have had any effect.

  14. Or maybe the markets anticipated it? That bill was most likely worked on for at least a year. It was only part of the plan. Harding lowered the highest marginal tax rates from a 77% rate to 46% and the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 also probably had a more immediate effect boosting production.