theamericanconservative--2020-08-11--Why the Technocratic Deep State Hates Debates

Calls are mounting quickly to cancel the 2020 presidential debates , three of which are scheduled to take place between September 29th and October 22nd .
Some hide behind claims that coronavirus concerns make the staging of a debate too risky , though these are generally the same people who have endorsed mass protests and riots for the past three months straight .
Others , such as former Clinton White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart , advise that “ trying to debate someone incapable of telling the truth is an impossible contest to win.
” In general , the consensus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a position of fear : either fear that three controlled debates will be the final straw to break the COVID camel ’ s back , or fear that Biden might be trounced in a toe-to-toe contest with Trump—both on stage and , consequently , at the polls .
But there is more going on here .
The more extreme debate-skeptic proposals tip the Left ’ s hand , and reveal concerns far more substantial than Joe Biden ’ s apparent senility .
Funnily enough , so do the less extreme proposals : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compromises offered , and consider what they reveal about the cancel camp ’ s priorities .
Just look at Alex Shephard ’ s anti-debate diatribe at The New Republic .
Its headline leaves little doubt about its goal : “ Let ’ s Cancel Presidential Debates Forever.
” Forever .
This isn ’ t about protecting the political prospects of one nominee who struggles to project a strong ( or even competent ) image .
This is about fundamentally changing the way we elect presidents , and the way we conduct our politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially given the televised debate ’ s relatively recent arrival to the American political scene : everyone remembers from history class that the first were held in 1960 between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy ; some readers may even remember watching the 1960 debates live .
But what this late date fails to tell us is that TV debates , while new in form , are merely the modern means of delivering something that the American electorate has always needed : a reminder that politics is a flesh-and-blood affair , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a party but a person .
We hear a lot of panicked rhetoric about personalism in politics these days .
The supposed cult of personality built up around Donald Trump is viewed with a kind of fearful horror , thought to be a novelty and hoped to be an aberration .
But American politics—especially presidential politics—have been intensely personal from their earliest days .
The first presidents , up through Monroe , were giants : men whose names were known , whose personalities were legendary , whose fierce performances in the debates on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the days of their elections .
Much of the mid-19th century , too , was marked by presidents whose personalities—and histories of conflict—defined both their campaigns and their tenures .
Jackson , Tyler , Polk , Taylor , and even the short-lived Harrison ( all but the politico Polk accomplished military men ) , were all elected far more on their reputations than on any platform .
This is all to say that a politics of spectacle , performance , and persona is not a novel outgrowth of cable news and TV @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tradition as old as the presidency itself , and inseparable from it .
In fact , it was really only in the second half of the 19th century , as the power and scope of the federal government expanded rapidly , that the presidency became more about the party than the person .
It was then that the first generation of American technocrats found their way into the Oval Office : men like Grover Cleveland and Chester Arthur , who were capable policy-men and administrators , but who would have mustered roughly the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a wet mop .
With a few deviations whose last name was Roosevelt—who were actually not so much deviations as combinations , simultaneously policy-men and personalists—this pattern continued almost uninterrupted until 1952 , when national hero Dwight Eisenhower—a man with practically no policy at all—swept the electoral vote against technocrat Adlai Stevenson .
It was immediately after Eisenhower ’ s eight years in the Oval that Richard Nixon , his vice president , was defeated narrowly by the charismatic Jack Kennedy—not coincidentally , in a campaign that included the first-ever televised debates .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ two charismatic figures over two policy-minded ones—Eisenhower had defeated Stevenson again by an even wider margin in 1956—America had reentered an age of presidential politics defined by the personal .
Once televised debates became a permanent fixture of the campaign in 1976 , this historic transition became even more pronounced .
In virtually every election since , the candidate who has won the election has been the obvious winner in the debates .
This is not to say that elections have been won because debates have been won ; it is simply to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate victory—sharpness , image , projection of strength , etc.—have become decisive factors in our presidential elections , and the debates provide the people with an opportunity to evaluate candidates based on these factors .
Why the opposition , then ?
The personalist revival has been rising in tandem with an inverse trend : the constant expansion of powerful party establishments , and the extension of entrenched ideologues into nonprofits , into academia , into every corner of government and public life .
This establishment , on the left and right , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our time .
Call it the swamp , call it the deep state , call it whatever—this blob of technocratic and bureaucratic power is a serious counterweight to power of the chief executive , and not by accident .
And in 2020 , both the presidency and the so-called deep state are just about as powerful as ever .
Establishment pol Joe Biden ’ s primary win over the dully demagogic Bernie Sanders might be considered an intraparty victory of the technocratic element over the personalist .
Donald Trump ’ s meteoric rise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exactly the opposite .
In order to secure their measured success and expand it into a long-term political program , progressive technocrats must defend Biden from Trump ’ s tornado of personal energy .
Protecting Biden from debate , even catapulting him into the Oval Office—these are just steps along the way .
“ Cancel presidential debates forever ” points to a much more ambitious agenda : one in which platforms , establishments , data—a billion things that make no sense and bear no interest for the average American voter—eclipse the presentation and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a candidate for office .
In turn , these things will eclipse the importance of the person even in the office .
The new technocrats want FDR ’ s administrative leviathan , without his human touch .
This is made apparent by the plans offered in the name of compromise .
There is a massive push from the left to institute some form of real-time fact-checking if the debates are to go on at all .
We can not have any illusions about just whom a quasi-factual live analysis , overseen by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to benefit .
It would not , as its proponents suggest , offer an unbiased counterbalance to erroneous claims by the debaters .
It would simply offer an inhuman , coldly analytical counterbalance to the human narrative presented by the candidates .
That ’ s a hell of a win for the technocrats .
Or we can just get rid of audiences , for good .
Shephard writes that the presence of an audience contributing authentic reactions as the debate proceeds “ underlines the fact that what is happening is a spectacle , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mondale ’ s claim , brought up in a 1984 debate , that “ President Reagan offers showmanship , not leadership , ” it ’ s a silly mistake to think that the two are mutually exclusive—and it ’ s suggestive of a dry , sterile view of politics and human affairs on the part of the accuser .
It has apparently not occurred to these people that a quadrennial contest for occupation of the most powerful office in the history of mankind might just be worthy of a little spectacle , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some members of the public might be entitled to a ringside seat .
The anti-personalists would be perfectly happy to literally remove the great mass of people from this decisive moment in the political process , leaving two men alone to talk policy in an otherwise empty room , overseen by a panel of bureaucrats authorized to enforce the approved version of reality over and against any possible objections .
Makes you wonder what they ’ ll do with the government , if we let them take a crack at it .

Calls are mounting quickly to cancel the 2020 presidential debates, three of which are scheduled to take place between September 29th and October 22nd.
Some hide behind claims that coronavirus concerns make the staging of a debate too risky, though these are generally the same people who have endorsed mass protests and riots for the past three months straight. Others, such as former Clinton White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart, advise that “trying to debate someone incapable of telling the truth is an impossible contest to win.”
In general, the consensus both Right and Left is that this is a position of fear: either fear that three controlled debates will be the final straw to break the COVID camel’s back, or fear that Biden might be trounced in a toe-to-toe contest with Trump—both on stage and, consequently, at the polls.
But there is more going on here. The more extreme debate-skeptic proposals tip the Left’s hand, and reveal concerns far more substantial than Joe Biden’s apparent senility. Funnily enough, so do the less extreme proposals: we ought to pay attention to the compromises offered, and consider what they reveal about the cancel camp’s priorities.
Just look at Alex Shephard’s anti-debate diatribe at The New Republic. Its headline leaves little doubt about its goal: “Let’s Cancel Presidential Debates Forever.” Forever. This isn’t about protecting the political prospects of one nominee who struggles to project a strong (or even competent) image. This is about fundamentally changing the way we elect presidents, and the way we conduct our politics.
This may seem like an overreaction, especially given the televised debate’s relatively recent arrival to the American political scene: everyone remembers from history class that the first were held in 1960 between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy; some readers may even remember watching the 1960 debates live. But what this late date fails to tell us is that TV debates, while new in form, are merely the modern means of delivering something that the American electorate has always needed: a reminder that politics is a flesh-and-blood affair, that in the president we are electing not a party but a person.
We hear a lot of panicked rhetoric about personalism in politics these days. The supposed cult of personality built up around Donald Trump is viewed with a kind of fearful horror, thought to be a novelty and hoped to be an aberration. But American politics—especially presidential politics—have been intensely personal from their earliest days. The first presidents, up through Monroe, were giants: men whose names were known, whose personalities were legendary, whose fierce performances in the debates on the Constitution would all have been remembered on the days of their elections.
Much of the mid-19th century, too, was marked by presidents whose personalities—and histories of conflict—defined both their campaigns and their tenures. Jackson, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, and even the short-lived Harrison (all but the politico Polk accomplished military men), were all elected far more on their reputations than on any platform. This is all to say that a politics of spectacle, performance, and persona is not a novel outgrowth of cable news and TV debates: it is a grand American tradition as old as the presidency itself, and inseparable from it.
In fact, it was really only in the second half of the 19th century, as the power and scope of the federal government expanded rapidly, that the presidency became more about the party than the person. It was then that the first generation of American technocrats found their way into the Oval Office: men like Grover Cleveland and Chester Arthur, who were capable policy-men and administrators, but who would have mustered roughly the same energy on a debate stage as a wet mop.
With a few deviations whose last name was Roosevelt—who were actually not so much deviations as combinations, simultaneously policy-men and personalists—this pattern continued almost uninterrupted until 1952, when national hero Dwight Eisenhower—a man with practically no policy at all—swept the electoral vote against technocrat Adlai Stevenson.
It was immediately after Eisenhower’s eight years in the Oval that Richard Nixon, his vice president, was defeated narrowly by the charismatic Jack Kennedy—not coincidentally, in a campaign that included the first-ever televised debates. Suddenly, with the back-to-back election of two charismatic figures over two policy-minded ones—Eisenhower had defeated Stevenson again by an even wider margin in 1956—America had reentered an age of presidential politics defined by the personal.
Once televised debates became a permanent fixture of the campaign in 1976, this historic transition became even more pronounced. In virtually every election since, the candidate who has won the election has been the obvious winner in the debates. This is not to say that elections have been won because debates have been won; it is simply to observe that the factors that contribute to debate victory—sharpness, image, projection of strength, etc.—have become decisive factors in our presidential elections, and the debates provide the people with an opportunity to evaluate candidates based on these factors.
Why the opposition, then? The personalist revival has been rising in tandem with an inverse trend: the constant expansion of powerful party establishments, and the extension of entrenched ideologues into nonprofits, into academia, into every corner of government and public life. This establishment, on the left and right, is the cozy home of the technocrats of our time. Call it the swamp, call it the deep state, call it whatever—this blob of technocratic and bureaucratic power is a serious counterweight to power of the chief executive, and not by accident. And in 2020, both the presidency and the so-called deep state are just about as powerful as ever.
Establishment pol Joe Biden’s primary win over the dully demagogic Bernie Sanders might be considered an intraparty victory of the technocratic element over the personalist. Donald Trump’s meteoric rise to the top of the GOP is exactly the opposite. In order to secure their measured success and expand it into a long-term political program, progressive technocrats must defend Biden from Trump’s tornado of personal energy.
Protecting Biden from debate, even catapulting him into the Oval Office—these are just steps along the way. “Cancel presidential debates forever” points to a much more ambitious agenda: one in which platforms, establishments, data—a billion things that make no sense and bear no interest for the average American voter—eclipse the presentation and persuasion of a bona fide human being as a candidate for office. In turn, these things will eclipse the importance of the person even in the office. The new technocrats want FDR’s administrative leviathan, without his human touch.
This is made apparent by the plans offered in the name of compromise. There is a massive push from the left to institute some form of real-time fact-checking if the debates are to go on at all. We cannot have any illusions about just whom a quasi-factual live analysis, overseen by a less-than-impartial mainstream media, would serve to benefit. It would not, as its proponents suggest, offer an unbiased counterbalance to erroneous claims by the debaters. It would simply offer an inhuman, coldly analytical counterbalance to the human narrative presented by the candidates. That’s a hell of a win for the technocrats.
Or we can just get rid of audiences, for good. Shephard writes that the presence of an audience contributing authentic reactions as the debate proceeds “underlines the fact that what is happening is a spectacle, not anything of substance.” Like Walter Mondale’s claim, brought up in a 1984 debate, that “President Reagan offers showmanship, not leadership,” it’s a silly mistake to think that the two are mutually exclusive—and it’s suggestive of a dry, sterile view of politics and human affairs on the part of the accuser. It has apparently not occurred to these people that a quadrennial contest for occupation of the most powerful office in the history of mankind might just be worthy of a little spectacle, a little drama, a little fight—and that some members of the public might be entitled to a ringside seat.
The anti-personalists would be perfectly happy to literally remove the great mass of people from this decisive moment in the political process, leaving two men alone to talk policy in an otherwise empty room, overseen by a panel of bureaucrats authorized to enforce the approved version of reality over and against any possible objections. Makes you wonder what they’ll do with the government, if we let them take a crack at it.


theamericanconservative--2020-08-11--Could the Polls be Hiding a Trump Landslide?

Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden speaks at a `` Build Back Better '' Clean Energy event on July 14 , 2020 at the Chase Center in Wilmington , Delaware .
( Photo by Olivier DOULIERY / AFP ) ( Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images ) There seems to be a belief that if Joe Biden continues to campaign from the basement , demur from the debates entirely , he will be in a better position to beat Trump in the fall .
This is a dangerous strategy to follow .
Though it appears to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , New York Post ’ s Michael Goodwin explains the quandary that confronts Joe Biden and his handlers .
For Biden , “ these are the best of days.
” He is “ riding high in the polls , he has a long list of Democrats scrambling to be his running mate , while others offer themselves for plum cabinet posts.
” Perhaps even more important , he enjoys a “ comfortable lead over Trump ” and is “ almost exactly where Hillary Clinton was four years ago.
” While Clinton at this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead , according to the same pollsters at Real Clear Politics , Biden is 7.4 points ahead of Trump .
Despite these advantages , according to Goodwin , Biden faces three tough ninety-minute debates .
Unfortunately for Joe , he has never been a verbally adept speaker who thinks quickly on his feet : “ Recall that his best debate performances were mediocre and he did so badly in the first primaries that going into South Carolina the smart money said he had to win big or go home.
” Now Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gaffes are complicated by the widespread idea that he “ is cognitively unfit to be president.
” If he debates Trump , the thought goes , he may therefore be unmasked as a senile candidate .
It would then become obvious that “ the Biden campaign and the entire establishment of the Democratic Party are prepared to foist a seriously impaired man into the Oval Office.
” This may be the reason , explains Goodwin , that Biden ’ s “ media Praetorian Guard , ” starting with Tom Friedman at the New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Biden should not debate Trump .
Since the former Vice President has held a steady lead while remaining in his basement and taking softball questions from friendly journalists , why expose him to a dangerous situation for which he is unprepared ?
Unfortunately , as Goodwin notes , the public expects presidential debates to take place , if only “ to establish a baseline test of readiness and competence ” for candidates .
What this means is that if Biden ’ s handlers and the over solicitous media induce him to back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the more dramatic.
” Although Goodwin underlines the painful choices facing Biden ’ s ‘ advisers , ’ he may be understating the extent of this dilemma .
There is no reason to think that Biden even now is “ riding high ” or enjoying a “ comfortable lead.
” While Biden may be leading according to Real Clear Politics or Fox News polls , as Joseph Cotto has argued in Chronicles , these poll results are not without potential flaws .
Rasmussen , Axios , and Democracy Institute show trends that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is already close on Biden ’ s heels , enjoys a majority approval rating , and his staff are registering new voters in battleground states at a much more rapid clip than the Democrats .
Cotto indicates that many polls have under-sampled Republican voters or don ’ t confine themselves to likely ones .
In a similar trend to the 2016 election , Trump voters are reluctant to tell pollsters whom they plan to vote for ; and election analysts have started to speculate on the “ hidden Trump vote.
” Major polling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-Trump or outright Democrats .
In any case major polling companies employ few workers who are sympathetic to the president , which may allow for a bias in the results of their polling .
Although the polls cited by Goodwin may be on target , there is more than a slight chance that they are not .
And if that is the case , then Biden ’ s handlers are dealing with bigger problems than even Goodwin lays out .
Biden ’ s staffers assure us that even if voters are generally unenthusiastic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump will carry them across the finish line .
But if Rasmussen is right and Trump ’ s approval rating is now at 51 percent , a recent prediction in the British Economist that Biden will run away with the electoral college as well as the popular vote seems wildly premature .
We may wonder whether the Dems can count on a tidal wave of anti-Trump feeling or Trump ’ s verbal impulsiveness to bring their side victory .
Moreover , the public has been treated to endless conspiracy stories about Trump for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attacks may be wearing .
When black Democratic Congressman James Clyburn recently hammered Trump for ruling like the Gestapo and compared him to Hitler , Clyburn ’ s tirades hardly registered .
The public has heard this stuff multiple times before , and whatever passions anti-Trump rants have produced do not seem likely to become greater between now and the first week in November .
Biden enters the debates as an aging , inarticulate presidential candidate who carries the baggage of being a Washington politician for fifty years , and who has taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also seems he was knee-deep in surveillance operations against the staff of incoming President Trump by the outgoing Obama administration .
Such unsettling matters are likely to come up in debates .
Finally , it is doubtful that Biden in a public debate will be able to get away with giving answers by snarling at unwanted questions .
This might be working in his basement campaign but won ’ t work in a national debate , especially when there are questions about his mental capacities .

There seems to be a belief that if Joe Biden continues to campaign from the basement, demur from the debates entirely, he will be in a better position to beat Trump in the fall. This is a dangerous strategy to follow. Though it appears to be tempting. In an arresting column, New York Post’s Michael Goodwin explains the quandary that confronts Joe Biden and his handlers. For Biden, “these are the best of days.” He is “riding high in the polls, he has a long list of Democrats scrambling to be his running mate, while others offer themselves for plum cabinet posts.”
Perhaps even more important, he enjoys a “comfortable lead over Trump” and is “almost exactly where Hillary Clinton was four years ago.” While Clinton at this point in her campaign commanded a seven-point lead, according to the same pollsters at Real Clear Politics, Biden is 7.4 points ahead of Trump. Despite these advantages, according to Goodwin, Biden faces three tough ninety-minute debates. Unfortunately for Joe, he has never been a verbally adept speaker who thinks quickly on his feet: “Recall that his best debate performances were mediocre and he did so badly in the first primaries that going into South Carolina the smart money said he had to win big or go home.”
Now Biden’s rhetorical problems and history of unsettling gaffes are complicated by the widespread idea that he “is cognitively unfit to be president.” If he debates Trump, the thought goes, he may therefore be unmasked as a senile candidate. It would then become obvious that “the Biden campaign and the entire establishment of the Democratic Party are prepared to foist a seriously impaired man into the Oval Office.” This may be the reason, explains Goodwin, that Biden’s “media Praetorian Guard,” starting with Tom Friedman at the New York Times, are floating the idea that Biden should not debate Trump. Since the former Vice President has held a steady lead while remaining in his basement and taking softball questions from friendly journalists, why expose him to a dangerous situation for which he is unprepared? Unfortunately, as Goodwin notes, the public expects presidential debates to take place, if only “to establish a baseline test of readiness and competence” for candidates. What this means is that if Biden’s handlers and the over solicitous media induce him to back out, “the impact would be all the more dramatic.”
Although Goodwin underlines the painful choices facing Biden’s ‘advisers,’ he may be understating the extent of this dilemma. There is no reason to think that Biden even now is “riding high” or enjoying a “comfortable lead.” While Biden may be leading according to Real Clear Politics or Fox News polls, as Joseph Cotto has argued in Chronicles, these poll results are not without potential flaws. Rasmussen, Axios, and Democracy Institute show trends that should disturb the Biden campaign.
Trump is already close on Biden’s heels, enjoys a majority approval rating, and his staff are registering new voters in battleground states at a much more rapid clip than the Democrats. Cotto indicates that many polls have under-sampled Republican voters or don’t confine themselves to likely ones. In a similar trend to the 2016 election, Trump voters are reluctant to tell pollsters whom they plan to vote for; and election analysts have started to speculate on the “hidden Trump vote.”
Major polling companies also employ researchers who are openly anti-Trump or outright Democrats. In any case major polling companies employ few workers who are sympathetic to the president, which may allow for a bias in the results of their polling. Although the polls cited by Goodwin may be on target, there is more than a slight chance that they are not. And if that is the case, then Biden’s handlers are dealing with bigger problems than even Goodwin lays out.
Biden’s staffers assure us that even if voters are generally unenthusiastic about Biden, the widespread disapproval of Trump will carry them across the finish line. But if Rasmussen is right and Trump’s approval rating is now at 51 percent, a recent prediction in the British Economist that Biden will run away with the electoral college as well as the popular vote seems wildly premature. We may wonder whether the Dems can count on a tidal wave of anti-Trump feeling or Trump’s verbal impulsiveness to bring their side victory.
Moreover, the public has been treated to endless conspiracy stories about Trump for the last four years, and these attacks may be wearing. When black Democratic Congressman James Clyburn recently hammered Trump for ruling like the Gestapo and compared him to Hitler, Clyburn’s tirades hardly registered. The public has heard this stuff multiple times before, and whatever passions anti-Trump rants have produced do not seem likely to become greater between now and the first week in November.
Biden enters the debates as an aging, inarticulate presidential candidate who carries the baggage of being a Washington politician for fifty years, and who has taken multiple favors from foreign governments. It also seems he was knee-deep in surveillance operations against the staff of incoming President Trump by the outgoing Obama administration. Such unsettling matters are likely to come up in debates.
Finally, it is doubtful that Biden in a public debate will be able to get away with giving answers by snarling at unwanted questions. This might be working in his basement campaign but won’t work in a national debate, especially when there are questions about his mental capacities.
Paul Gottfried is the editor-in-chief of Chronicles. He is also Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown College, where he taught for 25 years, a Guggenheim recipient, and a Yale Ph.D. He is the author of 13 books, most recently Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents.


theamericanconservative--2020-08-11--The Real World Reasserts Itself

The Real World Reasserts Itself

Marxists and the radical Left welcome the failure of Liberal run cities .
Since the death of George Floyd beneath the knee of a cop in Minneapolis on Memorial Day , the nation has been instructed by its cultural elites that this is the daily reality that a racist America has too long ignored .
Our nation , it was shouted in our faces , is a place where white cops harass , brutalize , assault and kill Black Americans regularly and with impunity .
“ Defund the police !
” the Black Lives Matter demand went out , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s amen corner of progressive elites .
The pendulum may be swinging back , for this weekend reintroduced us to the old familiar world .
In Washington , D.C. , about midnight Saturday , at a block party in the Southeast sector of the city , three shooters fired 100 rounds , wounded 20 , killed a teenager and left a female police officer in critical condition .
It appears to have been an attempted massacre , a slaughter .
“ More than 115 people have been slain in the District this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time in 2019 , which ended the year with a decade high , ” reports The Washington Post .
D.C. ’ s numbers , however , pale by comparison to Chicago , where this weekend recorded 32 more people shot , with three dead .
According to the Sun-Times , there were 106 homicides in the city in July , a single-month body count almost equal to the toll D.C. has piled up in all of the first seven months of 2020 .
A disproportionate number of the dead and wounded are Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the shooters and killers are Black men .
If black lives matter , where is Black Lives Matter ?
Rarely in these stories of shootings and killings does one read that the dead were the victims of rogue cops or white supremacists .
Indeed , the front page of Monday ’ s New York Times gave voice to the city ’ s Black and Hispanic leaders who are objecting to a proposed $ 1 billion cut in the police budget .
The people in high-crime precincts , for whom these leaders speak , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the beat .
Even Portland , Oregon , which has been indulging nightly protests since the killing of George Floyd , seems to be awakening to the real world .
When the Department of Homeland Security pulled its agents out of Portland and handed the defense of the Mark Hatfield federal courthouse to the state police , the “ peaceful protesters ” shifted their attention to the city ’ s buildings and Portland Police Bureau ’ s East Precinct .
With police personnel corralled inside , the East Precinct was barricaded with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempt was made to set it afire by throwing flaming objects into the building .
Mugged by reality , Mayor Ted Wheeler seems to have belatedly awakened to the character of the protesters he has been coddling : “ When you commit arson with an accelerant in an attempt to burn down a building that is occupied by people whom you have intentionally trapped inside , you are not demonstrating , you are attempting to commit murder.
” Equally problematic : “ You will be creating the B-roll film that will be used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during his campaign.
” Portland police union president Daryl Turner was enraged at what he had seen .
“ I am disgusted that our City has come to this , ” said Turner .
“ If it is acceptable for rioters to… try and burn down occupied buildings , and if this conduct is allowed to continue , then Portland is lost.
” Wheeler , having gotten the message the rioters have been trying to deliver , finally ordered his city ’ s police to do “ what is necessary ” to quell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using tear gas .
What has happened in Portland , and across much of America , was predictable , and predicted .
First , the progressives tolerate and even celebrate civil disobedience , because the cause is just and noble .
Then , to hold onto public attention , the protesters march and block traffic .
Next comes the cursing of cops , the throwing of trash , water bottles and rocks .
Then there ’ s the smashing of store windows , looting and arson , and Molotov cocktails .
Finally , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get footage of police fighting back so the law enforcement officers can be painted by the progressive press as stormtroopers and the Gestapo .
In Portland , we reached the point where “ peaceful protesters ” tried to set a building ablaze with cops barricaded inside .
This , as the mayor said , is attempted murder .
Today , people watch their leaders in city after city fail to keep the peace and restore order as protesters riot at will , and they make plans to move out .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the inability of cops to quell the violence , and they buy guns .
While the right backs Trump ’ s stand for law and order , the ultimate battle here may be between liberal Democrats elected to , and failing to , run the cities , and the radical left and Marxists who welcome their failure as they intend to kick the liberals down the stairs .
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “ Nixon ’ s White House Wars : The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided @ @ @ @

Since the death of George Floyd beneath the knee of a cop in Minneapolis on Memorial Day, the nation has been instructed by its cultural elites that this is the daily reality that a racist America has too long ignored.
Our nation, it was shouted in our faces, is a place where white cops harass, brutalize, assault and kill Black Americans regularly and with impunity.
“Defund the police!” the Black Lives Matter demand went out, to be echoed and re-echoed by BLM’s amen corner of progressive elites.
The pendulum may be swinging back, for this weekend reintroduced us to the old familiar world.
In Washington, D.C., about midnight Saturday, at a block party in the Southeast sector of the city, three shooters fired 100 rounds, wounded 20, killed a teenager and left a female police officer in critical condition.
It appears to have been an attempted massacre, a slaughter.
“More than 115 people have been slain in the District this year, a 17 percent increase over this time in 2019, which ended the year with a decade high,” reports The Washington Post.
D.C.’s numbers, however, pale by comparison to Chicago, where this weekend recorded 32 more people shot, with three dead.
According to the Sun-Times, there were 106 homicides in the city in July, a single-month body count almost equal to the toll D.C. has piled up in all of the first seven months of 2020.
A disproportionate number of the dead and wounded are Black Americans, and a disproportionate number of the shooters and killers are Black men.
If black lives matter, where is Black Lives Matter?
Rarely in these stories of shootings and killings does one read that the dead were the victims of rogue cops or white supremacists.
Indeed, the front page of Monday’s New York Times gave voice to the city’s Black and Hispanic leaders who are objecting to a proposed $1 billion cut in the police budget. The people in high-crime precincts, for whom these leaders speak, want more, not fewer, cops on the beat.
Even Portland, Oregon, which has been indulging nightly protests since the killing of George Floyd, seems to be awakening to the real world.
When the Department of Homeland Security pulled its agents out of Portland and handed the defense of the Mark Hatfield federal courthouse to the state police, the “peaceful protesters” shifted their attention to the city’s buildings and Portland Police Bureau’s East Precinct.
With police personnel corralled inside, the East Precinct was barricaded with cars and wooden planks, and an attempt was made to set it afire by throwing flaming objects into the building.
Mugged by reality, Mayor Ted Wheeler seems to have belatedly awakened to the character of the protesters he has been coddling:
“When you commit arson with an accelerant in an attempt to burn down a building that is occupied by people whom you have intentionally trapped inside, you are not demonstrating, you are attempting to commit murder.”
Equally problematic: “You will be creating the B-roll film that will be used in ads nationally to help Donald Trump during his campaign.”
Portland police union president Daryl Turner was enraged at what he had seen. “I am disgusted that our City has come to this,” said Turner. “If it is acceptable for rioters to… try and burn down occupied buildings, and if this conduct is allowed to continue, then Portland is lost.”
Wheeler, having gotten the message the rioters have been trying to deliver, finally ordered his city’s police to do “what is necessary” to quell the rioting, even if it means using tear gas.
What has happened in Portland, and across much of America, was predictable, and predicted.
First, the progressives tolerate and even celebrate civil disobedience, because the cause is just and noble. Then, to hold onto public attention, the protesters march and block traffic. Next comes the cursing of cops, the throwing of trash, water bottles and rocks. Then there’s the smashing of store windows, looting and arson, and Molotov cocktails. Finally, there’s instigating violence with cops to get footage of police fighting back so the law enforcement officers can be painted by the progressive press as stormtroopers and the Gestapo.
In Portland, we reached the point where “peaceful protesters” tried to set a building ablaze with cops barricaded inside.
This, as the mayor said, is attempted murder.
Today, people watch their leaders in city after city fail to keep the peace and restore order as protesters riot at will, and they make plans to move out. In the suburbs and country, they quietly observe the inability of cops to quell the violence, and they buy guns.
While the right backs Trump’s stand for law and order, the ultimate battle here may be between liberal Democrats elected to, and failing to, run the cities, and the radical left and Marxists who welcome their failure as they intend to kick the liberals down the stairs.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”


theamericanconservative--2020-08-12--Bloody Kansas Primary Proves Why We Need Ranked Choice Voting

Party infighting made this Senate seat vulnerable for the first time in 80 years .
It did n't have to be that way .
Kansas Republicans finally have their nominee for the U.S. Senate .
As much of the party establishment hoped , U.S. Rep. Roger Marshall defeated former secretary of state Kris Kobach and two other contenders on Tuesday and will square off against state senator Barbara Bollier this fall .
Marshall won just 40 percent of the vote , but finished ahead of Kobach ’ s 26 percent in second place .
It only took millions of dollars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bitter intra-party finger pointing and strife , and so much heartburn that even the makers of Tums wanted the race to be over .
Meanwhile , as Republicans squandered dollars and fought amongst themselves , Bollier had the spotlight to herself and weeks to define herself as she looks to swipe a seat that the GOP has held uninterrupted for more than 80 years .
All of this could have been avoided .
If Kansas Republicans simply used ranked choice voting , the GOP would have had an easy and proven method to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a crowded field .
They would have saved money .
No one would need to be concerned about a divisive plurality winner losing the general election in November .
And it would be easier to unify for the fall , as every candidate would have made the best case for themselves , rather than casting opponents as spoilers and telling GOP primary goers that they were wasting their vote .
This extraordinarily negative race turned nasty in April when state party chair Mike Kuckelman tried to elbow two of the middle-tier candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way for Marshall and Kobach to go one on one .
It didn ’ t go over well .
While former state senate president Susan Wagel did depart in late May , businessman Bob Hamilton ( “ Send in a plumber to drain the swamp ” ) and former Kansas City Chiefs football player Dave Lindstrom stayed in the race .
National Republicans , fearful that the controversial Kobach ’ s base could prove victorious in a crowded primary field , but then cost the party a reliable red seat in the fall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and mailers .
They worried about a repeat of 2018 , when Kobach narrowly wrestled the party ’ s nomination for governor away from incumbent Jeff Colyer with just 40.6 percent of the vote , then lost to Democrat Laura Kelly in the fall .
That drew the attention of Sens .
Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz , who actively lobbied President Trump , unsuccessfully , to endorse Marshall and keep a usually safe seat in GOP hands .
Marshall , meanwhile , directed much of his fire at Hamilton and Lindstrom .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the words written on an elementary school chalkboard , read “ Bob Hamilton + Dave Lindstrom = Kris Kobach.
” “ Math can be complicated , ” it said .
“ Elections shouldn ’ t be .
A vote for Hamilton or Lindstrom is a vote for Kris Kobach.
” Ranked choice voting would have offered a better answer .
All it requires is 1,2,3 .
Voters sort the field in order .
If no one in a crowded field wins 50 percent during the first round , the last place candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until someone wins a majority .
There are no spoilers .
Everyone can vote for the candidate they like the most , without worrying that they will elect the person they like least .
Best of all , it avoids the harder math calculations that voters have to make whenever there are more than two candidates in a race .
After all , Republicans , like all voters , like choices and want to make up their own minds .
More than a quarter of GOP primary voters on Tuesday backed Hamilton or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of the vote and now must spend time unifying Republicans .
In his concession speech , Kobach blamed the GOP establishment for “ try [ ing ] to take out a conservative who was threatening to win this race , ” and said that $ 3 million of “ withering , ” “ false ” attack ads created a “ storm that did its damage , obviously.
” Kansas voters know RCV well .
Democrats used it here successfully in the spring during their presidential primary .
In other states , Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Utah , more than 3,000 Republican state convention delegates cast RCV ballots to endorse candidates and winnow fields for Congress and governors .
Virginia Republicans used RCV in key congressional contests , including one where the consensus candidate emerged after finishing third in first choices , and will use it to pick their chair this month .
At the Republicans ’ virtual state convention in Indiana , delegates nominated Todd Rokita over a scandal-plagued incumbent who led in first choices , but lost the instant runoff .
Elections can be messy , expensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hate to see that much firepower used against fellow party members .
All those attack ads only make political consultants and the big TV stations rich .
With ranked choice voting , parties could save all that money—and give the voters the power to decide , instead .
David Daley is the author of Unrigged : How Americans Are Battling Back to Save Democracy and the national best seller Ratf**ked : Why Your Vote Doesn ’ t Count .
He is a senior fellow at FairVote .

Kansas Republicans finally have their nominee for the U.S. Senate. As much of the party establishment hoped, U.S. Rep. Roger Marshall defeated former secretary of state Kris Kobach and two other contenders on Tuesday and will square off against state senator Barbara Bollier this fall. Marshall won just 40 percent of the vote, but finished ahead of Kobach’s 26 percent in second place.
It only took millions of dollars in TV attack ads, months of bitter intra-party finger pointing and strife, and so much heartburn that even the makers of Tums wanted the race to be over.
Meanwhile, as Republicans squandered dollars and fought amongst themselves, Bollier had the spotlight to herself and weeks to define herself as she looks to swipe a seat that the GOP has held uninterrupted for more than 80 years.
All of this could have been avoided. If Kansas Republicans simply used ranked choice voting, the GOP would have had an easy and proven method to determine the candidate with the most support from a crowded field. They would have saved money. No one would need to be concerned about a divisive plurality winner losing the general election in November.
And it would be easier to unify for the fall, as every candidate would have made the best case for themselves, rather than casting opponents as spoilers and telling GOP primary goers that they were wasting their vote.
This extraordinarily negative race turned nasty in April when state party chair Mike Kuckelman tried to elbow two of the middle-tier candidates out of the race and clear the way for Marshall and Kobach to go one on one. It didn’t go over well. While former state senate president Susan Wagel did depart in late May, businessman Bob Hamilton (“Send in a plumber to drain the swamp”) and former Kansas City Chiefs football player Dave Lindstrom stayed in the race.
National Republicans, fearful that the controversial Kobach’s base could prove victorious in a crowded primary field, but then cost the party a reliable red seat in the fall, funneled millions into negative TV ads and mailers. They worried about a repeat of 2018, when Kobach narrowly wrestled the party’s nomination for governor away from incumbent Jeff Colyer with just 40.6 percent of the vote, then lost to Democrat Laura Kelly in the fall. That drew the attention of Sens. Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz, who actively lobbied President Trump, unsuccessfully, to endorse Marshall and keep a usually safe seat in GOP hands.
Marshall, meanwhile, directed much of his fire at Hamilton and Lindstrom. One statewide mailer from his campaign, with the words written on an elementary school chalkboard, read “Bob Hamilton + Dave Lindstrom = Kris Kobach.” “Math can be complicated,” it said. “Elections shouldn’t be. A vote for Hamilton or Lindstrom is a vote for Kris Kobach.”
Ranked choice voting would have offered a better answer. All it requires is 1,2,3. Voters sort the field in order. If no one in a crowded field wins 50 percent during the first round, the last place candidates are eliminated and an instant runoff ensues until someone wins a majority. There are no spoilers. Everyone can vote for the candidate they like the most, without worrying that they will elect the person they like least. Best of all, it avoids the harder math calculations that voters have to make whenever there are more than two candidates in a race.
After all, Republicans, like all voters, like choices and want to make up their own minds. More than a quarter of GOP primary voters on Tuesday backed Hamilton or Lindstrom nevertheless. Marshall won with 40.3 percent of the vote and now must spend time unifying Republicans. In his concession speech, Kobach blamed the GOP establishment for “try[ing] to take out a conservative who was threatening to win this race,” and said that $3 million of “withering,” “false” attack ads created a “storm that did its damage, obviously.”
Kansas voters know RCV well. Democrats used it here successfully in the spring during their presidential primary. In other states, Republicans used RCV successfully this year. In Utah, more than 3,000 Republican state convention delegates cast RCV ballots to endorse candidates and winnow fields for Congress and governors. Virginia Republicans used RCV in key congressional contests, including one where the consensus candidate emerged after finishing third in first choices, and will use it to pick their chair this month. At the Republicans’ virtual state convention in Indiana, delegates nominated Todd Rokita over a scandal-plagued incumbent who led in first choices, but lost the instant runoff.
Elections can be messy, expensive and divisive. But party leaders should hate to see that much firepower used against fellow party members. All those attack ads only make political consultants and the big TV stations rich. With ranked choice voting, parties could save all that money—and give the voters the power to decide, instead.
David Daley is the author of Unrigged: How Americans Are Battling Back to Save Democracy and the national best seller Ratf**ked: Why Your Vote Doesn’t Count. He is a senior fellow at FairVote.


theamericanconservative--2020-08-12--Why Did It Have to Be Kamala?

Why Did It Have to Be Kamala?

US Senator Kamala Harris ( D-CA ) speaks during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing titled `` Examining Best Practices for Incarceration and Detention During COVID-19 , '' in the Dirksen Building in Washington , DC on June 2 , 2020 .
( Photo by TOM WILLIAMS/POOL/AFP via Getty Images ) The California congresswoman isn ’ t a nationally known quantity by any stretch of the imagination .
But she has served in the House of Representatives for four terms and seemed to check every box on the Biden campaign ’ s wish list : African-American , able to shore up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump .
Perhaps he got squeamish over her ties to socialist groups , which conservatives have been blaring about for days .
Whatever the case , the pick is in .
And it ’ s Kamala .
Why did it have to be Kamala ?
I ’ m not asking that question as a conservative .
I ’ m not even asking as a TV viewer , who found her debate performances absolutely unwatchable .
I ’ m asking as a man adrift , as someone who genuinely can ’ t see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the late-term abortion-supporting , Green New Deal-loving Harris would have been too left-wing to get the Democratic presidential nomination .
Today , at least among Democrats , she ’ s more like the Goldilocks candidate , only at a time when passions are running high and “ just right ” won ’ t cut it .
She ’ s too liberal for the moderates and not liberal enough for the left-wing activists .
She ’ s too soft on immigration for the law-and-order crowd and too tough on crime for Black Lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boxes , to be sure , the first African-American woman and Asian American to ever be on a presidential ticket .
But she ’ s also best known for having locked up a hell of a lot of African Americans at a time when police abuse is a nationwide sore spot .
She hails from California , not a known swing state .
She ticked off Catholics , whom Biden needs to win , when she implied last year that membership in the Knights of Columbus could be grounds for disqualification from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Biden personally , having once said she believed women who accused him of making them feel uncomfortable ( this was before Tara Reade came forward—someone should ask her about that , too ) .
This is an instant reaction piece with all the limitations thereof .
No doubt over the next week , we ’ ll be treated to endless paragraph-recycling reports at Politico that breathlessly relay every tidbit of gossip as to what the Biden campaign was thinking .
And it isn ’ t like Harris doesn ’ t have her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all accounts a success story .
She can be a tough cross-examiner , which could translate into debate success , if only she can drop the habit of behaving like she ’ s perpetually auditioning for a GIF .
She ’ s approved of by the Lincoln Project , which represents a wide array of Americans , from political consultants to political pollsters .
A knowledgeable colleague sends along two other upsides : she ’ s popular among deep-pocketed California donors and any dirt on her is already out thanks to her prior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may be that she really does turn out to be Goldilocks : instead of repelling liberals and moderates , both will sigh and accept her .
Maybe she ’ ll even help win over independents and less engaged voters , distancing herself from her more extreme positions , using her evident intellect and charisma to charm rather than confuse .
Still , it ’ s hard to see this as anything other than an uninspired pick .
During her last national outing , Harris didn ’ t even make it to the Iowa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ average was barely 3 percent .
Something went horribly wrong during that campaign , something Biden will have to make sure is rectified this time around .
Because there ’ s an uncharitable read on all this too .
It goes something like this : the Democrats are so immersed in identity politics that they simply picked the most prominent black woman they had on deck .
They confused clapbacks , which play well on Twitter , with amiability and openness , which play well in Toledo .
They think relentless Trump bashing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They assume they ’ re shoo-ins who can skate by on style rather than substance .
Whatever the case , now is a good time to rewatch Tulsi Gabbard ’ s brilliant takedown of Harris ’ criminal justice record during the CNN primary debate .
Observe how impoverished , superficial , and smug Harris ’ response to Gabbard was .
Listen to her pathetic dismissal of the exchange afterwards : “ I ’ m obviously a top-tier candidate.
” Which brings us to one final irony : as the streets fill with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Democrats have offered up what is , at least so far as résumés go , their most tough-on-crime presidential ticket of my lifetime .

I really thought Karen Bass had a fighting chance.
The California congresswoman isn’t a nationally known quantity by any stretch of the imagination. But she has served in the House of Representatives for four terms and seemed to check every box on the Biden campaign’s wish list: African-American, able to shore up his progressive base, voted to impeach Donald Trump. Perhaps he got squeamish over her ties to socialist groups, which conservatives have been blaring about for days.
Whatever the case, the pick is in. And it’s Kamala. Why did it have to be Kamala?
I’m not asking that question as a conservative. I’m not even asking as a TV viewer, who found her debate performances absolutely unwatchable. I’m asking as a man adrift, as someone who genuinely can’t see the appeal here. Fifteen years ago, the late-term abortion-supporting, Green New Deal-loving Harris would have been too left-wing to get the Democratic presidential nomination. Today, at least among Democrats, she’s more like the Goldilocks candidate, only at a time when passions are running high and “just right” won’t cut it. She’s too liberal for the moderates and not liberal enough for the left-wing activists. She’s too soft on immigration for the law-and-order crowd and too tough on crime for Black Lives Matter.
She checks the identity politics boxes, to be sure, the first African-American woman and Asian American to ever be on a presidential ticket. But she’s also best known for having locked up a hell of a lot of African Americans at a time when police abuse is a nationwide sore spot. She hails from California, not a known swing state. She ticked off Catholics, whom Biden needs to win, when she implied last year that membership in the Knights of Columbus could be grounds for disqualification from a federal judgeship. She’s awkward for Biden personally, having once said she believed women who accused him of making them feel uncomfortable (this was before Tara Reade came forward—someone should ask her about that, too).
This is an instant reaction piece with all the limitations thereof. No doubt over the next week, we’ll be treated to endless paragraph-recycling reports at Politico that breathlessly relay every tidbit of gossip as to what the Biden campaign was thinking. And it isn’t like Harris doesn’t have her strong points. She’s by all accounts a success story. She can be a tough cross-examiner, which could translate into debate success, if only she can drop the habit of behaving like she’s perpetually auditioning for a GIF. She’s approved of by the Lincoln Project, which represents a wide array of Americans, from political consultants to political pollsters. A knowledgeable colleague sends along two other upsides: she’s popular among deep-pocketed California donors and any dirt on her is already out thanks to her prior campaigns.
In other words, it may be that she really does turn out to be Goldilocks: instead of repelling liberals and moderates, both will sigh and accept her. Maybe she’ll even help win over independents and less engaged voters, distancing herself from her more extreme positions, using her evident intellect and charisma to charm rather than confuse. Still, it’s hard to see this as anything other than an uninspired pick. During her last national outing, Harris didn’t even make it to the Iowa caucuses. Her Real Clear Politics polling average was barely 3 percent. Something went horribly wrong during that campaign, something Biden will have to make sure is rectified this time around.
Because there’s an uncharitable read on all this too. It goes something like this: the Democrats are so immersed in identity politics that they simply picked the most prominent black woman they had on deck. They confused clapbacks, which play well on Twitter, with amiability and openness, which play well in Toledo. They think relentless Trump bashing is what will win a national election. They assume they’re shoo-ins who can skate by on style rather than substance.
Whatever the case, now is a good time to rewatch Tulsi Gabbard’s brilliant takedown of Harris’ criminal justice record during the CNN primary debate. Observe how impoverished, superficial, and smug Harris’ response to Gabbard was. Listen to her pathetic dismissal of the exchange afterwards: “I’m obviously a top-tier candidate.” Which brings us to one final irony: as the streets fill with protesters, as police departments are defunded, the Democrats have offered up what is, at least so far as résumés go, their most tough-on-crime presidential ticket of my lifetime.


theamericanconservative--2020-08-13--Why Kanye’s Presidential Platform is Good News

He may not have a chance , but he ’ s offering something precious : Hope .
In the matter of rap artist Kanye West ’ s presidential campaign , the two storylines that most preoccupy the media are , a ) Is he crazy ?
and b ) Is this all a Republican plot to drain black votes away from Joe Biden ?
Yet there ’ s a third question that could be asked : Does West have something valuable to say ?
To answer that question , we might consider his presidential campaign platform , which he released @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the title grabs one ’ s attention : “ Creating a Culture of Life.
” That phrase , of course , is borrowed from the Catholic Church and embraced by the Right to Life Movement .
Indeed , if one had to identify one particular issue that West seems most focused on , it ’ s strengthening the family in general and opposing abortion in particular .
As the rapper said in an interview in October 2019 , It ’ s well known that , in recent years , West has undergone a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gospel tour of the nation , including Sunday services in prisons .
That tour also took him , in November 2019 , to Joel Osteen ’ s giant Lakewood Church in Houston .
In his onstage conversation with Osteen , West seemed both faith-oriented and at least somewhat political .
Standing in front of a banner that proclaimed , “ Jesus is King , ” West started by saying , “ I know that God ’ s been calling me for a long time , and the devil ’ s been distracting me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s familiar Sunday stuff , but then West veered into quasi-political material , when he denounced extramarital sex and alcohol , urging parents to be serious about “ protecting your kids from the indoctrination of the media.
” And then the audience heard a clip from his song , “ God Is , ” which includes the words , “ Jesus brought a revolution.
” We can pause to observe that of all the prominent mega-preachers , Osteen might seem to be the most apolitical , and yet , in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be the most revolutionary .
That is , unlike most preachers of any race , Osteen enjoys a large , multiracial , audience .
And from such diversity , one could find political strength .
That is , a political movement based on homey wisdom—leaving out ideological exotica—that could strike a chord in red , purple , and even blue America .
So now if we examine the West political platform , we see that it is barely more than 400 words—and that ’ s a sharp contrast with the Democratic and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tens of thousands of words .
As such , few people actually read the major-party platforms ; indeed , most of those interested in the platforms , are focused only on the language that concerns “ their ” issue , heedless of the overall engorgement of the document .
As such , over the decades , the major party platforms have sedimented into a repetitive jumble of jargon .
By contrast , West ’ s platform is clear , concise , and meant to be read—or , who knows , maybe rapped .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ so brief , in its ten , er , commandments , it ’ s worth seeing in its entirety .
And as we can see , in addition to mostly center-right prescriptions about personal values and societal verities—each one anchored in a Bible verse—the West platform includes , in points 4 and 8 , very specific adjurations against “ foreign quagmires ” and military “ aggression ” : • Restore faith and revive our Constitutional commitment to freedom of religion and the free exercise of one ’ s faith , demonstrated by restoring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We will not hide the truth from our children , but will declare to the next generation His praises and wonder.
” Psalm 78:4 “ God has plans to give us hope and a future.
” Jeremiah 29:11 • Provide leadership to restructure our country ’ s education system to serve the most at-risk and vulnerable populations allowing the widest possible range of educational and vocational paths to job opportunities and career success .
“ Direct your children on the right path.
” Proverbs 22:6 • Maintain a strong national defense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quick to tie up our country ’ s young men and women in foreign quagmires that do not advance our national interest , and which last for decades .
“ Through God we shall do valiantly.
” Psalm 60:12 • Reform the legal system to provide true justice , equitable for all citizens , regardless of race or ability to defend oneself in court .
Recognize the disparity in verdicts and prison sentences , caused by the lack of financial resources or legal assistance .
“ There will not be differing weights and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the approach to policing in a manner that treats all Americans the same , regardless of race , color , or ethnicity .
Refocus police forces on real crime .
Eliminate federal sentencing guidelines that tie the hands of judges , resulting in ridiculous sentences for the most minor offenses .
“ We will speak for those who can not speak for themselves.
” Proverbs 31:8 • Take care of the environment , diligently pursuing clean air and water as a national security priority and making renewables top priority .
“ The past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” 2 Corinthians 5:17 • Ensure that we always place Americans ’ best interest first and foremost in dealing with foreign affairs .
We must project strength , not aggression .
We want trust , but we must also verify .
We want fair trade , not one-sided deals that hurt American workers .
“ Blessed are the peacemakers , for they shall be called sons of God.
” Matthew 5:9 “ We will provide ways to motivate one another to acts of love and good works.
” Hebrews 10:24 • Creativity and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of innovation and development of other national strengths and resources .
“ He has given them skill in all kinds of work done.
” Exodus 35:35 The point here is not to argue that West should be president .
After all , a man who calls his political party “ The Birthday Party ” might be judged as lacking , shall we say , the requisite seriousness for the post .
And of course , many of his utterances might disqualify him in the minds of many , such as his on-air declaration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bush doesn ’ t care about black people.
” Also , who can forget his onstage antics that led Barack Obama to call him “ a jackass ” —twice .
Indeed , it ’ s not hard to find a long list of West ’ s comments that would be deemed out of bounds , and who knows what else journalistic diggers , and opposition researchers , would uncover .
In addition , of course , there ’ s the issue that he has never been elected to anything—and the presidency is probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politician to start his career .
( On the other hand , six presidents , including the incumbent , did , in fact , come to the White House with no prior elective experience . )
We can further observe that a heavy reliance on the Bible as a platform is not always a formula for political effectiveness .
For instance , there ’ s the notorious case of W. Lee “ Pappy ” O ’ Daniel , which provides an object lesson in what one does not want in an elected leader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country singer and biscuit pitchman who was so popular on the radio that he ran for governor in 1938 ; his platform was the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule .
He won in a landslide , and later , in 1941 , he was elected to the U.S. Senate .
But his act soon wore thin , forcing him into retirement .
Historians regard him as one of the worst-ever Texas office-holders .
Yet if we ease up on the political calculations , we might step back and admire the cultural and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who pledges a kinder and gentler America .
He ’ s a man who seeks an America where parents love their children—including their unborn children—and where foreign policy is about defense , not offense .
He ’ s a man , also , who speaks in language that crosses racial lines—indeed , a man whose very own family ( he is married to Kim Kardashian ) transcends racial categories .
West may never get to the White House as anything other than a guest .
Nevertheless , he ’ s offering something precious @ @ @

In the matter of rap artist Kanye West’s presidential campaign, the two storylines that most preoccupy the media are, a) Is he crazy? and b) Is this all a Republican plot to drain black votes away from Joe Biden?
Yet there’s a third question that could be asked: Does West have something valuable to say?
To answer that question, we might consider his presidential campaign platform, which he released on August 9. Right away, the title grabs one’s attention: “Creating a Culture of Life.” That phrase, of course, is borrowed from the Catholic Church and embraced by the Right to Life Movement.
Indeed, if one had to identify one particular issue that West seems most focused on, it’s strengthening the family in general and opposing abortion in particular. As the rapper said in an interview in October 2019,
Bro, we brainwashed out here. Come on . . . this a free man talking. Democrats had us voting Democrat for years . . . taking the fathers out of the home, Plan B, lowering our votes, making us abort our children. Gosh, they’re now killed.
It’s well known that, in recent years, West has undergone a religious conversion. He has led a gospel tour of the nation, including Sunday services in prisons.
That tour also took him, in November 2019, to Joel Osteen’s giant Lakewood Church in Houston. In his onstage conversation with Osteen, West seemed both faith-oriented and at least somewhat political. Standing in front of a banner that proclaimed, “Jesus is King,” West started by saying, “I know that God’s been calling me for a long time, and the devil’s been distracting me for a long time.”
Okay, that’s familiar Sunday stuff, but then West veered into quasi-political material, when he denounced extramarital sex and alcohol, urging parents to be serious about “protecting your kids from the indoctrination of the media.” And then the audience heard a clip from his song, “God Is,” which includes the words, “Jesus brought a revolution.”
We can pause to observe that of all the prominent mega-preachers, Osteen might seem to be the most apolitical, and yet, in his own quiet way, he could prove to be the most revolutionary. That is, unlike most preachers of any race, Osteen enjoys a large, multiracial, audience.
And from such diversity, one could find political strength. That is, a political movement based on homey wisdom—leaving out ideological exotica—that could strike a chord in red, purple, and even blue America.
So now if we examine the West political platform, we see that it is barely more than 400 words—and that’s a sharp contrast with the Democratic and Republican platforms, which run into the tens of thousands of words. As such, few people actually read the major-party platforms; indeed, most of those interested in the platforms, are focused only on the language that concerns “their” issue, heedless of the overall engorgement of the document. As such, over the decades, the major party platforms have sedimented into a repetitive jumble of jargon.
By contrast, West’s platform is clear, concise, and meant to be read—or, who knows, maybe rapped. In fact, because it’s so brief, in its ten, er, commandments, it’s worth seeing in its entirety. And as we can see, in addition to mostly center-right prescriptions about personal values and societal verities—each one anchored in a Bible verse—the West platform includes, in points 4 and 8, very specific adjurations against “foreign quagmires” and military “aggression”:
Restore faith and revive our Constitutional commitment to freedom of religion and the free exercise of one’s faith, demonstrated by restoring prayer in the classroom including spiritual foundations. “We will not hide the truth from our children, but will declare to the next generation His praises and wonder.” Psalm 78:4 Restore the sound national economy. Reduce household debt and student loan debt. “God has plans to give us hope and a future.” Jeremiah 29:11 Provide leadership to restructure our country’s education system to serve the most at-risk and vulnerable populations allowing the widest possible range of educational and vocational paths to job opportunities and career success. “Direct your children on the right path.” Proverbs 22:6 Maintain a strong national defense, fully prepared, but not so quick to tie up our country’s young men and women in foreign quagmires that do not advance our national interest, and which last for decades. “Through God we shall do valiantly.” Psalm 60:12 Reform the legal system to provide true justice, equitable for all citizens, regardless of race or ability to defend oneself in court. Recognize the disparity in verdicts and prison sentences, caused by the lack of financial resources or legal assistance. “There will not be differing weights and differing measures.” Proverbs 20:10 Reform the approach to policing in a manner that treats all Americans the same, regardless of race, color, or ethnicity. Refocus police forces on real crime. Eliminate federal sentencing guidelines that tie the hands of judges, resulting in ridiculous sentences for the most minor offenses. “We will speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.” Proverbs 31:8 Take care of the environment, diligently pursuing clean air and water as a national security priority and making renewables top priority. “The past is forgotten and everything can be new.” 2 Corinthians 5:17 Ensure that we always place Americans’ best interest first and foremost in dealing with foreign affairs. We must project strength, not aggression. We want trust, but we must also verify. We want fair trade, not one-sided deals that hurt American workers. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” Matthew 5:9 Support faith-based groups to provide vital local services, giving communities a shared purpose in government. “We will provide ways to motivate one another to acts of love and good works.” Hebrews 10:24 Creativity and the Arts can be an important source of innovation and development of other national strengths and resources. “He has given them skill in all kinds of work done.” Exodus 35:35
The point here is not to argue that West should be president. After all, a man who calls his political party “The Birthday Party” might be judged as lacking, shall we say, the requisite seriousness for the post. And of course, many of his utterances might disqualify him in the minds of many, such as his on-air declaration, in 2005, that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” Also, who can forget his onstage antics that led Barack Obama to call him “a jackass”—twice.
Indeed, it’s not hard to find a long list of West’s comments that would be deemed out of bounds, and who knows what else journalistic diggers, and opposition researchers, would uncover.
In addition, of course, there’s the issue that he has never been elected to anything—and the presidency is probably not the best place for a newbie politician to start his career. (On the other hand, six presidents, including the incumbent, did, in fact, come to the White House with no prior elective experience.)
We can further observe that a heavy reliance on the Bible as a platform is not always a formula for political effectiveness. For instance, there’s the notorious case of W. Lee “Pappy” O’Daniel, which provides an object lesson in what one does not want in an elected leader. O’Daniel was a Texas country singer and biscuit pitchman who was so popular on the radio that he ran for governor in 1938; his platform was the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. He won in a landslide, and later, in 1941, he was elected to the U.S. Senate. But his act soon wore thin, forcing him into retirement. Historians regard him as one of the worst-ever Texas office-holders.
Yet if we ease up on the political calculations, we might step back and admire the cultural and social artistry of West, a man who pledges a kinder and gentler America. He’s a man who seeks an America where parents love their children—including their unborn children—and where foreign policy is about defense, not offense.
He’s a man, also, who speaks in language that crosses racial lines—indeed, a man whose very own family (he is married to Kim Kardashian) transcends racial categories.
West may never get to the White House as anything other than a guest. Nevertheless, he’s offering something precious: Hope.


theamericanconservative--2020-08-14--Did Biden Just Paint Himself into a Corner?

Now that the confetti has fallen to the floor , tune in for what 's next with odd couple Kamala and Joe .
Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden ( R ) and his running mate Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-CA ) attend a coronavirus briefing at a makeshift studio at the Hotel DuPont on August 13 , 2020 in Wilmington , Delaware .
( Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images ) Accused of being a serial harasser in 2019 , Joe Biden did what comes naturally .
He apologized for perceived past misbehavior , and , to appease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman for a Biden ticket .
Reacting to the racial rage that erupted after the death of George Floyd under the knee of a white Minneapolis cop , Biden reacted again .
He put out word he would be looking closely for a Black woman to run with .
Thus did Joe paint himself into a corner .
For there was no Black female governor of any state in the Union , and there was only one Black woman in the U.S. Senate — Kamala Harris .
This presented a problem .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charged Biden with colluding with segregationist senators in the ’ 70s to block the busing of school children for racial balance .
Harris introduced the toxic charge against Biden with this sweet upfront concession : “ I don ’ t believe you are a racist.
” This Tuesday , Biden made a virtue out of necessity .
He chose Harris to run with him .
And did so just one day after receiving a letter from 100 prominent Black men led by rapper Sean “ Diddy ” Combs and radio host Charlamagne tha @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ For too long Black women have been asked to do everything from rally the troops to risk their lives for the Democratic Party with no acknowledgment , no respect , no visibility , and certainly not enough support .
“ Failing to select a Black woman in 2020 means you will lose the election .
… We don ’ t want to choose between the lesser of two evils and we don ’ t want to vote for the devil we know versus the devil we don ’ t because we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Astonishing .
Here are prominent Black Democrats describing the candidates they have had to support in recent years — Bill and Hillary Clinton , Al Gore , John Kerry , Joe Biden — as “ devils ” and the “ lesser of two evils.
” Last Friday , 700 “ Concerned Black Women Leaders ” delivered a similar letter to Biden demanding he put a Black woman on the ticket .
Wednesday , Biden complied .
But after the media ovation for Biden ’ s selection of Harris dies down , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her Senate seat in 2016 , Harris was a prosecutor and two-term attorney general of California who had established a reputation for being tough on petty criminals .
Biden , as chairman of the Senate judiciary committee , also had taken pride in helping craft the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 , which dramatically increased incarcerations and disproportionately affected Black men .
However , Black Lives Matter has pulled the Democratic Party sharply to the left on the issue of crime and cops with its battle cry of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today , two months after Floyd ’ s death , mayors and cops in Democratic cities are still bedeviled by rioters , looters , arsonists , anarchists and a criminal class that settles its quarrels with nightly killings and weekend shootouts .
The public is getting fed up .
People want their cops back , and leftist politicians and police are coming into increasing conflict .
The Black police chief of Seattle , Carmen Best , has retired rather than carry out the city ’ s decision to cut 50 percent of her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Los Angeles and Minneapolis have approved plans to reduce police budgets .
Meanwhile , shooting and killings are going up in almost every city including D.C. and New York , where more have died of gunshot wounds in 2020 than died all last year .
The president has staked out his position , and it does not lack for clarity .
President Donald Trump embraces the phrase “ law and order , ” denounces the “ defund-the-police ” movement as promoting anarchy , and offers federal aid and agents to cities that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and governor to demand the National Guard to deal with the crisis and condemns them for their chronic failure to safely secure cities they have run for decades .
Trump has been accused of taking us back to the Nixon era .
But 1968 was the culmination of a decade of soaring crime the likes of which the nation had not known .
At its convention in Chicago , the Democratic Party was ripped apart by anarchic violence and the police response .
In late September , even Hubert Humphrey was denouncing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every appearance .
But it is not certain that Biden ’ s sheltering in his basement and issuing his milquetoast responses to Portland , Seattle and the shootings , lootings and killings in Chicago , will prevail on Nov. 3 over Trump ’ s boisterous campaign call to crack down on criminals , go back to school , get back to work and “ play ball.
” Biden-Harris looks like a ticket content to sit on its lead and ride to victory in November , the way Governor Dewey did in 1948 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nixon ’ s White House Wars : The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever .

Accused of being a serial harasser in 2019, Joe Biden did what comes naturally. He apologized for perceived past misbehavior, and, to appease his accusers, pledged to choose a woman for a Biden ticket.
Reacting to the racial rage that erupted after the death of George Floyd under the knee of a white Minneapolis cop, Biden reacted again. He put out word he would be looking closely for a Black woman to run with.
Thus did Joe paint himself into a corner.
For there was no Black female governor of any state in the Union, and there was only one Black woman in the U.S. Senate — Kamala Harris.
This presented a problem. For in the first debate, Harris had charged Biden with colluding with segregationist senators in the ’70s to block the busing of school children for racial balance.
Harris introduced the toxic charge against Biden with this sweet upfront concession: “I don’t believe you are a racist.”
This Tuesday, Biden made a virtue out of necessity.
He chose Harris to run with him. And did so just one day after receiving a letter from 100 prominent Black men led by rapper Sean “Diddy” Combs and radio host Charlamagne tha God that read like an ultimatum.
“For too long Black women have been asked to do everything from rally the troops to risk their lives for the Democratic Party with no acknowledgment, no respect, no visibility, and certainly not enough support.
“Failing to select a Black woman in 2020 means you will lose the election. … We don’t want to choose between the lesser of two evils and we don’t want to vote for the devil we know versus the devil we don’t because we are tired of voting for devils — period.”
Astonishing. Here are prominent Black Democrats describing the candidates they have had to support in recent years — Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Joe Biden — as “devils” and the “lesser of two evils.”
Last Friday, 700 “Concerned Black Women Leaders” delivered a similar letter to Biden demanding he put a Black woman on the ticket.
Wednesday, Biden complied. But after the media ovation for Biden’s selection of Harris dies down, a new reality will emerge.
Before winning her Senate seat in 2016, Harris was a prosecutor and two-term attorney general of California who had established a reputation for being tough on petty criminals.
Biden, as chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, also had taken pride in helping craft the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which dramatically increased incarcerations and disproportionately affected Black men.
However, Black Lives Matter has pulled the Democratic Party sharply to the left on the issue of crime and cops with its battle cry of “defund the police!”
Yet, today, two months after Floyd’s death, mayors and cops in Democratic cities are still bedeviled by rioters, looters, arsonists, anarchists and a criminal class that settles its quarrels with nightly killings and weekend shootouts.
The public is getting fed up. People want their cops back, and leftist politicians and police are coming into increasing conflict.
The Black police chief of Seattle, Carmen Best, has retired rather than carry out the city’s decision to cut 50 percent of her budget.
Elected officials in New York, Los Angeles and Minneapolis have approved plans to reduce police budgets. Meanwhile, shooting and killings are going up in almost every city including D.C. and New York, where more have died of gunshot wounds in 2020 than died all last year.
The president has staked out his position, and it does not lack for clarity. President Donald Trump embraces the phrase “law and order,” denounces the “defund-the-police” movement as promoting anarchy, and offers federal aid and agents to cities that request help. He calls on mayors and governor to demand the National Guard to deal with the crisis and condemns them for their chronic failure to safely secure cities they have run for decades.
Trump has been accused of taking us back to the Nixon era.
But 1968 was the culmination of a decade of soaring crime the likes of which the nation had not known. At its convention in Chicago, the Democratic Party was ripped apart by anarchic violence and the police response. In late September, even Hubert Humphrey was denouncing the “fascists” shouting him down at every appearance.
Undeniably, Trump has his problems.
But it is not certain that Biden’s sheltering in his basement and issuing his milquetoast responses to Portland, Seattle and the shootings, lootings and killings in Chicago, will prevail on Nov. 3 over Trump’s boisterous campaign call to crack down on criminals, go back to school, get back to work and “play ball.”
Biden-Harris looks like a ticket content to sit on its lead and ride to victory in November, the way Governor Dewey did in 1948.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.


theamericanconservative--2020-08-15--Getting Behind Enlightened Nationalism

Getting Behind Enlightened Nationalism

In devising new policies , let us marry the patriotism of Theodore Roosevelt to the human vision of Wilhelm Roëpke .
The US flag flies over shipping cranes and containers after a report said the United States and China are close to reaching a major trade deal that would see both sides lower some of the tariffs imposed during an often-bitter trade war , in Long Beach , California on March 4 , 2019 .
( Photo by Mark RALSTON / AFP ) ( Photo by MARK RALSTON/AFP via Getty Images ) Enlightened nationalism is not some blind worship of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nationalism that wishes to denigrate or dominate others .
It is a passionate attachment to one ’ s own country : it ’ s history , heroes , literature , traditions , culture , language , and faith .
It is the spirit that enables a people to endure , as the Polish people endured , under occupation , to rise again to live in the sunlight .
Intellectuals , writes Regis Debray , “ forget that nations hibernate , but empires grow old…that the American nation will outlast the Atlantic empire as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Empire.
” This community called a nation is more than any “ division of labor , ” or “ market ” that may encompass it .
An economy is not a country .
A nation ’ s economic system should reinforce the bonds of national unity , but the nation is of a higher order than any imaginary construct of an economist .
A nation is organic , alive , it has a beating heart .
The people of a nation are a moral community who must share values higher than economic interest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As scholar Christian Kopff asks , “ What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world , and suffer the loss of his country ?
” What is wrong with the Global Economy is what is wrong with our politics ; it is rooted in the myth of the Economic Man .
It elevates economics above all else .
But man does not live by bread alone .
In a true nation many things are placed on a higher altar than maximum efficiency or a maximum variety of consumer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Neither the national economy nor the free market is an end in itself .
They are means to an end .
A national economy is not some wild roaring river that must be allowed to find any course it will , to be admired for its raw power and beauty .
It is to be tamed for the benefit of the nation .
The same holds true for the market .
While an unfettered free market is the most efficient mechanism to distribute the goods of a nation , there are higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ market is a form of idolatry no less than worshipping the state .
The market should be made to work for man , not the other way around .
“ What is the market ?
It is the law of the jungle , the law of nature .
And what is civilization ?
It is the struggle against nature.
” So declared France ’ s Prime Minister Edouard Balladur at the close of the GATT negotiations of 1993 ; he is right .
In devising new policies , let us marry the patriotism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Wilhelm Roëpke , the student of von Mises and refugee from Hitler whose vision informed the post-war miracle of Ludwig Erhard .
Roëpke “ saw the market as but one section of society… ‘ whose existence is justifiable and possible only because it is part of a larger whole which concerns not economics but philosophy and theology.
’ …There is more to the whole of life…than maximizing GNP.
” What do we mean by “ economic nationalism ?
” We mean tax and trade policies that put America before the Global Economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before what is best for “ mankind.
” Trade is not an end in itself ; it is the means to an end , to a more just society and more self-reliant nation .
Our trade and tax policies should be designed to strengthen U.S. sovereignty and independence and should manifest a bias toward domestic , rather than foreign commerce .
For , as von Mises said , peaceful commerce binds people together , and Americans should relay more on one another .
A human economy will harness the mighty engine of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efficiency or maximum output .
Neither the goodness nor the greatness of a nation is measured in GDP .
America was a good country before it became a great nation .
Efficiency does not come first .
The good society , a decent income for all our families , the good life for all our people , come first .
What are the goals of a new nationalism and human economy ?
Full employment , with our working people as well compensated and rewarded as any on earth .
A standard of living @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ family wage ” that enables a single parent to feed , clothe , house , and educate a large family in decency .
A tax system that leaves Americans with the largest share of the fruits of their labor of any industrial democracy .
Diminished dependence on foreign trade for the necessities of national life .
Self-sufficiency in all areas of industry and technology vital to the national security .
Maximum freedom for citizens and private institutions—consistent with a moral community and the common good .
This article was excerpted from Pat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Great Betrayal : How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy .
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “ Nixon ’ s White House Wars : The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever .
”

Enlightened nationalism is not some blind worship of the nation. It is not a nationalism that wishes to denigrate or dominate others. It is a passionate attachment to one’s own country: it’s history, heroes, literature, traditions, culture, language, and faith. It is the spirit that enables a people to endure, as the Polish people endured, under occupation, to rise again to live in the sunlight.
Intellectuals, writes Regis Debray, “forget that nations hibernate, but empires grow old…that the American nation will outlast the Atlantic empire as the Russian nation will outlast the Soviet Empire.” This community called a nation is more than any “division of labor,” or “market” that may encompass it.
An economy is not a country. A nation’s economic system should reinforce the bonds of national unity, but the nation is of a higher order than any imaginary construct of an economist. A nation is organic, alive, it has a beating heart. The people of a nation are a moral community who must share values higher than economic interest, or their nation will not endure. As scholar Christian Kopff asks, “What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his country?”
What is wrong with the Global Economy is what is wrong with our politics; it is rooted in the myth of the Economic Man. It elevates economics above all else. But man does not live by bread alone. In a true nation many things are placed on a higher altar than maximum efficiency or a maximum variety of consumer goods. Once, conservatives understood that.
Neither the national economy nor the free market is an end in itself. They are means to an end. A national economy is not some wild roaring river that must be allowed to find any course it will, to be admired for its raw power and beauty. It is to be tamed for the benefit of the nation.
The same holds true for the market. While an unfettered free market is the most efficient mechanism to distribute the goods of a nation, there are higher values than efficiency. To worship the market is a form of idolatry no less than worshipping the state. The market should be made to work for man, not the other way around.
“What is the market? It is the law of the jungle, the law of nature. And what is civilization? It is the struggle against nature.” So declared France’s Prime Minister Edouard Balladur at the close of the GATT negotiations of 1993; he is right.
In devising new policies, let us marry the patriotism of Theodore Roosevelt to the human vision of Wilhelm Roëpke, the student of von Mises and refugee from Hitler whose vision informed the post-war miracle of Ludwig Erhard. Roëpke “saw the market as but one section of society…‘whose existence is justifiable and possible only because it is part of a larger whole which concerns not economics but philosophy and theology.’…There is more to the whole of life…than maximizing GNP.”
What do we mean by “economic nationalism?” We mean tax and trade policies that put America before the Global Economy and the well-being of our own people before what is best for “mankind.” Trade is not an end in itself; it is the means to an end, to a more just society and more self-reliant nation. Our trade and tax policies should be designed to strengthen U.S. sovereignty and independence and should manifest a bias toward domestic, rather than foreign commerce. For, as von Mises said, peaceful commerce binds people together, and Americans should relay more on one another.
A human economy will harness the mighty engine of a free market for higher ends than maximum efficiency or maximum output. Neither the goodness nor the greatness of a nation is measured in GDP. America was a good country before it became a great nation. Efficiency does not come first. The good society, a decent income for all our families, the good life for all our people, come first.
What are the goals of a new nationalism and human economy?
Full employment, with our working people as well compensated and rewarded as any on earth.
A wider, deeper distribution of property and prosperity.
A standard of living that rises each year, and a “family wage” that enables a single parent to feed, clothe, house, and educate a large family in decency.
A tax system that leaves Americans with the largest share of the fruits of their labor of any industrial democracy.
Diminished dependence on foreign trade for the necessities of national life.
Restoration of America’s lost sovereignty.
Self-sufficiency in all areas of industry and technology vital to the national security.
Maximum freedom for citizens and private institutions—consistent with a moral community and the common good.
This article was excerpted from Pat Buchanan’s 1998 book, The Great Betrayal: How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”