theamericanconservative--2020-02-27--Bannon Goes Back To War

Bannon Goes Back To War

Depending on your perspective , they ’ re insiders ’ outsiders or outsiders ’ insiders .
Nearly every morning—working weekends would seem an afterthought for this set—during this frigid Washington winter , Stephen Bannon , President Trump ’ s notorious ex-guru ; Raheem Kassam , longtime consigliere to Bannon and Brexit mastermind Nigel Farage ; and Jason Miller , chief spox on Trump ’ s 2016 campaign , gather in Bannon ’ s bunker .
It ’ s the basement of an equally notorious Capitol Hill row house rented by Bannon , “ the embassy , ” formerly the headquarters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ started a radio show and podcast , “ The War Room , ” named for the opposition research hub featured in most modern campaigns , and lifting from the “ # WAR ” mentality Bannon made famous at Breitbart .
That Bannon ’ s newest venture—the podcast , assorted websites , and a confusing web of radio shows , co-hosted with and filled in for old allies—mixes what still passes for journalism with the gloss of a modern campaign is no accident .
I ’ ve visited the show twice since it launched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s developed speed , reasonably well-watched , well-attended , and well-financed .
Its architect certainly has , as the ever-caffeinated Bannon is raring to go by 9 a.m. On a recent visit , Bannon regaled his motley crew , including Virginia political kingmaker John Fredericks and the veteran operative Jack Maxey , with stories about how it ’ s antebellum politics all over again .
The pre-Civil War era clearly weighs on the strategist ’ s mind .
Revolutionary moments , generally , are an idee fixe .
“ I ’ m a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ historian Ronald Radosh at a party in Washington .
The Baby Boomers—its leadership class , at least—are the worst generation in American history , Bannon has said to me .
For the assembled , the project is nothing less than a political beachhead .
For “ The War Room , ” it ’ s the best of times and it ’ s the worst .
The core troika—Bannon , Kassam , and Miller—delivered Trump to power four short years ago , but they are not , officially at least , in power themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House communications director in the midst of a brutal personal scandal with fellow Trump campaign official A.J .
Delgado , with whom he fathered a child .
Kassam , a British national , is ineligible for government service , but nonetheless departed Breitbart in recent years after his own clashes with the post-Bannon leadership .
He also had a short-lived tenure helming the rebooted Human Events .
And Bannon ’ s complicated relationship with Trump—he was labeled “ Trump ’ s brain , ” to the president ’ s obvious displeasure—is the stuff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day , the radio show still attracts a king ’ s court of Republicans : Rudy Giuliani , the president ’ s personal attorney ; Mark Meadows , the House Freedom Caucus frontman ; Representative Matt Gaetz .
Counterfactuals are for suckers , but to argue that a Trump decoupled from Bannon ’ s populist-nationalist vision , Kassam ’ s cross-pollination with Brexit Britain , and Miller ’ s moxie , would have triumphed , I think , is to truly miss the moment .
Celebrity alone didn ’ t allow Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American society .
It was his operative set that utilized asymmetric warfare to take out the country ’ s two leading dynasties , first the Bush brahmins , and then clan Clinton .
The continued paucity of intellectual and operational architecture on the Right is demonstrated by the continued necessity of admittedly slapdash outfits like Bannon ’ s .
A couple of guys in a basement can seem more effective than the whole of Republicans in Congress .
That Trump alone was able to channel a message of immigration restrictionism , in tandem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservatism , of a sort , mixed with economic nationalism—is , in retrospect , astonishing .
But as former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld told filmmaker Errol Morris ( who also profiled Bannon ) , “ Everything ’ s amazing in retrospect.
” As Darren J. Beattie , formerly of the White House and now an aide to Gaetz , notes , in 2016 , Donald Trump found a thousand dollar bill on the ground and picked it up .
A ruling class that dismisses his ascent as a Russian racket , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as Bernie Sanders ’ current stampede through the Democratic ranks illustrates .
If Sanders , as Beattie notes , leverages a brewing generational war , he will also have the opportunity to pick up a ten thousand dollar bill .
That is , of course , the long-term question with Bannon : is he , whether you approve or disapprove , still on the bleeding edge of American politics ?
When Trump took power , Bannon inherited the mantle of Dick Cheney , the malevolent mastermind behind it all in the mind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Russian fanatic Alexander Dugin to a budding dark web with nationalists in the old country , no association was too outlandish , no dot connected implausible .
A personality cult developed , especially in the journo-political class around Washington , which had just completely missed the boat .
The view was , simply : it had been Bannon , not Trump , all along .
No official , not James “ Mad Dog ” Mattis , not the mustached madman John Bolton , not the oil baron Rex Tillerson , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peaks Bannon did in the public ’ s imagination ; it would also be his downfall in the White House .
It ’ s Bannon ’ s greatest asset and greatest weakness in what is effectively his post-Trump life .
Having seen the chaos of the White House up close and in person , Bannon flirted with the most pessimistic interpretations of the Trump trajectory .
Robert Mueller , the special counsel , was going to “ crack Don Jr. , ” the president ’ s son , “ like an egg.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of conservative media , this set bought in hard on the idea that the congressional Democrats ’ crusade actually mattered .
On Trump ’ s re-election chances , Bannon told me before the Senate vote that he couldn ’ t honestly assess them until he ’ d seen how an acquittal would shake out .
Fair enough .
But now that the acquittal has come to pass , the question is what to do .
The Trump movement , generally , suffers from an almost schizophrenic oscillation between a desire to be normalized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How the movement handles an increasingly plausible Sanders ascension will be telling .
There are different ideas about where to go .
Bannon lent cover to Fox News foreign policy realist Tucker Carlson in a recent New York Times report on how the Right was reacting to the fallout from the recent American assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani .
While Bannon was not exactly against the strike , he ’ s been clear he thinks outright war with Iran would spoil everything .
For some , this is rich .
After all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ve reported , for the rise of John Bolton , an Iran hawk par excellence , in Trump ’ s orbit .
But the alliance is clearly at ebb , with even Bannon buddy Fred Fleitz , the former Bolton chief of staff , breaking with his mentor .
Still , Bannon , and many on the Right , viewed Bolton ’ s rise as necessary , even a necessary evil—better a nationalist than a neoconservative .
The venom directed toward Bolton , even now , pales in comparison to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
McMaster .
The Trump movement at its least creative can take on the air of the dog that caught the car .
Kassam , unlike Bannon , was a zealous advocate of the strike that slew Soleimani .
Come a year from now , Trump will either be a past president or on his way to being a lame duck .
The interesting ideological questions are already , in some ways , post-Trump .
How Bannon , “ The War Room , ” and the contradictory impulses of the modern Right all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will tell us all we need to know about the future .

Depending on your perspective, they’re insiders’ outsiders or outsiders’ insiders.
Nearly every morning—working weekends would seem an afterthought for this set—during this frigid Washington winter, Stephen Bannon, President Trump’s notorious ex-guru; Raheem Kassam, longtime consigliere to Bannon and Brexit mastermind Nigel Farage; and Jason Miller, chief spox on Trump’s 2016 campaign, gather in Bannon’s bunker. It’s the basement of an equally notorious Capitol Hill row house rented by Bannon, “the embassy,” formerly the headquarters of Breitbart News.
The trio have started a radio show and podcast, “The War Room,” named for the opposition research hub featured in most modern campaigns, and lifting from the “#WAR” mentality Bannon made famous at Breitbart. That Bannon’s newest venture—the podcast, assorted websites, and a confusing web of radio shows, co-hosted with and filled in for old allies—mixes what still passes for journalism with the gloss of a modern campaign is no accident. I’ve visited the show twice since it launched in the fall, and it’s developed speed, reasonably well-watched, well-attended, and well-financed. Its architect certainly has, as the ever-caffeinated Bannon is raring to go by 9 a.m.
On a recent visit, Bannon regaled his motley crew, including Virginia political kingmaker John Fredericks and the veteran operative Jack Maxey, with stories about how it’s antebellum politics all over again. The pre-Civil War era clearly weighs on the strategist’s mind. Revolutionary moments, generally, are an idee fixe. “I’m a Leninist,” Bannon infamously once told historian Ronald Radosh at a party in Washington. The Baby Boomers—its leadership class, at least—are the worst generation in American history, Bannon has said to me.
For the assembled, the project is nothing less than a political beachhead. For “The War Room,” it’s the best of times and it’s the worst. The core troika—Bannon, Kassam, and Miller—delivered Trump to power four short years ago, but they are not, officially at least, in power themselves. Miller missed out on becoming White House communications director in the midst of a brutal personal scandal with fellow Trump campaign official A.J. Delgado, with whom he fathered a child. Kassam, a British national, is ineligible for government service, but nonetheless departed Breitbart in recent years after his own clashes with the post-Bannon leadership. He also had a short-lived tenure helming the rebooted Human Events. And Bannon’s complicated relationship with Trump—he was labeled “Trump’s brain,” to the president’s obvious displeasure—is the stuff of legend.
Yet on any given day, the radio show still attracts a king’s court of Republicans: Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney; Mark Meadows, the House Freedom Caucus frontman; Representative Matt Gaetz. Counterfactuals are for suckers, but to argue that a Trump decoupled from Bannon’s populist-nationalist vision, Kassam’s cross-pollination with Brexit Britain, and Miller’s moxie, would have triumphed, I think, is to truly miss the moment. Celebrity alone didn’t allow Trump, for good and ill, to transform American society. It was his operative set that utilized asymmetric warfare to take out the country’s two leading dynasties, first the Bush brahmins, and then clan Clinton.
The continued paucity of intellectual and operational architecture on the Right is demonstrated by the continued necessity of admittedly slapdash outfits like Bannon’s. A couple of guys in a basement can seem more effective than the whole of Republicans in Congress.
That Trump alone was able to channel a message of immigration restrictionism, in tandem with trade protectionism and foreign policy restraint—social conservatism, of a sort, mixed with economic nationalism—is, in retrospect, astonishing. But as former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld told filmmaker Errol Morris (who also profiled Bannon), “Everything’s amazing in retrospect.”
As Darren J. Beattie, formerly of the White House and now an aide to Gaetz, notes, in 2016, Donald Trump found a thousand dollar bill on the ground and picked it up. A ruling class that dismisses his ascent as a Russian racket, or a celebrity carnival, risks repeat business, as Bernie Sanders’ current stampede through the Democratic ranks illustrates. If Sanders, as Beattie notes, leverages a brewing generational war, he will also have the opportunity to pick up a ten thousand dollar bill.
That is, of course, the long-term question with Bannon: is he, whether you approve or disapprove, still on the bleeding edge of American politics?
When Trump took power, Bannon inherited the mantle of Dick Cheney, the malevolent mastermind behind it all in the mind of liberal America. From Cambridge Analytica to the Russian fanatic Alexander Dugin to a budding dark web with nationalists in the old country, no association was too outlandish, no dot connected implausible. A personality cult developed, especially in the journo-political class around Washington, which had just completely missed the boat.
The view was, simply: it had been Bannon, not Trump, all along.
No official, not James “Mad Dog” Mattis, not the mustached madman John Bolton, not the oil baron Rex Tillerson, not the scandalous Anthony Scaramucci, summited the peaks Bannon did in the public’s imagination; it would also be his downfall in the White House. It’s Bannon’s greatest asset and greatest weakness in what is effectively his post-Trump life. Having seen the chaos of the White House up close and in person, Bannon flirted with the most pessimistic interpretations of the Trump trajectory. Robert Mueller, the special counsel, was going to “crack Don Jr.,” the president’s son, “like an egg.”
Impeachment was the crucible. Unlike most of conservative media, this set bought in hard on the idea that the congressional Democrats’ crusade actually mattered. On Trump’s re-election chances, Bannon told me before the Senate vote that he couldn’t honestly assess them until he’d seen how an acquittal would shake out. Fair enough. But now that the acquittal has come to pass, the question is what to do. The Trump movement, generally, suffers from an almost schizophrenic oscillation between a desire to be normalized and a need for continued revolt. How the movement handles an increasingly plausible Sanders ascension will be telling. There are different ideas about where to go.
Bannon lent cover to Fox News foreign policy realist Tucker Carlson in a recent New York Times report on how the Right was reacting to the fallout from the recent American assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani. While Bannon was not exactly against the strike, he’s been clear he thinks outright war with Iran would spoil everything.
For some, this is rich. After all, Bannon greased the wheels, as I’ve reported, for the rise of John Bolton, an Iran hawk par excellence, in Trump’s orbit. But the alliance is clearly at ebb, with even Bannon buddy Fred Fleitz, the former Bolton chief of staff, breaking with his mentor.
Still, Bannon, and many on the Right, viewed Bolton’s rise as necessary, even a necessary evil—better a nationalist than a neoconservative. The venom directed toward Bolton, even now, pales in comparison to the rightist attacks lobbed at his predecessor H.R. McMaster. The Trump movement at its least creative can take on the air of the dog that caught the car.
Kassam, unlike Bannon, was a zealous advocate of the strike that slew Soleimani. Come a year from now, Trump will either be a past president or on his way to being a lame duck.
The interesting ideological questions are already, in some ways, post-Trump.
How Bannon, “The War Room,” and the contradictory impulses of the modern Right all cohere, or fail to cohere, will tell us all we need to know about the future.


theamericanconservative--2020-02-26--It’s Not Anti-Law-and-Order to Back Prosecutorial Reform

If conservatives really want to fix the system , they will have to change the way criminal cases file through it .
If there is an invisible hand to the justice system , then it belongs to a prosecutor .
Prosecutors stand at many of the most momentous points in the criminal justice process , wielding the power to transform someone from a defendant and free person into a prisoner .
Yet as conservatives in state after state work to reshape the justice system , prosecutorial reform is conspicuously absent from the agenda .
Why ?
The answer is surely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new criminal justice priorities .
While the political right is largely asleep on the potential of prosecutors , the left awoke to it a few years ago and embraced a vision of “ progressive prosecutors.
” Since then , a growing number of progressives have been elected in urban centers and other liberal enclaves on promises to reduce mass incarceration and eliminate racial and ethnic disparities .
Many have made remarkable strides , and their successes ought to be celebrated .
But “ progressive ” is hardly synonymous with fair , just , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interested in all of those things have no desire whatsoever to wear the “ progressive ” label or see the world through that lens .
This is what makes the lack of prosecutorial reform on the right so glaring .
Part of the problem may well be the quintessential conservative belief that Policy with a capital “ P ” is exclusively for the legislature to decide .
In this view , prosecutors are little more than administrators and should not attempt to alter in any way the broader course of the justice system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecutors are there simply to enforce it .
Except that ’ s not how things actually work .
The legislature can not possibly outline which cases to prioritize , which charges to file , or which plea bargains to offer—only a prosecutor can do that .
Prosecutorial discretion and the Policy it sets are inevitable .
And the system , frankly , is better for it , because discretion leads to more local control , with each prosecutor asserting the needs and preferences of their town or city .
So perhaps the responsibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ launch on the right lies with the natural inclination of most conservatives to support members of law enforcement .
They recognize that the great majority of prosecutors are hardworking , justice-minded individuals , and that the word “ reform ” implies there is a problem that needs fixing .
But if that ’ s the case , it misconstrues the nature of prosecutorial reform and does no service to the prosecutors they are aiming to support .
It is possible to be pro-prosecutor and pro-reform ; indeed , the best reforms are those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and those with whom they interact .
For example , prosecutorial annual caseloads can reach over a thousand cases in some places .
Rallying behind reforms like charging policies that can lower these staggering numbers is very much a defense of , not an assault on , prosecutors .
Whatever the reason for their reticence , conservatives stand only to benefit by seizing the mantle of prosecutorial reform .
A prosecutor willing to reimagine the status quo can simultaneously advance the four priorities that have guided conservative criminal justice reform : improved public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due process protections , and respect for life and the value of family .
In many instances , they may be able to do a better job than the legislatures upon which conservatives have thus far concentrated their efforts .
After all , while legislators can write all the criminal laws they want , it is up to prosecutors to determine how they are actually going to play out in practice .
It is possible , for instance , to try to rein in the size of the justice system legislatively by scaling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Yet doing so would require dozens or even hundreds of legislators working in concert on multiple bills .
Possible , sure .
Simple or straightforward ?
Hardly .
Consider , on the other hand , what a single elected prosecutor can do for a jurisdiction .
Charging and plea-bargaining alone mean that prosecutors effectively determine who enters the system and how roughly 95 percent will exit it .
With a stroke of her pen , a single district attorney can sign a new policy that immediately reshapes the flow of criminal cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the legislature may wield greater power , but it is hard to compete with a prosecutor ’ s precision and speed .
Just look at the justice system transformation that has taken place under new district attorneys in Boston and San Francisco .
In Boston , prosecutors now presumptively divert or dismiss fifteen low-level misdemeanors , allowing prosecutors to focus on more serious offenses , while in San Francisco they unilaterally ended the use of cash bail so that pretrial release decisions reflect risk rather than wealth .
In both instances , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in either North Dakota , Alaska , Vermont , or Wyoming .
This is the force for change that conservatives have been neglecting .
All this speaks to why prosecutorial reform should be placed squarely at the forefront of the conservative criminal justice agenda .
If not the old tough-on-crime status quo or the new progressive prosecutor movement , what should conservatives expect from a prosecutor ?
To be , in a word , productive .
Rather than promoting mere illusions of success like conviction rates or sentence lengths , conservatives should consider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Do they increase safety , aid defendant rehabilitation , and help keep families whole ?
In short , are prosecutors doing everything in their power to improve community wellbeing ?
The rewards for embracing and advocating on behalf of a new vision of prosecution could prove great .
Polling suggests that voters of all stripes are eager for the types of reforms that prosecutors could help deliver on issues ranging from pretrial detention to sentencing outcomes .
Early successes by Republican chief prosecutors like Melissa Nelson in Florida and David Leavitt in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to being smarter and more evenhanded than one ’ s predecessor can be a winning strategy .
The history of the criminal justice reform movement shows that when conservatives prioritize an issue , they are able to achieve remarkable success .
This track record makes their general neglect of prosecutorial offices both perplexing and galling .
If conservatives truly want to reshape the justice system , then it is long past time for them to put the invisible hand of the prosecutor to use .
Lars Trautman is a senior fellow of criminal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ R Street Institute and a former assistant district attorney .

If there is an invisible hand to the justice system, then it belongs to a prosecutor. Prosecutors stand at many of the most momentous points in the criminal justice process, wielding the power to transform someone from a defendant and free person into a prisoner. Yet as conservatives in state after state work to reshape the justice system, prosecutorial reform is conspicuously absent from the agenda. Why?
The answer is surely not that prosecutors are unable to advance new criminal justice priorities. While the political right is largely asleep on the potential of prosecutors, the left awoke to it a few years ago and embraced a vision of “progressive prosecutors.” Since then, a growing number of progressives have been elected in urban centers and other liberal enclaves on promises to reduce mass incarceration and eliminate racial and ethnic disparities. Many have made remarkable strides, and their successes ought to be celebrated.
But “progressive” is hardly synonymous with fair, just, or effective prosecution. Plenty of prosecutors interested in all of those things have no desire whatsoever to wear the “progressive” label or see the world through that lens. This is what makes the lack of prosecutorial reform on the right so glaring.
Part of the problem may well be the quintessential conservative belief that Policy with a capital “P” is exclusively for the legislature to decide. In this view, prosecutors are little more than administrators and should not attempt to alter in any way the broader course of the justice system. The law is the law; prosecutors are there simply to enforce it.
Except that’s not how things actually work. The legislature cannot possibly outline which cases to prioritize, which charges to file, or which plea bargains to offer—only a prosecutor can do that. Prosecutorial discretion and the Policy it sets are inevitable. And the system, frankly, is better for it, because discretion leads to more local control, with each prosecutor asserting the needs and preferences of their town or city.
So perhaps the responsibility for prosecutorial reform’s failure to launch on the right lies with the natural inclination of most conservatives to support members of law enforcement. They recognize that the great majority of prosecutors are hardworking, justice-minded individuals, and that the word “reform” implies there is a problem that needs fixing.
But if that’s the case, it misconstrues the nature of prosecutorial reform and does no service to the prosecutors they are aiming to support. It is possible to be pro-prosecutor and pro-reform; indeed, the best reforms are those that will improve the lot of prosecutors and those with whom they interact. For example, prosecutorial annual caseloads can reach over a thousand cases in some places. Rallying behind reforms like charging policies that can lower these staggering numbers is very much a defense of, not an assault on, prosecutors.
Whatever the reason for their reticence, conservatives stand only to benefit by seizing the mantle of prosecutorial reform. A prosecutor willing to reimagine the status quo can simultaneously advance the four priorities that have guided conservative criminal justice reform: improved public safety, greater fiscal responsibility, stronger due process protections, and respect for life and the value of family. In many instances, they may be able to do a better job than the legislatures upon which conservatives have thus far concentrated their efforts.
After all, while legislators can write all the criminal laws they want, it is up to prosecutors to determine how they are actually going to play out in practice. It is possible, for instance, to try to rein in the size of the justice system legislatively by scaling back the criminal code or sentencing ranges. Yet doing so would require dozens or even hundreds of legislators working in concert on multiple bills. Possible, sure. Simple or straightforward? Hardly.
Consider, on the other hand, what a single elected prosecutor can do for a jurisdiction. Charging and plea-bargaining alone mean that prosecutors effectively determine who enters the system and how roughly 95 percent will exit it. With a stroke of her pen, a single district attorney can sign a new policy that immediately reshapes the flow of criminal cases. At the end of the day, the legislature may wield greater power, but it is hard to compete with a prosecutor’s precision and speed.
Just look at the justice system transformation that has taken place under new district attorneys in Boston and San Francisco. In Boston, prosecutors now presumptively divert or dismiss fifteen low-level misdemeanors, allowing prosecutors to focus on more serious offenses, while in San Francisco they unilaterally ended the use of cash bail so that pretrial release decisions reflect risk rather than wealth. In both instances, these changes affected more people than reside in either North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, or Wyoming. This is the force for change that conservatives have been neglecting.
All this speaks to why prosecutorial reform should be placed squarely at the forefront of the conservative criminal justice agenda. If not the old tough-on-crime status quo or the new progressive prosecutor movement, what should conservatives expect from a prosecutor?
To be, in a word, productive. Rather than promoting mere illusions of success like conviction rates or sentence lengths, conservatives should consider the actual outcomes that prosecutorial decisions produce. Do they increase safety, aid defendant rehabilitation, and help keep families whole? In short, are prosecutors doing everything in their power to improve community wellbeing?
The rewards for embracing and advocating on behalf of a new vision of prosecution could prove great. Polling suggests that voters of all stripes are eager for the types of reforms that prosecutors could help deliver on issues ranging from pretrial detention to sentencing outcomes. Early successes by Republican chief prosecutors like Melissa Nelson in Florida and David Leavitt in Utah show that a renewed conservative commitment to being smarter and more evenhanded than one’s predecessor can be a winning strategy.
The history of the criminal justice reform movement shows that when conservatives prioritize an issue, they are able to achieve remarkable success. This track record makes their general neglect of prosecutorial offices both perplexing and galling. If conservatives truly want to reshape the justice system, then it is long past time for them to put the invisible hand of the prosecutor to use.
Lars Trautman is a senior fellow of criminal justice and civil liberties policy at the R Street Institute and a former assistant district attorney.


theamericanconservative--2020-02-26--With Bernie, Trump May Regret What He Started

Democratic presidential nominee hopeful Bernie Sanders speaks to his supporters on the eve of the Nevada caucus .
( Photo credit Jeremy Hogan / Echoes Wire/Barcroft Media via Getty Images ) An ancient Hebrew rabbinical text , sometimes called The Apocalypse of Abraham , tells the story of Abraham ’ s father , Terah , who manufactured statuette idols , considered gods by the local population .
A young Abraham noticed that the head of one of these idols had fallen off during transport .
He had a revelation : these were false gods made by humans ; they had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true God then called on Abraham to leave his father ’ s idolatrous house , which was promptly destroyed by fire from heaven .
For many Americans , the idols whose heads have fallen off are the members of the Republican and Democratic establishments .
The emergence of Trump and Sanders as the leaders of their respective parties indicates that they ’ ve concluded that our traditional political gods are phony , so let ’ s burn the whole thing to the ground .
The political class appears to them to be filled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in morality but rigging the game for themselves .
The rise of Bernie Sanders , coming on the heels of Donald Trump ’ s remarkable presidency , is a sign that our nation has reached an epoch , a distinctive historical period representing a profound break from past authority .
A growing number of Americans no longer recognize the traditional political establishment as their rightful rulers .
This revolution puts at risk of ignominy not only our politicians but the whole cultural class that has supported them—leaders in education , the arts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are all experiencing a crisis of legitimacy .
Our system is entering uncharted waters .
Certain long-established categories of American politics may still apply for the time being : an incumbent president with a good economy probably has an advantage , while a left-wing candidate who is out of the electoral mainstream will face a significant undertow .
With Sanders at the top of the ticket , Democrats may not enjoy the same success “ down the ballot ” as they did in 2018 .
Many affluent suburbanites , for example , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they voted against Republicans in the recent midterms , will likely change their minds to avoid having their wealth diminished by Bernie .
But Republicans are being hubristic if they fail to recognize that Sanders is riding the same wave that gave us Trump—a wave so big it could even wash a socialist into the White House .
Trump ’ s margin for error is not as significant as many Republicans believe ; recall that in 2016 , some establishment Republicans saw Jeb !
as a shoo-in and Trump as a sure loser @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is not sui generis , but has much in common with the 2016 support for Trump .
Democrats want to overthrow their own establishment in the same way Trump voters ransacked the leadership of the GOP .
Trumpers wanted the Bush family to go away ; Bernie ’ s followers want to bury the Clinton-Biden cabal that lined its pockets as the middle class was hollowed out .
Both groups want the establishment gone .
Bernie Sanders ’ rise should thus not be seen exclusively through the banalities of the punditry class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a leftist victory over the “ moderates ” in his party .
Calls to nominate a “ moderate ” are rightly understood as doublespeak : the Democratic establishment really wants a candidate who can raise money from Goldman Sachs or Boeing and then sit idly as home values crater and working-class kids are sent to fight in useless wars .
They want a “ moderate ” because it will allow them to keep feathering their Beltway nests at the expense of everyone else .
Bernie may be very confused about economics , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sees it .
And Sanders ’ policies are not out of the mainstream of the current Democrat Party ; in fact , they ’ re only inches to the left of many of his primary opponents such as Elizabeth Warren .
The Democratic Party is a socialist party—and it is quite popular .
Bernie is distinguishing himself in this primary field , not because he is a socialist , but because he wants to upset the entire political apple cart .
He is winning because he is talking about revolution , not in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ candidacy is deftly riding the wave of this new epoch , he may be more formidable than Republicans expect .
Trump has gone wobbly on many of the core issues that animated his 2016 candidacy .
His pledge to get out of Middle East wars was followed by the appointment of hawkish Bush-style neoconservative advisors who are now fomenting a war with Iran , which would be a death sentence for his candidacy .
You can bank on the fact that Bernie ’ s foreign policy team will send him to campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where Trump ’ s warlike posture in the Middle East is hardly as popular in working-class neighborhoods as it is at the American Enterprise Institute .
Trump ’ s attacks on Wall Street during his campaign were promptly followed by the appointment of Goldman Sachs ’ own Gary Cohn to be his chief economic advisor and the swift death of his pledge to end the carried interest loophole for hedge funds .
Trump has no doubt managed the economy well , but he is in many ways an establishment Republican so far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s marquee promise to shut down illegal immigration on the southern border can not be considered a success , as Ann Coulter will testify .
And while the wisdom of a wall might be questioned , the failure to build it could be a clear political liability to the president among his base .
The economy is quite strong and middle class wages are rising .
If things stay that way , and if we avoid another Middle East war , Trump is clearly the favorite to win in November .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is facing a candidate who is even less a creature of the establishment than he was in 2016 .
The heads of once-sacred idols have fallen off .
William S. Smith is research fellow and managing director at the Center for the Study of Statesmanship at The Catholic University of America .

An ancient Hebrew rabbinical text, sometimes called The Apocalypse of Abraham, tells the story of Abraham’s father, Terah, who manufactured statuette idols, considered gods by the local population. A young Abraham noticed that the head of one of these idols had fallen off during transport. He had a revelation: these were false gods made by humans; they had no spiritual or existential power. The true God then called on Abraham to leave his father’s idolatrous house, which was promptly destroyed by fire from heaven.
For many Americans, the idols whose heads have fallen off are the members of the Republican and Democratic establishments. The emergence of Trump and Sanders as the leaders of their respective parties indicates that they’ve concluded that our traditional political gods are phony, so let’s burn the whole thing to the ground.
The political class appears to them to be filled with empty vessels, not only lacking in morality but rigging the game for themselves. The rise of Bernie Sanders, coming on the heels of Donald Trump’s remarkable presidency, is a sign that our nation has reached an epoch, a distinctive historical period representing a profound break from past authority. A growing number of Americans no longer recognize the traditional political establishment as their rightful rulers. This revolution puts at risk of ignominy not only our politicians but the whole cultural class that has supported them—leaders in education, the arts, business, entertainment, and the media are all experiencing a crisis of legitimacy. Our system is entering uncharted waters.
Certain long-established categories of American politics may still apply for the time being: an incumbent president with a good economy probably has an advantage, while a left-wing candidate who is out of the electoral mainstream will face a significant undertow. With Sanders at the top of the ticket, Democrats may not enjoy the same success “down the ballot” as they did in 2018. Many affluent suburbanites, for example, who felt cultural distance from Donald Trump when they voted against Republicans in the recent midterms, will likely change their minds to avoid having their wealth diminished by Bernie.
But Republicans are being hubristic if they fail to recognize that Sanders is riding the same wave that gave us Trump—a wave so big it could even wash a socialist into the White House. Trump’s margin for error is not as significant as many Republicans believe; recall that in 2016, some establishment Republicans saw Jeb! as a shoo-in and Trump as a sure loser.
The enthusiasm for Sanders, therefore, is not sui generis, but has much in common with the 2016 support for Trump. Democrats want to overthrow their own establishment in the same way Trump voters ransacked the leadership of the GOP. Trumpers wanted the Bush family to go away; Bernie’s followers want to bury the Clinton-Biden cabal that lined its pockets as the middle class was hollowed out. Both groups want the establishment gone.
Bernie Sanders’ rise should thus not be seen exclusively through the banalities of the punditry class, which views his popularity simply as a leftist victory over the “moderates” in his party. Calls to nominate a “moderate” are rightly understood as doublespeak: the Democratic establishment really wants a candidate who can raise money from Goldman Sachs or Boeing and then sit idly as home values crater and working-class kids are sent to fight in useless wars. They want a “moderate” because it will allow them to keep feathering their Beltway nests at the expense of everyone else. Bernie may be very confused about economics, but he knows a seething electorate when he sees it.
And Sanders’ policies are not out of the mainstream of the current Democrat Party; in fact, they’re only inches to the left of many of his primary opponents such as Elizabeth Warren. The Democratic Party is a socialist party—and it is quite popular. Bernie is distinguishing himself in this primary field, not because he is a socialist, but because he wants to upset the entire political apple cart. He is winning because he is talking about revolution, not in spite of it.
Given that Sanders’ candidacy is deftly riding the wave of this new epoch, he may be more formidable than Republicans expect. Trump has gone wobbly on many of the core issues that animated his 2016 candidacy. His pledge to get out of Middle East wars was followed by the appointment of hawkish Bush-style neoconservative advisors who are now fomenting a war with Iran, which would be a death sentence for his candidacy. You can bank on the fact that Bernie’s foreign policy team will send him to campaign in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, where Trump’s warlike posture in the Middle East is hardly as popular in working-class neighborhoods as it is at the American Enterprise Institute.
Trump’s attacks on Wall Street during his campaign were promptly followed by the appointment of Goldman Sachs’ own Gary Cohn to be his chief economic advisor and the swift death of his pledge to end the carried interest loophole for hedge funds. Trump has no doubt managed the economy well, but he is in many ways an establishment Republican so far as his economic policies go.
Trump’s marquee promise to shut down illegal immigration on the southern border cannot be considered a success, as Ann Coulter will testify. And while the wisdom of a wall might be questioned, the failure to build it could be a clear political liability to the president among his base.
The economy is quite strong and middle class wages are rising. If things stay that way, and if we avoid another Middle East war, Trump is clearly the favorite to win in November. But it should give him pause that he is facing a candidate who is even less a creature of the establishment than he was in 2016. The heads of once-sacred idols have fallen off.
William S. Smith is research fellow and managing director at the Center for the Study of Statesmanship at The Catholic University of America.


theamericanconservative--2020-02-26--The Cost of Being an Entirely Bourgeois Nation

We do n't make things anymore , including our own medicines .
What happens when our dependence on globalization is really put to the test ?
For the first six months of our marriage , my wife and I have settled on a little patch of rural Michigan while she finishes her master ’ s degree .
Folks here were hit hard by the collapse of American industry : one out of every three of our neighbors lives below the poverty line .
The town is welfare-dependent , and it shows : the local Walmart is filled with overweight men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ towheads .
They never change out of their pajamas , but they drive souped-up F-150s , blaring the radios day and night , though 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. seems to be rush hour .
Hardly a week goes by when we don ’ t open the local paper to find that yet another meth lab has blown up .
On our afternoon walks , we pass two of these charred wrecks ; they ’ ll lie abandoned for a few years until the city tears them down .
To think that some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since shuttered ) built that quaint little home for his new wife to raise their kids in .
Now his granddaughter sleeps on a mattress in the kitchen with six of her closest friends , all of them shooting heroin and burning trash in the fireplace to keep warm .
Just past the tree line , the county opens up into hundreds of square miles of flat , golden farmland .
The number of farms in this country is slowly dwindling and what remains is absurdly misused .
About four times more acreage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s what most of this rich soil is used for out here : the raw ingredient for toxins like ethanol and high-fructose corn syrup , all paid for by taxpayer subsidies .
But drive about 20 minutes north of town and you come to a long , straight road where the power lines don ’ t dip towards the houses .
There are cornfields , yes—but there ’ s also pumpkin patches , chicken coops , and cow pastures .
Come through at night and you see little fires drifting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broad shadows : horse-drawn buggies with torches for headlights , filled with stocky men in straw hats and wool frock coats .
Welcome to Amish country .
The Old Order is clever .
They move into towns like this , where globalism has wrecked the local economy , and buy up land cheap .
They grow all the crops and raise all the animals they need to support their community ; whatever ’ s left over , they sell at the farmer ’ s market and use the profits to buy the little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Pepsi , for the most part ) .
The contrast between the “ English ” Michiganders and the Amish is striking .
If you described the Amish lifestyle—no phones or internet , homemade clothes , etc.—it sounds like they ’ re barely getting by .
And yet they ’ re doing better than many of us who enjoy all the conveniences of modern life .
Their economy is self-sustaining , highly localized , and virtually immune to stock market trends .
They flourish where we falter because they do without .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Caesars or Dollar General .
They have their land , their one-room schoolhouse , and their church .
That ’ s all they need , and it ’ s all they really want .
This may sound like an apologia for becoming an Anabaptist and living with the plain folk .
It ’ s not—though I ’ ve never understood why neoliberals call distributists “ Catholic Amish , ” as though the comparison is somehow unflattering .
Nevertheless , there ’ s a lesson to be learned here about how we measure economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past articles , I ’ ve warned about the perils of mindlessly chasing unlimited “ economic growth.
” The fact of the matter is that our economy is already too big—too complicated , too cumbersome—to provide for the real needs of our citizens .
We ’ re not capable of supporting ourselves : not as families and not as a nation .
We simply don ’ t have the capacity to create the things we need to survive .
And in the event of a major fiscal catastrophe , we ’ re absolutely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though it ’ s a poignant one .
If the stock market collapsed tomorrow , fewer than 50 percent of farmers—about 0.25 percent of all Americans—could survive off their own crops .
They ’ re the minority who own the land they work .
The rest are employed by landlords or agricultural corporations .
They ’ re not growing food to feed their families or their communities ; that ’ s not the point .
They ’ re producing whatever crops will maximize profits for their landlords .
They ’ re not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re serfs .
And what happens if we do find ourselves in an economic emergency ?
If you think Bayer-Monsanto or the Gladstone Land Corporation will free up their tenants to grow the produce and raise the livestock that their neighbors need to survive the Greater Depression , you ’ re out of your mind .
We ’ ve run into the same problem with oil in recent years .
How many wars have we fought , how many young men and women have we sent to shed their blood in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supply of cheap gasoline back home ?
How many times have we turned a blind eye to the crimes of Saudi Arabia because they account for 10 percent of our petroleum imports ( which is absurd , given that we export seven times more petroleum than we import from the Kingdom ) ?
Of course , none of it matters unless we do find ourselves in the throes of some financial catastrophe .
Anyone who raises such concerns is dismissed as a fear-monger or a hypocrite , but that catastrophe might be just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Sunday , this country may soon find itself with a shortage of life-saving medicine .
Thanks to the coronavirus , exports from China are slowing to a trickle .
This will almost certainly affect our supply of pharmaceuticals , since we import the ingredients to about 150 prescription drugs .
Just don ’ t say we weren ’ t warned .
Long before the coronavirus reared its head , national security experts were warning about the United States ’ dangerous dependence on the People ’ s Republic for our pharmaceutical needs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ exports of medicines and their key ingredients and raw material , U.S. hospitals and military hospitals and clinics would cease to function within months , if not days , ” says Rosemary Gibson , author of the book China Rx .
She ’ s also written about the effect of coronavirus on our supplies , on these pages , here .
Brigadier General John Adams shares her concern .
“ Basically , we ’ ve outsourced our entire industry to China , ” he told NBC last September .
“ That is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take a communist coup against the American hegemon for us to realize just how vulnerable we really are .
And what makes it all so much worse is that it doesn ’ t have to be this way .
We ’ re more than capable of making everything we need for ourselves .
The problem is , we sold off our agricultural and industrial base and invested all of our stock in non-productive sectors .
Retail , finance , and hospitality alone account for 25 percent of American jobs .
Manufacturing and farming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is the cost of creating an entirely bourgeois nation .
In order for every American to enjoy the trappings of a middle-class lifestyle , we had to be able to produce and buy all of our goods at third-world prices .
That meant ditching the standards of first-world labor : wages , workplace safety standards , bargaining rights , the lot .
Now we have more people employed in selling things than in making them .
It ’ s madness .
In the United States , three out of every 25 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sector…yet we can ’ t even produce our own penicillin .
That ’ s just one of the ( literally ) countless jobs we ’ ve outsourced to China .
Now we ’ re facing a shortage of chemotherapy drugs and antidepressants .
Remember that .
And look : the good folks at the American Enterprise Institute can come up with a hundred and one reasons why globalism has benefited mankind—not only the wealthy and the middle class , but also the very poor .
And often enough , they ’ re right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( as they will be soon enough ) , none of that will matter .
The standard libertarian retort against critics of free-market economics has always been some variation of : “ You say you hate industrial capitalism , but what about antibiotics ?
” Well it looks like we ’ re going to run out of those too—just as we ran out of industry .
At what point do we have permission to ask if maybe , possibly , we need to rethink the way we do economics ?
Forget supply- and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ need-side economics , ” a way of looking at the markets that accounts , first and foremost , for the basic necessities of life .
Because that ’ s precisely what we can ’ t provide for ourselves .
We sent Donald Trump to the White House with a mandate to revive America ’ s productive sectors .
He started out strong , bringing thousands of jobs in manufacturing back to the United States , but his attention quickly drifted elsewhere .
Hopefully the coronavirus will bring his priorities back into focus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chummy with the Chinese communists and far too apologetic for their own crimes—much to the dismay of his supporters .
Now ’ s his chance to win our trust back .
Let him get back to the vital work of restoring America ’ s economic independence and self-determination .
Only then can he deliver our country from its dangerous dependence on unstable global markets and unreliable foreign powers .
A nation must be able to feed , shelter , and heal itself .
Otherwise it isn ’ t a nation at all .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Crisis Magazine .
He is the author of The Reactionary Mind ( Regnery , 2021 ) .

For the first six months of our marriage, my wife and I have settled on a little patch of rural Michigan while she finishes her master’s degree. Folks here were hit hard by the collapse of American industry: one out of every three of our neighbors lives below the poverty line. The town is welfare-dependent, and it shows: the local Walmart is filled with overweight men and women hollering at their three unruly towheads. They never change out of their pajamas, but they drive souped-up F-150s, blaring the radios day and night, though 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. seems to be rush hour.
Hardly a week goes by when we don’t open the local paper to find that yet another meth lab has blown up. On our afternoon walks, we pass two of these charred wrecks; they’ll lie abandoned for a few years until the city tears them down. To think that some worker at the steel mill (long since shuttered) built that quaint little home for his new wife to raise their kids in. Now his granddaughter sleeps on a mattress in the kitchen with six of her closest friends, all of them shooting heroin and burning trash in the fireplace to keep warm.
Just past the tree line, the county opens up into hundreds of square miles of flat, golden farmland. The number of farms in this country is slowly dwindling and what remains is absurdly misused. About four times more acreage is devoted to corn than to vegetables. That’s what most of this rich soil is used for out here: the raw ingredient for toxins like ethanol and high-fructose corn syrup, all paid for by taxpayer subsidies.
But drive about 20 minutes north of town and you come to a long, straight road where the power lines don’t dip towards the houses. There are cornfields, yes—but there’s also pumpkin patches, chicken coops, and cow pastures. Come through at night and you see little fires drifting up the road on the helm of broad shadows: horse-drawn buggies with torches for headlights, filled with stocky men in straw hats and wool frock coats. Welcome to Amish country.
The Old Order is clever. They move into towns like this, where globalism has wrecked the local economy, and buy up land cheap. They grow all the crops and raise all the animals they need to support their community; whatever’s left over, they sell at the farmer’s market and use the profits to buy the little luxuries they can’t make themselves (Pepsi, for the most part).
The contrast between the “English” Michiganders and the Amish is striking. If you described the Amish lifestyle—no phones or internet, homemade clothes, etc.—it sounds like they’re barely getting by. And yet they’re doing better than many of us who enjoy all the conveniences of modern life. Their economy is self-sustaining, highly localized, and virtually immune to stock market trends. They flourish where we falter because they do without. They have no use for Ford or Little Caesars or Dollar General. They have their land, their one-room schoolhouse, and their church. That’s all they need, and it’s all they really want.
This may sound like an apologia for becoming an Anabaptist and living with the plain folk. It’s not—though I’ve never understood why neoliberals call distributists “Catholic Amish,” as though the comparison is somehow unflattering. Nevertheless, there’s a lesson to be learned here about how we measure economic success and quality of life.
In past articles, I’ve warned about the perils of mindlessly chasing unlimited “economic growth.” The fact of the matter is that our economy is already too big—too complicated, too cumbersome—to provide for the real needs of our citizens. We’re not capable of supporting ourselves: not as families and not as a nation. We simply don’t have the capacity to create the things we need to survive. And in the event of a major fiscal catastrophe, we’re absolutely screwed.
Farming is just one example, though it’s a poignant one. If the stock market collapsed tomorrow, fewer than 50 percent of farmers—about 0.25 percent of all Americans—could survive off their own crops. They’re the minority who own the land they work. The rest are employed by landlords or agricultural corporations. They’re not growing food to feed their families or their communities; that’s not the point. They’re producing whatever crops will maximize profits for their landlords. They’re not the noble yeomen of Jeffersonian lore; they’re serfs.
And what happens if we do find ourselves in an economic emergency? If you think Bayer-Monsanto or the Gladstone Land Corporation will free up their tenants to grow the produce and raise the livestock that their neighbors need to survive the Greater Depression, you’re out of your mind.
We’ve run into the same problem with oil in recent years. How many wars have we fought, how many young men and women have we sent to shed their blood in far-flung deserts, to ensure a steady supply of cheap gasoline back home? How many times have we turned a blind eye to the crimes of Saudi Arabia because they account for 10 percent of our petroleum imports (which is absurd, given that we export seven times more petroleum than we import from the Kingdom)?
Of course, none of it matters unless we do find ourselves in the throes of some financial catastrophe. Anyone who raises such concerns is dismissed as a fear-monger or a hypocrite, but that catastrophe might be just around the corner. As Axios reported on Sunday, this country may soon find itself with a shortage of life-saving medicine. Thanks to the coronavirus, exports from China are slowing to a trickle. This will almost certainly affect our supply of pharmaceuticals, since we import the ingredients to about 150 prescription drugs.
Just don’t say we weren’t warned. Long before the coronavirus reared its head, national security experts were warning about the United States’ dangerous dependence on the People’s Republic for our pharmaceutical needs. “If China shut the door on exports of medicines and their key ingredients and raw material, U.S. hospitals and military hospitals and clinics would cease to function within months, if not days,” says Rosemary Gibson, author of the book China Rx. She’s also written about the effect of coronavirus on our supplies, on these pages, here.
Brigadier General John Adams shares her concern. “Basically, we’ve outsourced our entire industry to China,” he told NBC last September. “That is a strategic vulnerability.” It might not even take a communist coup against the American hegemon for us to realize just how vulnerable we really are.
And what makes it all so much worse is that it doesn’t have to be this way.
We’re more than capable of making everything we need for ourselves. The problem is, we sold off our agricultural and industrial base and invested all of our stock in non-productive sectors. Retail, finance, and hospitality alone account for 25 percent of American jobs. Manufacturing and farming, meanwhile, are just 10 percent.
This is the cost of creating an entirely bourgeois nation. In order for every American to enjoy the trappings of a middle-class lifestyle, we had to be able to produce and buy all of our goods at third-world prices. That meant ditching the standards of first-world labor: wages, workplace safety standards, bargaining rights, the lot. Now we have more people employed in selling things than in making them. It’s madness.
In the United States, three out of every 25 citizens is employed in the health care sector…yet we can’t even produce our own penicillin. That’s just one of the (literally) countless jobs we’ve outsourced to China. Now we’re facing a shortage of chemotherapy drugs and antidepressants. Remember that.
And look: the good folks at the American Enterprise Institute can come up with a hundred and one reasons why globalism has benefited mankind—not only the wealthy and the middle class, but also the very poor. And often enough, they’re right. But when the chips are down (as they will be soon enough), none of that will matter. The standard libertarian retort against critics of free-market economics has always been some variation of: “You say you hate industrial capitalism, but what about antibiotics?” Well it looks like we’re going to run out of those too—just as we ran out of industry.
At what point do we have permission to ask if maybe, possibly, we need to rethink the way we do economics? Forget supply- and demand-side: what we need is a “need-side economics,” a way of looking at the markets that accounts, first and foremost, for the basic necessities of life. Because that’s precisely what we can’t provide for ourselves.
We sent Donald Trump to the White House with a mandate to revive America’s productive sectors. He started out strong, bringing thousands of jobs in manufacturing back to the United States, but his attention quickly drifted elsewhere. Hopefully the coronavirus will bring his priorities back into focus. He’s been far too chummy with the Chinese communists and far too apologetic for their own crimes—much to the dismay of his supporters.
Now’s his chance to win our trust back. Let him get back to the vital work of restoring America’s economic independence and self-determination. Only then can he deliver our country from its dangerous dependence on unstable global markets and unreliable foreign powers. A nation must be able to feed, shelter, and heal itself. Otherwise it isn’t a nation at all.
Michael Warren Davis is the editor-in-chief of Crisis Magazine. He is the author of The Reactionary Mind (Regnery, 2021).


theamericanconservative--2020-02-25--The Case for Libertarian Lawsuit Reform

The Case for Libertarian Lawsuit Reform

Contrary to popular belief , the best way to ensure that workers enjoy good wages and working conditions is a policy of maximum free markets .
Government laws and regulations “ protecting ” workers raise the price of labor , causing many employers to refrain from expanding their workforces .
The result is that workers have fewer alternatives and thus less bargaining power .
If one wants to be truly pro-worker , one should be against the Department of Labor ’ s continuing abuse of its power ( and the court system ) to harass employees .
For example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department of Labor rolled out regulations that applied child labor laws to family farms .
This proposal was the subject of an outcry from those same farms , many of which had family members and local teenagers helping out with the traditional farm work .
As my boss and then-congressman Ron Paul said at the time , “ applying child labor laws to family farms is an outrageous assault on America ’ s farmers .
My parents were dairy farmers who required me and my brothers to help out on the farm .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and , as a representative of a congressional district containing a large number of farmers , I have had the opportunity to meet many farmers who learned about their profession by doing chores on their parents ’ farms .
Working on a family farm also provides a tremendous opportunity to form a strong work ethic that these children will carry through the rest of their lives.
” This was merely one of many bad regulatory ideas that came out of the Obama administration , but it was so objectionable that even Obama backed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the Obama administration ’ s assault on the franchise model of business .
As Quin Hillyer noted in the Washington Examiner , “ the Obama rule expanded the definition of ‘ employer ’ so that even if a business owner exercised ‘ control ’ over an employee that is only ‘ indirect , ’ the owner could be considered a ‘ joint employer ’ for purposes of labor law — with all the complicated rules and requirements pertaining to employer-employee relations.
” The Obama rule would have put national franchises , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in America , on the hook for employment disputes at local stores .
This rule was particularly harmful to young people who rely on farms for their first jobs .
The Trump administration rolled that regulation back , but it took three years to undo .
Trump also repealed another harmful Obama-era regulation that would have “ required companies with 100 or more workers to report detailed salary information to government bureaucrats by sex , race , job category , and other factors , ” according to a 2017 report by the Heritage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow trial lawyers access to this data so they could use them to sue companies with deep pockets .
A similar Obama-era policy that has not been changed by the Trump administration uses data on hiring and promotion collected from government contractors to claim discrimination .
One lawsuit , filed against Oracle , is based entirely on statistics with no witnesses or documentation to support its allegations .
The Wall Street Journal opined , “ Labor based its complaint solely on statistical analyses of Oracle ’ s workforce .
For instance , 82 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a technical position were Asian compared to 75 % of job applicants .
The department didn ’ t review worker applications or performance reviews to see if pay and hiring discrepancies could be explained by merit .
Labor also assumed employees with the same job title do the same work though that ’ s often not true.
” This is actual discrimination against a tech company on the part of the federal government .
Policies encouraging baseless lawsuits against some of our nation ’ s most successful businesses harm the very workers they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be truly pro-labor should join libertarians in working to end the regulatory state that gives bureaucrats and judges the power to violate constitutional rights of contract and property .
Norm Singleton is the chairman of Campaign for Liberty .
He previously served as an aide to Texas Congressman Ron Paul , and is a founding member of the Republican Liberty Caucus .

Contrary to popular belief, the best way to ensure that workers enjoy good wages and working conditions is a policy of maximum free markets.
Government laws and regulations “protecting” workers raise the price of labor, causing many employers to refrain from expanding their workforces. The result is that workers have fewer alternatives and thus less bargaining power. If one wants to be truly pro-worker, one should be against the Department of Labor’s continuing abuse of its power (and the court system) to harass employees.
For example, in 2012, President Obama’s Department of Labor rolled out regulations that applied child labor laws to family farms. This proposal was the subject of an outcry from those same farms, many of which had family members and local teenagers helping out with the traditional farm work.
As my boss and then-congressman Ron Paul said at the time, “applying child labor laws to family farms is an outrageous assault on America’s farmers. My parents were dairy farmers who required me and my brothers to help out on the farm. I certainly benefited from this experience, and, as a representative of a congressional district containing a large number of farmers, I have had the opportunity to meet many farmers who learned about their profession by doing chores on their parents’ farms. Working on a family farm also provides a tremendous opportunity to form a strong work ethic that these children will carry through the rest of their lives.” This was merely one of many bad regulatory ideas that came out of the Obama administration, but it was so objectionable that even Obama backed away from it.
Another bad policy was the Obama administration’s assault on the franchise model of business. As Quin Hillyer noted in the Washington Examiner, “the Obama rule expanded the definition of ‘employer’ so that even if a business owner exercised ‘control’ over an employee that is only ‘indirect,’ the owner could be considered a ‘joint employer’ for purposes of labor law — with all the complicated rules and requirements pertaining to employer-employee relations.” The Obama rule would have put national franchises, which include some of the most successful businesses in America, on the hook for employment disputes at local stores. This rule was particularly harmful to young people who rely on farms for their first jobs. The Trump administration rolled that regulation back, but it took three years to undo.
Trump also repealed another harmful Obama-era regulation that would have “required companies with 100 or more workers to report detailed salary information to government bureaucrats by sex, race, job category, and other factors,” according to a 2017 report by the Heritage Foundation. The rule was intended to allow trial lawyers access to this data so they could use them to sue companies with deep pockets.
A similar Obama-era policy that has not been changed by the Trump administration uses data on hiring and promotion collected from government contractors to claim discrimination. One lawsuit, filed against Oracle, is based entirely on statistics with no witnesses or documentation to support its allegations. The Wall Street Journal opined, “Labor based its complaint solely on statistical analyses of Oracle’s workforce. For instance, 82% of the employees Oracle hired for a technical position were Asian compared to 75% of job applicants. The department didn’t review worker applications or performance reviews to see if pay and hiring discrepancies could be explained by merit. Labor also assumed employees with the same job title do the same work though that’s often not true.” This is actual discrimination against a tech company on the part of the federal government.
Policies encouraging baseless lawsuits against some of our nation’s most successful businesses harm the very workers they claim to benefit. Those who want to be truly pro-labor should join libertarians in working to end the regulatory state that gives bureaucrats and judges the power to violate constitutional rights of contract and property.
Norm Singleton is the chairman of Campaign for Liberty. He previously served as an aide to Texas Congressman Ron Paul, and is a founding member of the Republican Liberty Caucus.


theamericanconservative--2020-02-25--Cuomo and the Urbanites Are Squeezing Rural New York to Death

Cuomo and the Urbanites Are Squeezing Rural New York to Death We 've reached an era where upstate counties are too emaciated to retain any meaningful representation in Albany .
This is the time of year when every day seems to bring a new outrage out of Albany .
Governor Andrew Cuomo wants to shift more state-mandated Medicaid expenses to counties ; he intends to rob local municipalities of revenue from casinos in their communities ; he seeks to burden small businesses , already struggling with high taxes and costly regulations , with mandatory guaranteed sick leave .
Last year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used the budget to saddle Upstate communities with bail reform and new discovery rules that are endangering lives and driving up costs for local governments .
One-party rule is breeding resentment in rural New York .
But it doesn ’ t have to be that way .
And it wouldn ’ t be if not for a landmark Supreme Court decision , Reynolds v. Sims .
The 1964 Warren court ruling attempted to address clear inequities in state legislatures .
There were states , such as Georgia and Tennessee , that had seriously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Reynolds , New York abandoned its districting scheme in both its legislative houses .
Prior to the ruling , its 57 senatorial districts consisted of either one or more entire counties or contiguous areas within single counties .
Reynolds , however , tipped the balance of power in New York ’ s upper chamber toward the cities , expanded government along progressive lines , including with a luxurious Medicaid program , which encumbered county governments with much of the expense .
This was particularly ruinous for poorer rural counties .
Earl Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that urban and rural voters are often quite different in their outlooks , their priorities , even their grievances .
By denying rural voters a voice in their state governments , Warren eliminated the imperative for consensus and compromise in states such as New York .
For example , in New York , the SAFE Act ( Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act ) was passed in 2013 over the objections of rural voters .
This majoritarian attitude , which is really just arrogance , was not how visionaries in the original 13 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is it what the framers set forth in the U.S. Constitution .
Warren based his decision on a pair of faulty premises : • None First , that the federal system of two senators per state could not be extended by analogy to the states ; • None Second , that the 14th Amendment promised citizens a “ one man , one vote ” form of government .
To the first objection , Warren wrote , “ And the Founding Fathers clearly had no intention of establishing a pattern or model for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren clearly had not read Gordon S. Wood ’ s book , Creation of the American Republic , which lays out how the new nation created republican governments with checks and balances and mixed representation .
In the early days , the 13 former colonies saw themselves not as a united country , but as a confederated collection of like-minded independent sovereign states .
The majority of delegates in these states recognized natural rights and individual liberty .
To safeguard that liberty , they sought to protect minority factions and individuals from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Reynolds v. Sims , Warren offers up a historically unsupported proposition that Thomas Jefferson favored proportional representation in a state ’ s upper house .
Warren quotes Jefferson , “ Equal representation is so fundamental a principle in a true republic that no prejudice can justify its violation because the prejudices themselves can not be justified.
” This interpretation is the opposite of what Jefferson communicated to William King in a letter on Maine ’ s new constitution .
Jefferson complained to King that the cities of Portland and Wells had three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one .
To Jefferson , this was unequal representation at the expense of rural residents .
The agrarian founder said often that “ great cities are great sores.
” New York City may not be the blot on the Empire State that some wags contend , but the values of its residents are certainly not shared by those of us who enjoy vistas of trees and pastures and open spaces to enliven our sense of sovereignty .
Jefferson played no part in drafting the federal constitution .
But he did help out with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wrote multiple drafts , all dictating a mixed and balanced government that included a bicameral legislature , including a smaller upper house chosen by means other than popular vote .
Jefferson believed that a government that did not represent all interests of society could fall prey to tyrannical forces .
The purpose of a smaller , more deliberative upper chamber was to check the majoritarian impulses of the lower house with its more democratic spirit .
In Pennsylvania , Whigs believed that a single chamber would be hazardous to liberty , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debates , is dangerous because it is unconstrained .
The same can be said of two chambers whose members are drawn by the same means of election , especially in an era of unchecked party power .
It was all these state-level debates that laid the foundation for the Constitutional Convention in 1787 .
So when Warren writes in Reynolds that an analogy between state houses and the federal government is an “ after-the-fact rationalization ” he is , as a matter of history , wrong .
As for Warren ’ s opinion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equal voting rights , the Court ’ s lone conservative , John Marshall Harlan , dunked on his ahistorical rationalization and lack of logical consistency .
Harlan called out Warren for his “ political ideology.
” The progressive court ’ s opinion , he said , was an attempt to impose majoritarianism on sovereign states , states that were promised in Article IV , Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution a “ republican form of government.
” The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment was never intended to inhibit states from choosing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their legislatures , as Harlan pointed out .
He admonished Warren and his co-conspirators for not reading the 14th Amendment as a single text and for not researching its legislative history .
In fact , the 14th Amendment was ratified by states with mixed and balanced legislatures .
“ Can it be seriously contended that the legislatures of these States , ” Harlan wrote , “ would have ratified an amendment which might render their own States ’ constitutions unconstitutional ?
” Further , it was not the 14th Amendment that enshrined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been previously been denied .
Rather , it was the 15th Amendment that extended suffrage to anyone regardless of “ race , color , or previous condition of servitude.
” One of Warren ’ s oft-quoted , poetic phrases from Reynold is also flawed .
Warren wrote , “ people , not land or trees or pastures , vote.
” That ’ s true on its face but deceptive in its meaning .
People in communities vote , communities of like interests and common causes , communities of varying sizes and differing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government , those communities of competing interests have a right to be heard , and where their views diverge , they have the right to act as checks and balances against those who would do harm to their liberty .
Big-government policies in the state of New York have helped deplete rural communities .
In most of the six decades since Reynolds , New York ’ s rural counties have had marginal representation in the legislature .
We ’ ve now reached an era in New York history when rural counties are too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As anyone who has driven through Upstate knows , lawn signs and bumper stickers denouncing Cuomo abound .
Some of them are quite profane .
The resentment began with passage of the SAFE Act and each new abuse of liberty or threat to security—the Farm Labor Bill , bail reform , multiple unfunded mandates on county governments , new regulations on small businesses—have made people angry .
New York is on an unsustainable path politically and economically .
There seems to be only one clear remedy—for someone with the resources and cause to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reynolds v. Sims can be properly overturned .
With New York ’ s right to a mixed and balanced government restored , we could then establish an upper chamber that ’ s ideally comprised of one senator per county , selected by county legislatures .
This would provide fair representation to rural counties and also alleviate , to paraphrase Jefferson , the need for electioneering by senators .
There would be no more fundraising and far less concern about corruption .
The time to act is now , while we still have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publisher of The Batavian in Batavia , NY .
He ’ s on Twitter @ howardowens .

This is the time of year when every day seems to bring a new outrage out of Albany.
Governor Andrew Cuomo wants to shift more state-mandated Medicaid expenses to counties; he intends to rob local municipalities of revenue from casinos in their communities; he seeks to burden small businesses, already struggling with high taxes and costly regulations, with mandatory guaranteed sick leave.
Last year, Cuomo and his downstate progressive cronies used the budget to saddle Upstate communities with bail reform and new discovery rules that are endangering lives and driving up costs for local governments.
One-party rule is breeding resentment in rural New York.
But it doesn’t have to be that way. And it wouldn’t be if not for a landmark Supreme Court decision, Reynolds v. Sims.
The 1964 Warren court ruling attempted to address clear inequities in state legislatures. There were states, such as Georgia and Tennessee, that had seriously unequal legislative districts.
In the wake of Reynolds, New York abandoned its districting scheme in both its legislative houses. Prior to the ruling, its 57 senatorial districts consisted of either one or more entire counties or contiguous areas within single counties.
Reynolds, however, tipped the balance of power in New York’s upper chamber toward the cities, expanded government along progressive lines, including with a luxurious Medicaid program, which encumbered county governments with much of the expense. This was particularly ruinous for poorer rural counties.
Earl Warren’s shortsighted ruling failed to recognize that urban and rural voters are often quite different in their outlooks, their priorities, even their grievances. By denying rural voters a voice in their state governments, Warren eliminated the imperative for consensus and compromise in states such as New York.
For example, in New York, the SAFE Act (Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act) was passed in 2013 over the objections of rural voters.
The response from Albany? “So? Majority rules, dude.”
This majoritarian attitude, which is really just arrogance, was not how visionaries in the original 13 states looked at their societies, nor is it what the framers set forth in the U.S. Constitution.
Warren based his decision on a pair of faulty premises:
First, that the federal system of two senators per state could not be extended by analogy to the states;
Second, that the 14th Amendment promised citizens a “one man, one vote” form of government.
To the first objection, Warren wrote, “And the Founding Fathers clearly had no intention of establishing a pattern or model for the apportionment of seats in state legislatures….”
Warren clearly had not read Gordon S. Wood’s book, Creation of the American Republic, which lays out how the new nation created republican governments with checks and balances and mixed representation.
In the early days, the 13 former colonies saw themselves not as a united country, but as a confederated collection of like-minded independent sovereign states. The majority of delegates in these states recognized natural rights and individual liberty. To safeguard that liberty, they sought to protect minority factions and individuals from the tyranny of majorities.
In the footnotes of Reynolds v. Sims, Warren offers up a historically unsupported proposition that Thomas Jefferson favored proportional representation in a state’s upper house.
Warren quotes Jefferson, “Equal representation is so fundamental a principle in a true republic that no prejudice can justify its violation because the prejudices themselves cannot be justified.”
This interpretation is the opposite of what Jefferson communicated to William King in a letter on Maine’s new constitution. Jefferson complained to King that the cities of Portland and Wells had three representatives apiece while other jurisdictions retained only one. To Jefferson, this was unequal representation at the expense of rural residents.
The agrarian founder said often that “great cities are great sores.” New York City may not be the blot on the Empire State that some wags contend, but the values of its residents are certainly not shared by those of us who enjoy vistas of trees and pastures and open spaces to enliven our sense of sovereignty.
Jefferson played no part in drafting the federal constitution. But he did help out with Virginia’s constitution, of which he wrote multiple drafts, all dictating a mixed and balanced government that included a bicameral legislature, including a smaller upper house chosen by means other than popular vote.
Jefferson believed that a government that did not represent all interests of society could fall prey to tyrannical forces. The purpose of a smaller, more deliberative upper chamber was to check the majoritarian impulses of the lower house with its more democratic spirit.
In Pennsylvania, Whigs believed that a single chamber would be hazardous to liberty, which, as Benjamin Rush noted during the debates, is dangerous because it is unconstrained.
The same can be said of two chambers whose members are drawn by the same means of election, especially in an era of unchecked party power.
It was all these state-level debates that laid the foundation for the Constitutional Convention in 1787. So when Warren writes in Reynolds that an analogy between state houses and the federal government is an “after-the-fact rationalization” he is, as a matter of history, wrong.
As for Warren’s opinion that the 14th Amendment guarantees all citizens equal voting rights, the Court’s lone conservative, John Marshall Harlan, dunked on his ahistorical rationalization and lack of logical consistency.
Harlan called out Warren for his “political ideology.” The progressive court’s opinion, he said, was an attempt to impose majoritarianism on sovereign states, states that were promised in Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution a “republican form of government.”
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment was never intended to inhibit states from choosing their own self-governing methods for selecting members of their legislatures, as Harlan pointed out.
He admonished Warren and his co-conspirators for not reading the 14th Amendment as a single text and for not researching its legislative history. In fact, the 14th Amendment was ratified by states with mixed and balanced legislatures.
“Can it be seriously contended that the legislatures of these States,” Harlan wrote, “would have ratified an amendment which might render their own States’ constitutions unconstitutional?”
Further, it was not the 14th Amendment that enshrined the franchise for those to whom it had been previously been denied. Rather, it was the 15th Amendment that extended suffrage to anyone regardless of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
One of Warren’s oft-quoted, poetic phrases from Reynold is also flawed. Warren wrote, “people, not land or trees or pastures, vote.”
That’s true on its face but deceptive in its meaning. People in communities vote, communities of like interests and common causes, communities of varying sizes and differing goals. In a republican form of government, those communities of competing interests have a right to be heard, and where their views diverge, they have the right to act as checks and balances against those who would do harm to their liberty.
Big-government policies in the state of New York have helped deplete rural communities. In most of the six decades since Reynolds, New York’s rural counties have had marginal representation in the legislature.
We’ve now reached an era in New York history when rural counties are too emaciated to retain any meaningful representation.
As anyone who has driven through Upstate knows, lawn signs and bumper stickers denouncing Cuomo abound. Some of them are quite profane. The resentment began with passage of the SAFE Act and each new abuse of liberty or threat to security—the Farm Labor Bill, bail reform, multiple unfunded mandates on county governments, new regulations on small businesses—have made people angry.
New York is on an unsustainable path politically and economically. There seems to be only one clear remedy—for someone with the resources and cause to take a case to court so that Reynolds v. Sims can be properly overturned. With New York’s right to a mixed and balanced government restored, we could then establish an upper chamber that’s ideally comprised of one senator per county, selected by county legislatures. This would provide fair representation to rural counties and also alleviate, to paraphrase Jefferson, the need for electioneering by senators. There would be no more fundraising and far less concern about corruption.
The time to act is now, while we still have a conservative-leaning Supreme Court.
Howard Owens is publisher of The Batavian in Batavia, NY. He’s on Twitter @howardowens.


theamericanconservative--2020-02-28--Stetsons and the Sixties: Among the Bernie Bros in Texas

Our writer catches up with Sanders supporters and finds them jazzed with the spirit of a decade gone by .
“ Bernieee Yo-da !
Bernieee Yo-da !
” So said a man holding up a T-shirt with Baby Yoda dressed in a blue cape with “ Bernie ” on its chest , above “ Feel the Bern 2020.
” Then came a commotion to my side , as seems foreordained at these sorts of political rallies .
A young man in a Stetson holding a microphone was haranguing a white-haired man playing a guitar emblazoned with a big “ Bernie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ play that under communism !
” exclaimed the Stetson wearer , as two other men similarly dressed in black circled , videoing the scene .
“ It wouldn ’ t be allowed !
” A short distance away , another man , going red in the face on a bullhorn , continued an even more belligerent tirade about communism , surrounded by a phalanx of heavies .
Is that Alex Jones ?
Sure enough , the team behind InfoWars , the far-right American conspiracy theory and fake news website , had come to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sunday rally in downtown Austin , Texas .
Having filmed their clickbait , the InfoWars mob headed in the opposite direction , towards the estimated 12,000 people arriving to root for Sanders at the end of his weekend spent barnstorming across Texas , with previous rallies in El Paso , San Antonio , and Houston .
While Jones was out for a stunt , he is not alone in playing the communism card or accusing Sanders of being extreme—similar criticisms are coming from within the Democratic Party .
But Sanders ’ brand of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ garnered the highest number of votes in all three caucus/primary states so far .
Hence , despite an uncharacteristically dark Texas sky , there remained a palpable sense of the 1960s revolutionary spirit that had been evident the night before during the pre-rally Austin Bands for Bernie music festival .
While the Nevada results came in , a lady strummed her guitar and sang about traveling out of state to New Mexico for an abortion .
Next , a “ psychedelic six-piece ensemble ” played against a video screen backdrop of trippy swirling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ platform is what first put me onto him , ” said 41-year-old Lucas Diercouff , a Texans for Bernie volunteer wearing an “ Iraq and Afghanistan Veteran ” baseball cap ( he spent five years as a combat medic ) .
“ He ’ s going to slash the defense budget to fund these great plans .
I don ’ t want others to be in the same position as me of not being able to afford college.
” As the evening progressed and the bands played , I kept finding myself talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twenties exuding great gusto .
I couldn ’ t tell if it was the senator ’ s effect or my own biases .
“ I ’ m only 23 , and I have so much energy , ” said one .
She spends 25 hours a week volunteering for Sanders and other local Democratic candidates on top of her job as an Accenture analyst .
“ This is a movement , not just an election , ” said one 24-year-old , as a gentle smell of marijuana enshrouded us .
I suspect she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ managed to drop “ ameliorate ” into the conversation without batting an eyelid over her intense dark eyes beneath a tomboy haircut .
“ He is going to change the way people think permanently , ” she said , “ so this country can catch up with other developed countries.
” The spirit of the ‘ 60s was certainly alive at the rally for one aging hippy , who drew comparisons between Sanders ’ efforts and those of George McGovern , another liberal maverick who ultimately failed to win the Democratic nomination in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long-shot , grassroots-based 1972 presidential campaign split the Democrats ideologically .
“ Elite Democrats : Is fighting for racial , environmental , social and economic justice really that radical ?
?
” asked a placard .
The rally crowd testified—as would be proven in Nevada—to Sanders ’ ability to assemble a multiracial coalition of younger black voters , Muslim mothers in hijabs , Latinos , white liberals , and moderates .
“ For so many years , people have been saying that the Latino bloc just needs to rise up , and now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are downplaying it , ” says a 35-year-old man .
“ We are seeing more young students and Latinos mobilized than in any other electoral cycle I have seen since 2000.
” “ Have you noticed how the mainstream media undermines every win of his ?
” asked 23-year-old Anthony Dilizia , dressed in a snazzy stars and stripes-themed jacket and tie .
“ Bernie is challenging both Republicans and the Democratic establishment.
” That ’ s exactly what the 78-year-old senator did once onstage .
He took to task every industrial complex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clapping—Medicare for All , the Green New Deal , free college tuition , erasing college debt , legalizing marijuana , and much more .
At the end , as the crowd dispersed , I heard a woman opine to her young friends that she “ wasn ’ t sure with some of the things he said… ” and then she was out of earshot .
I set off in search of what could prove a dissenting voice .
“ Oh , I am very much aligned with all he said , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ What I meant was that when he was talking about all the terrible things that we need to sort , I didn ’ t know whether to clap or boo.
” James Jeffrey is a freelance journalist and writer who splits his time between the U.S. , the UK , and further afield , and writes for various international media .
He previously served in Kosovo , Iraq , and Afghanistan with the British Army .
Follow him on Twitter @ jrfjeffrey and Instagram james_rfj .

“Bernieee Yo-da! Bernieee Yo-da!” So said a man holding up a T-shirt with Baby Yoda dressed in a blue cape with “Bernie” on its chest, above “Feel the Bern 2020.”
Then came a commotion to my side, as seems foreordained at these sorts of political rallies.
A young man in a Stetson holding a microphone was haranguing a white-haired man playing a guitar emblazoned with a big “Bernie” sticker.
“You could never play that under communism!” exclaimed the Stetson wearer, as two other men similarly dressed in black circled, videoing the scene. “It wouldn’t be allowed!”
A short distance away, another man, going red in the face on a bullhorn, continued an even more belligerent tirade about communism, surrounded by a phalanx of heavies.
Is that Alex Jones? Sure enough, the team behind InfoWars, the far-right American conspiracy theory and fake news website, had come to stir the pot before Bernie Sanders’ Sunday rally in downtown Austin, Texas.
Having filmed their clickbait, the InfoWars mob headed in the opposite direction, towards the estimated 12,000 people arriving to root for Sanders at the end of his weekend spent barnstorming across Texas, with previous rallies in El Paso, San Antonio, and Houston.
While Jones was out for a stunt, he is not alone in playing the communism card or accusing Sanders of being extreme—similar criticisms are coming from within the Democratic Party. But Sanders’ brand of populism is clearly working. He has garnered the highest number of votes in all three caucus/primary states so far.
Hence, despite an uncharacteristically dark Texas sky, there remained a palpable sense of the 1960s revolutionary spirit that had been evident the night before during the pre-rally Austin Bands for Bernie music festival.
While the Nevada results came in, a lady strummed her guitar and sang about traveling out of state to New Mexico for an abortion. Next, a “psychedelic six-piece ensemble” played against a video screen backdrop of trippy swirling colors.
“Bernie’s anti-war platform is what first put me onto him,” said 41-year-old Lucas Diercouff, a Texans for Bernie volunteer wearing an “Iraq and Afghanistan Veteran” baseball cap (he spent five years as a combat medic). “He’s going to slash the defense budget to fund these great plans. I don’t want others to be in the same position as me of not being able to afford college.”
As the evening progressed and the bands played, I kept finding myself talking to highly articulate women in their early twenties exuding great gusto. I couldn’t tell if it was the senator’s effect or my own biases.
“I’m only 23, and I have so much energy,” said one. She spends 25 hours a week volunteering for Sanders and other local Democratic candidates on top of her job as an Accenture analyst.
“This is a movement, not just an election,” said one 24-year-old, as a gentle smell of marijuana enshrouded us. I suspect she was a little high herself: she managed to drop “ameliorate” into the conversation without batting an eyelid over her intense dark eyes beneath a tomboy haircut.
“He is going to change the way people think permanently,” she said, “so this country can catch up with other developed countries.”
The spirit of the ‘60s was certainly alive at the rally for one aging hippy, who drew comparisons between Sanders’ efforts and those of George McGovern, another liberal maverick who ultimately failed to win the Democratic nomination in 1968. McGovern’s subsequent, long-shot, grassroots-based 1972 presidential campaign split the Democrats ideologically.
“Elite Democrats: Is fighting for racial, environmental, social and economic justice really that radical??” asked a placard. The rally crowd testified—as would be proven in Nevada—to Sanders’ ability to assemble a multiracial coalition of younger black voters, Muslim mothers in hijabs, Latinos, white liberals, and moderates.
“For so many years, people have been saying that the Latino bloc just needs to rise up, and now that they are doing it, people are downplaying it,” says a 35-year-old man. “We are seeing more young students and Latinos mobilized than in any other electoral cycle I have seen since 2000.”
“Have you noticed how the mainstream media undermines every win of his?” asked 23-year-old Anthony Dilizia, dressed in a snazzy stars and stripes-themed jacket and tie. “Bernie is challenging both Republicans and the Democratic establishment.”
That’s exactly what the 78-year-old senator did once onstage. He took to task every industrial complex going—cue lots of booing—while reaffirming—cue cheers and clapping—Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, free college tuition, erasing college debt, legalizing marijuana, and much more.
At the end, as the crowd dispersed, I heard a woman opine to her young friends that she “wasn’t sure with some of the things he said…” and then she was out of earshot. I set off in search of what could prove a dissenting voice.
“Oh, I am very much aligned with all he said,” she explained once I caught up with her. “What I meant was that when he was talking about all the terrible things that we need to sort, I didn’t know whether to clap or boo.”
James Jeffrey is a freelance journalist and writer who splits his time between the U.S., the UK, and further afield, and writes for various international media. He previously served in Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan with the British Army. Follow him on Twitter @jrfjeffrey and Instagram james_rfj.