theamericanconservative--2020-09-10--Trading Social Science for Social Intimidation

As Americans watch the nightly mayhem in Portland , Seattle , Chicago , and other cities , their shock comes not just from watching a vicious segment of the population loot , destroy property , and even physically assault in the name of social justice .
If history has taught us anything , it is that anarchist and criminal mentalities lie dormant in every country , just waiting for the opportunity to take control of legitimate protest—in today ’ s case , the peaceable demonstrations inspired by George Floyd ’ s tragic death .
What is far more distressing about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ historically responsible liberals who now seem to condone not only street violence , but the aggressive “ cancellation ” of citizens with views well within the mainstream .
Many institutions once at the vanguard of advancing free speech—including the ACLU , colleges and universities , newspapers like the New York Times , and several social media companies—now appear to be working overtime against it .
When Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell recently chided the far left as “ not interested in winning debates with better arguments [ but preferring ] to shut down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forgiven for thinking he was referencing the entire Democratic Party .
To the extent that the right has an explanation for this anti-liberal liberalism , it is that the center-left is suffering from an advanced case of what many Republicans mockingly call “ Trump Derangement Syndrome ” ( TDS ) .
In other words , with the election so close , the president ’ s opponents will countenance anything that stokes dissatisfaction with his administration .
We know there is some truth to this , if for no other reason than that those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been warning others in their party against getting too carried away with their dislike of Trump .
“ [ They ] should forget President Trump for a second , ” writes long-time party activist Ted Van Dyk in a July 26 Wall Street Journal op-ed .
“ Democrats are presenting a pro-chaos caricature of themselves , which will discredit them with the public if they maintain it.
” But to settle for TDS as the explanation for growing liberal intolerance is to miss a much deeper crisis on the left , one that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exist even if President Trump had never been elected .
To understand this crisis , we must remind ourselves of something so obvious that , like air , it is easily overlooked : namely , that the underlying rationale for any form of left-wing governance over the last two centuries has been the presumed ability of educated officials to use social science for the benefit of the larger society .
From early 18th century Owenism and Saint-Simonianism to Soviet communism to today ’ s European social democracies , to be anywhere on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ form of technocratic governance .
The American left is no exception .
For more than a century , it has created or shaped a wide range of government programs based more on the wisdom of credentialed experts ( or legislation shaped by experts ) than on market forces .
Sometimes referred to collectively as the administrative state , these include K-12 education , public universities , health and welfare bureaucracies , departments of urban planning , environmental agencies , and correctional facilities .
The left has also promoted the interests of trial lawyers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose activities , although outside of government , were still seen as compatible with technocratic governance .
The power of claiming to represent the wisdom of social science can be seen in the fact that whenever any liberal program or agenda has failed in some spectacular way , the left has always been able to fall back on comparisons to experimental research .
In other words , just as well-intended mistakes are an unfortunate but necessary part of laboratory investigation , so technological governance will inevitably take unproductive detours from time to time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aggressive promotion of phrenology and blatantly segregationist policies in the early 20th century never fatally tarnished the left ’ s case for expert rule .
But as politically effective as assuming the mantle of social science has been for American liberals , three recent developments now threaten to end its usefulness .
The first is the growing evidence that much of the research used by the administrative state over the years has been intentionally falsified by its academic authors , either to advance their own ideological biases or to please their government funders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mid-1990s that any academic study that contradicts left-wing beliefs has an especially difficult time getting the peer endorsements needed for publication .
This is true even when the rejected paper appears just as comprehensively researched as the more liberal papers commonly accepted by prestigious journals .
But in 2005 , Dr. John Ioannidis , co-director of Stanford University ’ s Meta-Research Innovation Center , went one step further .
In a now-famous report , he showed that even the social science research that does get published is not nearly as rigorous as it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what has been taught for decades as “ settled science ” is , he showed , the product of unreliable statistical testing , the misleading use of small sample sizes , unwarranted credence given to small effects , unshared experimental data , and other scientifically dubious methods .
Ever since Ioannidis ’ paper , it has become painfully clear that even many of the most influential experiments in sociology , political science , social psychology , economics , climate science , anthropology , education , and medicine can not meet the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upon retesting .
Widely cited studies supposedly confirming the liberal assertion that discriminatory behavior stems from unconscious stereotyping , for example , can not be duplicated .
In 2015 , Science tried to replicate the findings of 100 articles published in three prominent psychological journals during 2008 and got significant results for only 36 , compared to the significance claimed by 97 of the originals .
A similar study one year later in the Finance and Economics Discussion Series of the Federal Reserve could not reproduce the outcomes of a majority of prominent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that up to half the discoveries ever published in peer-reviewed social science and medical journals are probably wrong , an opinion he shares with The Lancet ’ s respected editor-in-chief , Richard Charles Horton .
National Association of Scholars ( NAS ) president Peter Wood has similarly argued that many of the regulations , laws , and social programs routinely passed by Congress on the basis of supposedly solid research have no real scientific justification .
Even in the area of environmental science—where investigations tend to involve more physics and chemistry than social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be replicated .
Studies related to nuclear power turn out to be especially iffy .
The dangers of accidents like Fukushima ( where all the deaths were caused by the tsunami , not radiation ) are grossly exaggerated while hazards posed by renewables like hydroelectric power are simply ignored .
Completely overlooked are the successful development of fast neutron reactors , which eliminate the problem of radioactive waste , and of small modular reactors , whose simplicity of design makes them exceptionally safe .
The second development to undermine people ’ s faith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of it .
In 1964 , polls showed that three of every four Americans trusted the competence of public officials .
Today , only one third of respondents feel the same way .
Recent surveys reported by City Journal show that those states that boast the most comprehensive menu of public services rank lowest for the efficient delivery of any of them .
Indeed , there is a direct connection between how much a state spends on programs to improve the quality of its citizen ’ s lives and the percentage of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Especially striking is the declining status of what decades ago was one of America ’ s most admired institutions , public education .
In the latest annual poll by Harvard ’ s Education Next magazine , 75 percent of respondents graded the performance of the nation ’ s schools with a C or less .
Republicans may not be precisely on target when they attribute the decline of America ’ s big cities to the failure of Democratic mayors .
But they are close enough to what the public perceives as the real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the last half-century to “ engineer ” an urban revival .
That accusation has become one of the GOP ’ s most effective talking points .
The third and most recent threat to public support for technocratic governance is the dawning awareness that there must soon be a radical restructuring of state and federal finances .
Had politicians listened to the advice of knowledgeable commentators and used the economic recovery of the last decade to prudently build a financial cushion , the need might never have arisen .
But from 2010 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of more than $ 1 trillion per year , more than doubling its liabilities to $ 22 trillion .
During that same period , the net debt owed by many states ballooned as well : New Jersey to $ 199 billion , Illinois to $ 248 billion , and California to $ 288 billion .
Then came the coronavirus , which almost overnight added 5.9 trillion to the U.S. deficit while starving the states of sales tax revenue .
Even before the recently aborted negotiation on a second stimulus , it was already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debt would soon be greater than its annual economic output ( GDP ) , the point where any nation ’ s creditworthiness is automatically called into question .
As voters contemplate the mix of tax increases and spending cuts that will eventually be required to balance government books , they know that many public programs are going to have to be trimmed , combined , or even eliminated .
So large is America ’ s sovereign debt , as International Monetary Fund ( IMF ) economists Fabien Gonguet and Klaus-Peter Hellwig make clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Public Wealth in the United States , ” that no state or federal department will be spared .
Taken together , these three developments—the discrediting of the research underpinning current social services , the mushrooming mistrust of institutional elites , and the looming need to significantly downsize government—have created a crisis for modern liberals that is far more personal than generally recognized .
Once , perhaps as students , they admired the administrative state from a purely intellectual perspective , as outsiders .
But today , as working adults , liberals are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and administrators , the ratio of Democrats to Republicans is 87 to 13 .
Among social workers , it is 93 to 7 ; for those involved in environmental regulation , 91 to 9 ; and for public defenders it is 19 to 1 .
Among college professors and administrators—many of whom work at private institutions but still benefit from government grants and federal student loans—it is 17 to 2 .
When it comes to federal employees , a good indicator of party affiliation is campaign contributions .
In 2016 , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ donations from workers in 14 agencies went to Clinton .
At the Department of Justice , 99 percent of the money went to Clinton ; at the State Department , it was also 99 percent .
Of the political contributions from Internal Revenue Service workers , 94 percent went to Clinton .
What does the modern liberal do when the old appeal to credentialed expertise is no longer enough to protect his or her job from being restructured , downsized , made more accountable , subject to greater competition , or even abolished @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always done when the rationale for their status no longer holds sway : they find a purpose whose ideology combines “ right thinking ” with a puritanical intolerance of any criticism of that thinking .
The K-12 public schools that fail miserably in international comparisons , the universities increasingly blamed for selfishly putting so many American students into debt , the court systems and social agencies which have presided over the collapse of America ’ s inner cities – all resist the reform they fear by uniting behind a substitute for social science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The goal , as Center of the American Experiment senior policy analyst Katherine Kersten recently observed , is to go from being “ the expert ” to being “ the elect.
” That liberals would gravitate to wokeness is hardly a surprise .
With its unrelenting racial interpretation of every social encounter , it preserves the left ’ s claim to represent all minority and disadvantaged groups while simultaneously inventing endless reasons for institutional remedy .
Once more , any criticism is easily dismissed as the result of the critic ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to deflect any challenge to their professional opinion as “ a psychological resistance.
” Wokeness also comes with an especially powerful language for social intimidation , honed over decades through its evolution from deconstructionism to political correctness to identity politics to today ’ s cancel culture .
It ’ s so powerful , in fact , that it can now intimidate the heads of major corporations .
Wokeness even appeals to many clergy who , having failed to stem the declining number of church-affiliated believers , seek relevance in a biblically forbidden compromise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all this means is that liberal intolerance will be with us long after the election , no matter who wins .
At a time when sociological support for its institutions is no longer a given , when average Americans are increasingly skeptical of governing elites , and when public debt is about to force some serious budget adjustments , the last thing anyone on the left wants is a friendly , rational conversation .
There is no better glimpse into the future than what happened last February , when the Oakland , California-based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on improving the accuracy of social science research .
Not only were the organizers labeled everything from misogynistic white supremacists to climate change deniers , but two graduate students set to speak at the gathering were forced to withdraw after threats of career sabotage .
Even the event ’ s most commonsense recommendations—to do more replication studies , to prioritize grants to researchers who pre-register their protocols , and to require experimenters to make their data and research protocols publicly available—were viciously attacked on social media as right-wing propaganda .
Whatever far-left lunacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tolerate in the name of upending white male privilege is really a measure of what they are prepared to inflict to preserve their own .
Dr. Lewis Andrews was executive director of the Yankee Institute for Public Policy at Trinity College from 1999 to 2009 .
He is author of the new book Living Spiritually in the Material World ( Fidelis Books ) .

As Americans watch the nightly mayhem in Portland, Seattle, Chicago, and other cities, their shock comes not just from watching a vicious segment of the population loot, destroy property, and even physically assault in the name of social justice. If history has taught us anything, it is that anarchist and criminal mentalities lie dormant in every country, just waiting for the opportunity to take control of legitimate protest—in today’s case, the peaceable demonstrations inspired by George Floyd’s tragic death.
What is far more distressing about the present chaos is the response of historically responsible liberals who now seem to condone not only street violence, but the aggressive “cancellation” of citizens with views well within the mainstream. Many institutions once at the vanguard of advancing free speech—including the ACLU, colleges and universities, newspapers like the New York Times, and several social media companies—now appear to be working overtime against it. When Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell recently chided the far left as “not interested in winning debates with better arguments [but preferring] to shut down debate altogether,” one could be forgiven for thinking he was referencing the entire Democratic Party.
To the extent that the right has an explanation for this anti-liberal liberalism, it is that the center-left is suffering from an advanced case of what many Republicans mockingly call “Trump Derangement Syndrome” (TDS). In other words, with the election so close, the president’s opponents will countenance anything that stokes dissatisfaction with his administration.
We know there is some truth to this, if for no other reason than that those Democrats still uncomfortable with cancel culture have been warning others in their party against getting too carried away with their dislike of Trump. “[They] should forget President Trump for a second,” writes long-time party activist Ted Van Dyk in a July 26 Wall Street Journal op-ed. “Democrats are presenting a pro-chaos caricature of themselves, which will discredit them with the public if they maintain it.”
But to settle for TDS as the explanation for growing liberal intolerance is to miss a much deeper crisis on the left, one that has been building for decades and would exist even if President Trump had never been elected. To understand this crisis, we must remind ourselves of something so obvious that, like air, it is easily overlooked: namely, that the underlying rationale for any form of left-wing governance over the last two centuries has been the presumed ability of educated officials to use social science for the benefit of the larger society. From early 18th century Owenism and Saint-Simonianism to Soviet communism to today’s European social democracies, to be anywhere on the left has been to believe in some form of technocratic governance.
The American left is no exception. For more than a century, it has created or shaped a wide range of government programs based more on the wisdom of credentialed experts (or legislation shaped by experts) than on market forces. Sometimes referred to collectively as the administrative state, these include K-12 education, public universities, health and welfare bureaucracies, departments of urban planning, environmental agencies, and correctional facilities. The left has also promoted the interests of trial lawyers, industrial unions, and other groups whose activities, although outside of government, were still seen as compatible with technocratic governance.
The power of claiming to represent the wisdom of social science can be seen in the fact that whenever any liberal program or agenda has failed in some spectacular way, the left has always been able to fall back on comparisons to experimental research. In other words, just as well-intended mistakes are an unfortunate but necessary part of laboratory investigation, so technological governance will inevitably take unproductive detours from time to time. Even having to backtrack on its aggressive promotion of phrenology and blatantly segregationist policies in the early 20th century never fatally tarnished the left’s case for expert rule.
But as politically effective as assuming the mantle of social science has been for American liberals, three recent developments now threaten to end its usefulness.
The first is the growing evidence that much of the research used by the administrative state over the years has been intentionally falsified by its academic authors, either to advance their own ideological biases or to please their government funders. It has been well-documented since the mid-1990s that any academic study that contradicts left-wing beliefs has an especially difficult time getting the peer endorsements needed for publication. This is true even when the rejected paper appears just as comprehensively researched as the more liberal papers commonly accepted by prestigious journals.
But in 2005, Dr. John Ioannidis, co-director of Stanford University’s Meta-Research Innovation Center, went one step further. In a now-famous report, he showed that even the social science research that does get published is not nearly as rigorous as it has been made to appear. Much of what has been taught for decades as “settled science” is, he showed, the product of unreliable statistical testing, the misleading use of small sample sizes, unwarranted credence given to small effects, unshared experimental data, and other scientifically dubious methods.
Ever since Ioannidis’ paper, it has become painfully clear that even many of the most influential experiments in sociology, political science, social psychology, economics, climate science, anthropology, education, and medicine cannot meet the first requirement of science: replication of results upon retesting. Widely cited studies supposedly confirming the liberal assertion that discriminatory behavior stems from unconscious stereotyping, for example, cannot be duplicated.
In 2015, Science tried to replicate the findings of 100 articles published in three prominent psychological journals during 2008 and got significant results for only 36, compared to the significance claimed by 97 of the originals. A similar study one year later in the Finance and Economics Discussion Series of the Federal Reserve could not reproduce the outcomes of a majority of prominent economics articles.
Ioannidis himself now believes that up to half the discoveries ever published in peer-reviewed social science and medical journals are probably wrong, an opinion he shares with The Lancet’s respected editor-in-chief, Richard Charles Horton. National Association of Scholars (NAS) president Peter Wood has similarly argued that many of the regulations, laws, and social programs routinely passed by Congress on the basis of supposedly solid research have no real scientific justification.
Even in the area of environmental science—where investigations tend to involve more physics and chemistry than social science—much of the research still cannot be replicated. Studies related to nuclear power turn out to be especially iffy. The dangers of accidents like Fukushima (where all the deaths were caused by the tsunami, not radiation) are grossly exaggerated while hazards posed by renewables like hydroelectric power are simply ignored. Completely overlooked are the successful development of fast neutron reactors, which eliminate the problem of radioactive waste, and of small modular reactors, whose simplicity of design makes them exceptionally safe.
The second development to undermine people’s faith in technocratic governance is their own experience of it. In 1964, polls showed that three of every four Americans trusted the competence of public officials. Today, only one third of respondents feel the same way. Recent surveys reported by City Journal show that those states that boast the most comprehensive menu of public services rank lowest for the efficient delivery of any of them. Indeed, there is a direct connection between how much a state spends on programs to improve the quality of its citizen’s lives and the percentage of those same citizens eager to migrate elsewhere.
Especially striking is the declining status of what decades ago was one of America’s most admired institutions, public education. In the latest annual poll by Harvard’s Education Next magazine, 75 percent of respondents graded the performance of the nation’s schools with a C or less.
Republicans may not be precisely on target when they attribute the decline of America’s big cities to the failure of Democratic mayors. But they are close enough to what the public perceives as the real problem—that government has wasted hundreds of billions over the last half-century to “engineer” an urban revival. That accusation has become one of the GOP’s most effective talking points.
The third and most recent threat to public support for technocratic governance is the dawning awareness that there must soon be a radical restructuring of state and federal finances. Had politicians listened to the advice of knowledgeable commentators and used the economic recovery of the last decade to prudently build a financial cushion, the need might never have arisen. But from 2010 to 2020, the federal government averaged deficits of more than $1 trillion per year, more than doubling its liabilities to $22 trillion. During that same period, the net debt owed by many states ballooned as well: New Jersey to $199 billion, Illinois to $248 billion, and California to $288 billion.
Then came the coronavirus, which almost overnight added 5.9 trillion to the U.S. deficit while starving the states of sales tax revenue. Even before the recently aborted negotiation on a second stimulus, it was already clear that the country’s cumulative debt would soon be greater than its annual economic output (GDP), the point where any nation’s creditworthiness is automatically called into question.
As voters contemplate the mix of tax increases and spending cuts that will eventually be required to balance government books, they know that many public programs are going to have to be trimmed, combined, or even eliminated. So large is America’s sovereign debt, as International Monetary Fund (IMF) economists Fabien Gonguet and Klaus-Peter Hellwig make clear in their recent working paper on “Public Wealth in the United States,” that no state or federal department will be spared.
Taken together, these three developments—the discrediting of the research underpinning current social services, the mushrooming mistrust of institutional elites, and the looming need to significantly downsize government—have created a crisis for modern liberals that is far more personal than generally recognized. Once, perhaps as students, they admired the administrative state from a purely intellectual perspective, as outsiders. But today, as working adults, liberals are the administrative state.
Among public school teachers and administrators, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans is 87 to 13. Among social workers, it is 93 to 7; for those involved in environmental regulation, 91 to 9; and for public defenders it is 19 to 1. Among college professors and administrators—many of whom work at private institutions but still benefit from government grants and federal student loans—it is 17 to 2.
When it comes to federal employees, a good indicator of party affiliation is campaign contributions. In 2016, according to The Hill, 95 percent of the donations from workers in 14 agencies went to Clinton. At the Department of Justice, 99 percent of the money went to Clinton; at the State Department, it was also 99 percent. Of the political contributions from Internal Revenue Service workers, 94 percent went to Clinton.
What does the modern liberal do when the old appeal to credentialed expertise is no longer enough to protect his or her job from being restructured, downsized, made more accountable, subject to greater competition, or even abolished? They do what privileged bureaucrats have always done when the rationale for their status no longer holds sway: they find a purpose whose ideology combines “right thinking” with a puritanical intolerance of any criticism of that thinking.
The K-12 public schools that fail miserably in international comparisons, the universities increasingly blamed for selfishly putting so many American students into debt, the court systems and social agencies which have presided over the collapse of America’s inner cities – all resist the reform they fear by uniting behind a substitute for social science which leaves their institutions and authority intact. The goal, as Center of the American Experiment senior policy analyst Katherine Kersten recently observed, is to go from being “the expert” to being “the elect.”
That liberals would gravitate to wokeness is hardly a surprise. With its unrelenting racial interpretation of every social encounter, it preserves the left’s claim to represent all minority and disadvantaged groups while simultaneously inventing endless reasons for institutional remedy. Once more, any criticism is easily dismissed as the result of the critic’s own unconscious privilege—the same way psychoanalysts used to deflect any challenge to their professional opinion as “a psychological resistance.”
Wokeness also comes with an especially powerful language for social intimidation, honed over decades through its evolution from deconstructionism to political correctness to identity politics to today’s cancel culture. It’s so powerful, in fact, that it can now intimidate the heads of major corporations. Wokeness even appeals to many clergy who, having failed to stem the declining number of church-affiliated believers, seek relevance in a biblically forbidden compromise with those preaching earthly utopia.
What all this means is that liberal intolerance will be with us long after the election, no matter who wins. At a time when sociological support for its institutions is no longer a given, when average Americans are increasingly skeptical of governing elites, and when public debt is about to force some serious budget adjustments, the last thing anyone on the left wants is a friendly, rational conversation.
There is no better glimpse into the future than what happened last February, when the Oakland, California-based Independence Institute decided to sponsor a conference on improving the accuracy of social science research. Not only were the organizers labeled everything from misogynistic white supremacists to climate change deniers, but two graduate students set to speak at the gathering were forced to withdraw after threats of career sabotage. Even the event’s most commonsense recommendations—to do more replication studies, to prioritize grants to researchers who pre-register their protocols, and to require experimenters to make their data and research protocols publicly available—were viciously attacked on social media as right-wing propaganda.
Whatever far-left lunacy today’s liberals are willing to tolerate in the name of upending white male privilege is really a measure of what they are prepared to inflict to preserve their own.
Dr. Lewis Andrews was executive director of the Yankee Institute for Public Policy at Trinity College from 1999 to 2009. He is author of the new book Living Spiritually in the Material World (Fidelis Books).


theamericanconservative--2020-09-11--Where National Populism Came From

Where National Populism Came From

They ’ re Not Listening : How the Elites Created the Nationalist Populist Revolution , by Ryan James Girdusky & Harlan Hill , ( Bombadier Books , 2020 ) , 247 pages .
Was Donald Trump ’ s election an aberration ?
If the fervor of NeverTrumpers and neoliberal Democrats this election season is any indication , many on both the Right and Left are determined to make it so .
The president ’ s often-erratic behavior is certainly a departure from precedent .
But the vitriol with which Trump ’ s establishment critics treat both the man and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outrage over imprudent outbursts and strange capitalization on Twitter .
There really is a growing , fundamental divide on a set of core issues between global elites and the people in the places they ’ ve left behind—one that transcends Trump himself .
And it ’ s doubtful that divide is going away , regardless of which septuagenarian wins in November .
At least , that ’ s how Ryan Girdusky and Harlan Hill tell it .
For them , Trump is no aberration—he ’ s but one example of a global backlash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics in recent decades .
The two up-and-coming writers ’ debut book , They ’ re Not Listening : How the Elites Created the Nationalist Populist Revolution , is a sweeping , ambitious work , touching on everything from Brexit , Chilean immigration policy , the Swedish Democrats party , Benghazi , and more .
In doing so , Girdusky and Hill make a convincing case that the governance of global elites has become increasingly divorced from the nations and peoples they purportedly serve .
Their book is an important contribution to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond the lockstep neoliberalism and neoconservatism that have proven so disastrous across the globe .
The issues driving national populism are familiar to long-time readers of this magazine : trade , immigration , and foreign policy .
Girdusky and Hill don ’ t hold back in their critique of the American foreign policy establishment , castigating America ’ s regime change wars and the entrenched interests that perpetuated them .
It ’ s here that the populist narrative is strongest : “ After nearly a quarter century of the American people electing presidents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” they write , “ the United States had commitments to defend more than sixty countries in case of an invasion and had hundreds of military bases around the globe.
” America ’ s decades-long crusade to remake the world in its image can hardly be called the will of the people .
Elites have shown a similar disregard for voters on economics .
While the ruling class across the political spectrum embraced globalism , free trade , and laissez-faire economics , national populists found themselves more concerned with creating an economy that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As a result , they ’ re “ supportive of protecting industries like manufacturing , …support a welfare state that helps young families and seniors , and are skeptical of free trade and globalism.
” Renewed opposition to NAFTA and to China ’ s admittance into the WTO proves populist forebears like Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader prescient .
Almost half of They ’ re Not Listening is devoted to one issue : immigration .
This is no accident ; as Girdusky and Hill write , “ immigration is the single biggest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revolution across the world.
” Importantly , anxiety over mass immigration—both legal and illegal—is not limited to Western Europe and the United States .
Girdusky and Hill present powerful case studies of successful immigration law from around the globe , “ From the Congolese living illegally in Angola , to the Bangladeshis living without documents in India , to the Mexican population in the United States.
” Clearly , the immigration-restriction-as-racism trope of the progressive Left is rooted in naivety at best , bad faith at worst .
Immigration has become the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it speaks to human realities that neoliberalism woefully neglects .
Hill and Girdusky cite Robert Cardinal Sarah , the Guinean prelate of the Catholic Church , who has argued that the borders of homelands and cultures are natural and must be protected .
Man is not an interchangeable economic cog , but rather exists within specific social and cultural conditions that provide him with dignity and meaning .
This recognition of the social nature of man , and the need to reaffirm it through the political regime , echoes the unease with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movement treated Enlightenment contract theory and rights-based liberalism in decades past .
So is national populism a conservative program ?
And is it the future of the Right ?
One of the more interesting insights of They ’ re Not Listening is Girdusky and Hill ’ s claim that the national populist agenda is neither traditionally right-wing nor left-wing .
In one sense , this is obviously true : it similarly chafes at the economic commitments of the libertarian Right and the social commitments of the progressive Left .
That it is lazily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media is in itself a validation of the national populist thesis ; the elites who dominate media are , well , not listening to the content of the national populist revolt .
But there ’ s another sense in which national populism is an insufficiently conservative program .
For all that national populism gets right in moving politics away from the idealistic utopianism of neoliberalism , its imperfections linger .
A clear example of the populist-conservative split lies in Girdusky and Hill ’ s lament over the lack of the working class in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The working class ] make up roughly the same percentage of the population as women , ” they write , “ Yet when it comes to politics , the working class is even more underrepresented than all religious , race , or gender groups who get national attention.
” A prior generation of conservatives would find this to be a self-evident , innocuous observation : of course the working class is not represented in the political class .
They serve different roles within the same polity .
On a deeper level , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assumption that guides progressives ’ poisonous identity politics : one ’ s immutable characteristics , whether race , gender , age , or class , are determinant of one ’ s values , interests , and thought .
Joe Biden was rightly ridiculed for pledging to choose a “ woman of color ” as his running mate ; the assumption that a demographic ’ s interests ( insofar as they ’ re monolithic , which , of course , they ’ re not ) could only be represented by one of its own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But populism too often commits the same fallacy , abjuring the possibility that those from “ elite ” backgrounds could adequately protect and pursue the interests of the working class .
Instead of seeking to rekindle a healthy sense of aristocratic duty towards fellow countrymen among those in power , it fans the flames of class resentment .
Similarly , the “ nationalist ” component of national populism presents challenges for the American conservative .
Interestingly , Girdusky and Hill criticize “ politicians in Brussels [ who ] hoped to transform the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States , where a central state with a large bureaucracy would govern across all formally independent nations.
” Surely , Girdusky and Hill do not intend to imply that the federal government in Washington is the same as the supranational government in Brussels .
And there are certainly important cultural and historical differences between the nations of Europe and the former British colonies in North America .
But the comparison begs the question of where one ’ s political loyalties should lie : the grandiose abstraction of the ( supra ? )
nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ familial , familiar , and local ?
It ’ s an especially uncomfortable question in the American context .
Conservative unease with nationalism and populism is nothing new .
Russell Kirk , ever the critic of populism , was resolute in his defense of class divisions in politics .
“ Leadership by men of ability , birth , and wealth is one of the most natural , and most beneficial aspects of civilized life , ” he wrote in The Conservative Mind .
But , importantly , Kirk also stressed the correspondent duties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One of the duties of a statesman is to employ the abilities of the natural aristocracy in the service of the commonwealth ” ( emphasis added ) .
Our contemporary globalist aristocracy seems utterly uninterested in that latter part .
Maybe that ’ s why Kirk would hold sympathy towards nearly all of the national populist positions laid out by Girdusky and Hill .
Perhaps , then , the answer lies further back in classical thought , with Aristotle : virtue lies in the mean .
Not a mean between the Girdusky-Hill critique @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been thoroughly repudiated .
It is failing , whether its devotees realize it or not .
Instead , national populism needs to be tempered by the best of the classical , conservative , and Christian tradition .
The national populist revolution represents a necessary and overdue corrective to the decades of globalist neoliberalism that have plagued Western politics .
It moves the political paradigm back towards the realm of limits , solidarity , community , and place .
But without the tempering forces of virtue , it may over-swing into the more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other words , the national populists need the social conservatives .
Girdusky and Hill , two political consultants , conclude They ’ re Not Listening on a strikingly apolitical note , echoing shades of Rod Dreher ’ s “ apolitical politics ” in The Benedict Option : “ If national populists really believe that nations are families rather than the neoliberal premise that they ’ re marketplaces , then they ’ re going to have to start acting like it , ” they write , “ They ’ re going to have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , faith-based organizations and small businesses.
” There ’ s an irony here : Physical communities are necessarily rooted in a specific , local place , and organizations and businesses develop inherent hierarchies—or , one might say , aristocracies .
So perhaps herein lies the synthesis : a national populism , lived out with a healthy respect for the local and the aristocratic .

They’re Not Listening: How the Elites Created the Nationalist Populist Revolution, by Ryan James Girdusky & Harlan Hill, (Bombadier Books, 2020), 247 pages.
Was Donald Trump’s election an aberration? If the fervor of NeverTrumpers and neoliberal Democrats this election season is any indication, many on both the Right and Left are determined to make it so. The president’s often-erratic behavior is certainly a departure from precedent. But the vitriol with which Trump’s establishment critics treat both the man and his movement suggests the divide is deeper than outrage over imprudent outbursts and strange capitalization on Twitter. There really is a growing, fundamental divide on a set of core issues between global elites and the people in the places they’ve left behind—one that transcends Trump himself. And it’s doubtful that divide is going away, regardless of which septuagenarian wins in November.
At least, that’s how Ryan Girdusky and Harlan Hill tell it. For them, Trump is no aberration—he’s but one example of a global backlash against the neoliberalism that has dominated Western politics in recent decades. The two up-and-coming writers’ debut book, They’re Not Listening: How the Elites Created the Nationalist Populist Revolution, is a sweeping, ambitious work, touching on everything from Brexit, Chilean immigration policy, the Swedish Democrats party, Benghazi, and more. In doing so, Girdusky and Hill make a convincing case that the governance of global elites has become increasingly divorced from the nations and peoples they purportedly serve. Their book is an important contribution to the search for a new politics that looks beyond the lockstep neoliberalism and neoconservatism that have proven so disastrous across the globe.
The issues driving national populism are familiar to long-time readers of this magazine: trade, immigration, and foreign policy. Girdusky and Hill don’t hold back in their critique of the American foreign policy establishment, castigating America’s regime change wars and the entrenched interests that perpetuated them. It’s here that the populist narrative is strongest: “After nearly a quarter century of the American people electing presidents who campaigned against nation-building and war,” they write, “the United States had commitments to defend more than sixty countries in case of an invasion and had hundreds of military bases around the globe.” America’s decades-long crusade to remake the world in its image can hardly be called the will of the people.
Elites have shown a similar disregard for voters on economics. While the ruling class across the political spectrum embraced globalism, free trade, and laissez-faire economics, national populists found themselves more concerned with creating an economy that supported work, family, and country. As a result, they’re “supportive of protecting industries like manufacturing,…support a welfare state that helps young families and seniors, and are skeptical of free trade and globalism.” Renewed opposition to NAFTA and to China’s admittance into the WTO proves populist forebears like Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader prescient.
Almost half of They’re Not Listening is devoted to one issue: immigration. This is no accident; as Girdusky and Hill write, “immigration is the single biggest motivating factor leading to the nationalist populist revolution across the world.” Importantly, anxiety over mass immigration—both legal and illegal—is not limited to Western Europe and the United States. Girdusky and Hill present powerful case studies of successful immigration law from around the globe, “From the Congolese living illegally in Angola, to the Bangladeshis living without documents in India, to the Mexican population in the United States.” Clearly, the immigration-restriction-as-racism trope of the progressive Left is rooted in naivety at best, bad faith at worst.
Immigration has become the most salient political issue in the 21st century because it speaks to human realities that neoliberalism woefully neglects. Hill and Girdusky cite Robert Cardinal Sarah, the Guinean prelate of the Catholic Church, who has argued that the borders of homelands and cultures are natural and must be protected. Man is not an interchangeable economic cog, but rather exists within specific social and cultural conditions that provide him with dignity and meaning. This recognition of the social nature of man, and the need to reaffirm it through the political regime, echoes the unease with which some in the nascent conservative intellectual movement treated Enlightenment contract theory and rights-based liberalism in decades past.
So is national populism a conservative program? And is it the future of the Right? One of the more interesting insights of They’re Not Listening is Girdusky and Hill’s claim that the national populist agenda is neither traditionally right-wing nor left-wing. In one sense, this is obviously true: it similarly chafes at the economic commitments of the libertarian Right and the social commitments of the progressive Left. That it is lazily derided as “far-right” by mainstream media is in itself a validation of the national populist thesis; the elites who dominate media are, well, not listening to the content of the national populist revolt.
But there’s another sense in which national populism is an insufficiently conservative program. For all that national populism gets right in moving politics away from the idealistic utopianism of neoliberalism, its imperfections linger.
A clear example of the populist-conservative split lies in Girdusky and Hill’s lament over the lack of the working class in elite politics and media. “[The working class] make up roughly the same percentage of the population as women,” they write, “Yet when it comes to politics, the working class is even more underrepresented than all religious, race, or gender groups who get national attention.” A prior generation of conservatives would find this to be a self-evident, innocuous observation: of course the working class is not represented in the political class. They serve different roles within the same polity.
On a deeper level, though, the narrative implies the same prior assumption that guides progressives’ poisonous identity politics: one’s immutable characteristics, whether race, gender, age, or class, are determinant of one’s values, interests, and thought. Joe Biden was rightly ridiculed for pledging to choose a “woman of color” as his running mate; the assumption that a demographic’s interests (insofar as they’re monolithic, which, of course, they’re not) could only be represented by one of its own is as absurd as it is offensive. But populism too often commits the same fallacy, abjuring the possibility that those from “elite” backgrounds could adequately protect and pursue the interests of the working class. Instead of seeking to rekindle a healthy sense of aristocratic duty towards fellow countrymen among those in power, it fans the flames of class resentment.
Similarly, the “nationalist” component of national populism presents challenges for the American conservative. Interestingly, Girdusky and Hill criticize “politicians in Brussels [who] hoped to transform the EU into something that resembled the United States, where a central state with a large bureaucracy would govern across all formally independent nations.” Surely, Girdusky and Hill do not intend to imply that the federal government in Washington is the same as the supranational government in Brussels. And there are certainly important cultural and historical differences between the nations of Europe and the former British colonies in North America. But the comparison begs the question of where one’s political loyalties should lie: the grandiose abstraction of the (supra?)nation, or the concrete experience of the familial, familiar, and local? It’s an especially uncomfortable question in the American context.
Conservative unease with nationalism and populism is nothing new. Russell Kirk, ever the critic of populism, was resolute in his defense of class divisions in politics. “Leadership by men of ability, birth, and wealth is one of the most natural, and most beneficial aspects of civilized life,” he wrote in The Conservative Mind. But, importantly, Kirk also stressed the correspondent duties of those men of ability: “One of the duties of a statesman is to employ the abilities of the natural aristocracy in the service of the commonwealth” (emphasis added). Our contemporary globalist aristocracy seems utterly uninterested in that latter part. Maybe that’s why Kirk would hold sympathy towards nearly all of the national populist positions laid out by Girdusky and Hill.
Perhaps, then, the answer lies further back in classical thought, with Aristotle: virtue lies in the mean. Not a mean between the Girdusky-Hill critique and its object; the neoliberal project has been thoroughly repudiated. It is failing, whether its devotees realize it or not.
Instead, national populism needs to be tempered by the best of the classical, conservative, and Christian tradition. The national populist revolution represents a necessary and overdue corrective to the decades of globalist neoliberalism that have plagued Western politics. It moves the political paradigm back towards the realm of limits, solidarity, community, and place. But without the tempering forces of virtue, it may over-swing into the more troubling territory of naked tribalism. In other words, the national populists need the social conservatives.
Girdusky and Hill, two political consultants, conclude They’re Not Listening on a strikingly apolitical note, echoing shades of Rod Dreher’s “apolitical politics” in The Benedict Option: “If national populists really believe that nations are families rather than the neoliberal premise that they’re marketplaces, then they’re going to have to start acting like it,” they write, “They’re going to have to create physical communities centered around local institutions, faith-based organizations and small businesses.” There’s an irony here: Physical communities are necessarily rooted in a specific, local place, and organizations and businesses develop inherent hierarchies—or, one might say, aristocracies. So perhaps herein lies the synthesis: a national populism, lived out with a healthy respect for the local and the aristocratic.


theamericanconservative--2020-09-11--Beware of George Soros’ Trojan Horse Prosecutors

The left-wing billionaire has been funding the campaigns of prosecutors intent on creating chaos rather than doing their jobs .
Cities across our nation are being burned and looted .
Yet , some prosecutors are releasing rioters without charging them for their crimes .
Still others are choosing not to prosecute whole categories of criminal activity .
Why are they failing to execute the laws set out by each state ’ s legislature ?
The answer is that wealthy radicals led by billionaire George Soros have poured over $ 100 million in hard-to-trace dark money to fund political activities in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Their goal ?
To install far-left prosecutors to undermine the American justice system at every level .
This may sound like another conspiracy theory .
But the facts are well documented .
And it requires a concerted effort by those who believe in criminal justice reform—and also prioritize public safety—to act before more people are hurt and damage to the system becomes permanent .
Like the horse the Greeks presented to the Trojans as a peace offering , the prosecutors installed by Soros and his allies are not what they seem .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminal justice system .
These purported “ protectors of the rule of law ” are actually its enemies , waging war from the inside .
Soros and his network of wealthy radicals believe the criminal justice system is so corrupt , so hopelessly racist , that justice is literally impossible .
They have little interest in reforming the system .
Instead , they want to destroy it from within .
They don ’ t engage the electorate by having an open debate about the criminal justice system .
These billionaires seek to circumvent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who will refuse to enforce laws passed by the people through their representatives .
Equally disconcerting , these Trojan Horse prosecutors drop any pretense of impartiality .
They bring a highly charged political viewpoint to an office that is supposed to be apolitical .
It ’ s no wonder that Soros-funded prosecutors like New York Attorney General Letitia James and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance , Jr. have harassed President Trump with never-ending investigations and subpoenas .
AG James is also trying to disband the NRA .
Like Captain Ahab chasing after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undermining the President , and ultimately our nation .
Sadly , the millions in contributions from the Soros network have allowed their far-left candidates to overwhelm their opponents by outspending them by as much as 3 to 1 .
One Democrat who was unseated by a Soros acolyte said , “ This is an election that was bought , not won.
” Soros and his allies have installed “ woke ” prosecutors in 31 cities and counties , among them San Francisco , Chicago , Philadelphia , Boston , Portland , Dallas , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions of Americans who live in those jurisdictions are paying a dear price for allowing Soros to buy prosecutors ’ offices and weaponize the raw power that comes from the enforcement ( or lack thereof ) of the law .
Here are a few examples of the havoc that Trojan Horse prosecutors have brought to their communities .
( Contributions from Soros-funded entities and allies are in parentheses ) : • After St. Louis erupted in violence , arson , and looting , Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner ( $ 307,000 ) dismissed all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that violence .
In the last few days eight St. Louis police officers have been shot .
• At the same time , Gardner rushed to file charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey , the homeowners who brandished ( but did not use ) guns at protestors who had entered the private street where the McCloskeys reside .
• In Chicago , Illinois State ’ s Attorney Kim Foxx ( $ 817,000 ) refused to prosecute rioters who violated the curfew imposed to quell the violence .
“ The question it comes down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use of our time and resources ?
No , it ’ s not.
” What does she think would be a better use of her time and resources ?
• You probably remember Foxx .
She dismissed the charges against Jussie Smollett , the actor who reported a hate crime attack against himself that turned out to be bogus .
A judge removed Foxx from the case and assigned a special prosecutor who filed six new charges .
• Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner ( $ 1.7 Million ) announced he won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that rocked his city for days with widespread looting and many cars torched .
His excuse for not holding the mob accountable for their violence was laughable .
“ Prosecution alone will achieve nothing close to justice—not when power imbalances and lack of accountability make it possible for government actors including police or prosecutors to regularly take life or liberty unjustly and face no criminal or career penalty.
” • Given that Krasner ’ s career prior to his election had consisted of filing over 75 cases against the police and representing Occupy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cynical efforts should come as no surprise .
Indeed , Krasner ’ s hostility toward police was on display when his supporters repeatedly chanted “ F*ck the police , F*ck the police ” at his victory party .
• US Attorney William McSwain commented that Krasner “ is not even pretending to be a prosecutor .
He calls himself a public defender with power .
It ’ s almost like letting a fox into the hen house .
Once he ’ s in , he ’ s trying to cause as much havoc @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Krasner .
The DA has dropped charges on more than 60 percent of shooting cases , and he has dropped 37 percent of illegal firearms cases .
Shooting incidents in Philadelphia are up 57 % from last year , and there have been 201 homicides so far this year , up 24 % .
Finally , the Legislature stripped Krasner of his authority to prosecute gun crimes and gave it to the state ’ s attorney general .
• San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin ( $ 620,000 ) is the beau ideal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The criminal justice system isn ’ t just massive and brutal , it ’ s also racist , ” according to Boudin .
He refuses to prosecute “ quality-of-life crimes , such as public camping , offering or soliciting sex , public urination , blocking a sidewalk , etc.
” No wonder San Francisco has had to develop a special app to help pedestrians navigate piles of feces on their streets !
• Under Boudin ’ s non-prosecution policies , homicides in the city are up 25 % , burglary is up 42 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 31 % and arson is up 45 % compared to the same time period last year .
Car break-ins have reached epidemic proportions , with roughly 70 smash-and-grabs a day .
• Boudin ’ s background was perfect for Soros and the other billionaire revolutionaries .
He moved to Venezuela to serve as an advisor to the brutal dictator Hugo Chavez because he admired the Communist ’ s use of power .
Boudin ’ s parents were members of a Marxist terrorist group known as the Weather Underground .
They participated in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Two police officers and a security guard were gunned down and died in the botched robbery .
Now , their son is picking up the flag of radicalism and carrying it forward .
• When Boudin won , the crowd at his victory celebration repeatedly shouted “ F*ck the POA ( Police Officers Association ) ” — just like Krasner ’ s supporters did in Philadelphia .
• In Portland , DA Mike Schmidt ( $ 230,000 ) refuses to prosecute the rioters who have burned and looted his city for over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would not prosecute “ interfering with a peace officer , disorderly conduct in the second degree , criminal trespass in the first or second degree , escape in the third degree , and harassment and riot when it isn ’ t accompanied by a charge separate from this list.
” He explained that the rioters “ represent the instinctive reactions of people who have been gassed repeatedly , who have been struck with kinetic projectile weapons.
” These Trojan Horse prosecutors are really “ social justice warriors.
” They believe that prosecutors should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as poverty , racism , sexism , and income inequality .
Thus , public safety ranks below those social issues .
The radical funders have no interest in supporting prosecutors who have a solid record of working to fix the system .
In fact , they have poured millions into campaigns to defeat respected prosecutors who have implemented proven reforms such as special courts for veterans , drug courts , and mental health courts .
Since 2018 , Soros has made Virginia the focus of his efforts .
And it has paid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over five of the largest prosecutor ’ s offices in the Commonwealth : Fairfax , Arlington , Alexandria , Albemarle , Portsmouth , and Loudoun .
The Loudoun County race is a prime example of the Soros strategy .
Soros-funded groups spent $ 850,000 to defeat Nicole Wittman , a much-admired career prosecutor in Loudoun County , Virginia , who backed specialty courts , reformed the juvenile justice system , and prioritized violent crimes over casual marijuana use .
The candidate who beat her was an attorney whose prosecutorial experience was limited to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ county .
But it ’ s hard to win when nearly a million dollars is spent on TV ads and community organizers on the ground working against you .
Now , Soros has the Los Angeles District Attorney in his sights .
He and his allies have spent well over $ 1 million to defeat Jackie Lacey , a highly respected prosecutor who has made remarkable progress in diverting non-dangerous persons with mental illness into community treatment , freeing up costly jail beds for serious and violent offenders .
Ironically , Lacey is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to oust her ?
George Gascon , district attorney in San Francisco until recently .
The white male progressive is running on a platform to bring San Francisco values to the City of Angels .
Matthew Vadum of the Capitol Research Center sums up the effort to radicalize prosecutors ’ offices well : “ George Soros ’ s push to radically reshape the judiciary and elect extremist district attorneys across the country to weaken law enforcement and protect lawless sanctuary cities is bearing fruit… He wants to cripple police in order to advance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that simplistically breaks the world down into race , class , and sex or gender.
” The public will suffer when politically driven prosecutors focus not on public safety but on social issues .
The police will be marginalized , communities will live in fear of violence , and the needs of victims will be ignored – all in the name of “ social justice.
” Justice Brandeis famously wrote : “ Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
” It is time for us to “ shine some sunlight ” on the disastrous policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the voters so they can “ disinfect ” America ’ s prosecutor offices to make public safety the priority of our justice system again .
Pat Nolan is the Director , Center for Criminal Justice Reform at The American Conservative Union Foundation .

Cities across our nation are being burned and looted. Yet, some prosecutors are releasing rioters without charging them for their crimes. Still others are choosing not to prosecute whole categories of criminal activity. Why are they failing to execute the laws set out by each state’s legislature?
The answer is that wealthy radicals led by billionaire George Soros have poured over $100 million in hard-to-trace dark money to fund political activities in races for state and local prosecutors. Their goal? To install far-left prosecutors to undermine the American justice system at every level. This may sound like another conspiracy theory. But the facts are well documented. And it requires a concerted effort by those who believe in criminal justice reform—and also prioritize public safety—to act before more people are hurt and damage to the system becomes permanent.
Like the horse the Greeks presented to the Trojans as a peace offering, the prosecutors installed by Soros and his allies are not what they seem. These radicals are actually intent on destroying the criminal justice system. These purported “protectors of the rule of law” are actually its enemies, waging war from the inside.
Soros and his network of wealthy radicals believe the criminal justice system is so corrupt, so hopelessly racist, that justice is literally impossible. They have little interest in reforming the system. Instead, they want to destroy it from within.
They don’t engage the electorate by having an open debate about the criminal justice system. These billionaires seek to circumvent the entire democratic process by electing candidates who will refuse to enforce laws passed by the people through their representatives.
Equally disconcerting, these Trojan Horse prosecutors drop any pretense of impartiality. They bring a highly charged political viewpoint to an office that is supposed to be apolitical. It’s no wonder that Soros-funded prosecutors like New York Attorney General Letitia James and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. have harassed President Trump with never-ending investigations and subpoenas. AG James is also trying to disband the NRA. Like Captain Ahab chasing after the white whale, they are obsessed with undermining the President, and ultimately our nation.
Sadly, the millions in contributions from the Soros network have allowed their far-left candidates to overwhelm their opponents by outspending them by as much as 3 to 1. One Democrat who was unseated by a Soros acolyte said, “This is an election that was bought, not won.”
Soros and his allies have installed “woke” prosecutors in 31 cities and counties, among them San Francisco, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Portland, Dallas, and St. Louis! The tens of millions of Americans who live in those jurisdictions are paying a dear price for allowing Soros to buy prosecutors’ offices and weaponize the raw power that comes from the enforcement (or lack thereof) of the law.
Here are a few examples of the havoc that Trojan Horse prosecutors have brought to their communities. (Contributions from Soros-funded entities and allies are in parentheses):
After St. Louis erupted in violence, arson, and looting, Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner ($307,000) dismissed all charges against the 36 people arrested for that violence. In the last few days eight St. Louis police officers have been shot. At the same time, Gardner rushed to file charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the homeowners who brandished (but did not use) guns at protestors who had entered the private street where the McCloskeys reside.
In Chicago, Illinois State’s Attorney Kim Foxx ($817,000) refused to prosecute rioters who violated the curfew imposed to quell the violence. “The question it comes down to is, is it a good use of our time and resources? No, it’s not.” What does she think would be a better use of her time and resources? You probably remember Foxx. She dismissed the charges against Jussie Smollett, the actor who reported a hate crime attack against himself that turned out to be bogus. A judge removed Foxx from the case and assigned a special prosecutor who filed six new charges.
Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner ($1.7 Million) announced he won’t prosecute people arrested for the violence that rocked his city for days with widespread looting and many cars torched. His excuse for not holding the mob accountable for their violence was laughable. “Prosecution alone will achieve nothing close to justice—not when power imbalances and lack of accountability make it possible for government actors including police or prosecutors to regularly take life or liberty unjustly and face no criminal or career penalty.” Given that Krasner’s career prior to his election had consisted of filing over 75 cases against the police and representing Occupy Philadelphia and Black Lives Matter, his cynical efforts should come as no surprise. Indeed, Krasner’s hostility toward police was on display when his supporters repeatedly chanted “F*ck the police, F*ck the police” at his victory party. US Attorney William McSwain commented that Krasner “is not even pretending to be a prosecutor. He calls himself a public defender with power. It’s almost like letting a fox into the hen house. Once he’s in, he’s trying to cause as much havoc as possible.” McSwain was right about Krasner. The DA has dropped charges on more than 60 percent of shooting cases, and he has dropped 37 percent of illegal firearms cases. Shooting incidents in Philadelphia are up 57% from last year, and there have been 201 homicides so far this year, up 24%. Finally, the Legislature stripped Krasner of his authority to prosecute gun crimes and gave it to the state’s attorney general.
San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin ($620,000) is the beau ideal of the Trojan Horse prosecutors. “The criminal justice system isn’t just massive and brutal, it’s also racist,” according to Boudin. He refuses to prosecute “quality-of-life crimes, such as public camping, offering or soliciting sex, public urination, blocking a sidewalk, etc.” No wonder San Francisco has had to develop a special app to help pedestrians navigate piles of feces on their streets! Under Boudin’s non-prosecution policies, homicides in the city are up 25%, burglary is up 42%, motor vehicle theft is up 31% and arson is up 45% compared to the same time period last year. Car break-ins have reached epidemic proportions, with roughly 70 smash-and-grabs a day. Boudin’s background was perfect for Soros and the other billionaire revolutionaries. He moved to Venezuela to serve as an advisor to the brutal dictator Hugo Chavez because he admired the Communist’s use of power. Boudin’s parents were members of a Marxist terrorist group known as the Weather Underground. They participated in an armed robbery of a Brinks armored car. Two police officers and a security guard were gunned down and died in the botched robbery. Now, their son is picking up the flag of radicalism and carrying it forward. When Boudin won, the crowd at his victory celebration repeatedly shouted “F*ck the POA (Police Officers Association)”— just like Krasner’s supporters did in Philadelphia.
In Portland, DA Mike Schmidt ($230,000) refuses to prosecute the rioters who have burned and looted his city for over 90 days straight. He said he would not prosecute “interfering with a peace officer, disorderly conduct in the second degree, criminal trespass in the first or second degree, escape in the third degree, and harassment and riot when it isn’t accompanied by a charge separate from this list.” He explained that the rioters “represent the instinctive reactions of people who have been gassed repeatedly, who have been struck with kinetic projectile weapons.”
These Trojan Horse prosecutors are really “social justice warriors.” They believe that prosecutors should make a priority of addressing social issues such as poverty, racism, sexism, and income inequality. Thus, public safety ranks below those social issues.
The radical funders have no interest in supporting prosecutors who have a solid record of working to fix the system. In fact, they have poured millions into campaigns to defeat respected prosecutors who have implemented proven reforms such as special courts for veterans, drug courts, and mental health courts.
Since 2018, Soros has made Virginia the focus of his efforts. And it has paid dividends. Trojan Horse candidates have taken over five of the largest prosecutor’s offices in the Commonwealth: Fairfax, Arlington, Alexandria, Albemarle, Portsmouth, and Loudoun.
The Loudoun County race is a prime example of the Soros strategy. Soros-funded groups spent $850,000 to defeat Nicole Wittman, a much-admired career prosecutor in Loudoun County, Virginia, who backed specialty courts, reformed the juvenile justice system, and prioritized violent crimes over casual marijuana use. The candidate who beat her was an attorney whose prosecutorial experience was limited to traffic violations for a municipality outside the county. But it’s hard to win when nearly a million dollars is spent on TV ads and community organizers on the ground working against you.
Now, Soros has the Los Angeles District Attorney in his sights. He and his allies have spent well over $1 million to defeat Jackie Lacey, a highly respected prosecutor who has made remarkable progress in diverting non-dangerous persons with mental illness into community treatment, freeing up costly jail beds for serious and violent offenders. Ironically, Lacey is an African-American woman. The candidate running to oust her? George Gascon, district attorney in San Francisco until recently. The white male progressive is running on a platform to bring San Francisco values to the City of Angels.
Matthew Vadum of the Capitol Research Center sums up the effort to radicalize prosecutors’ offices well: “George Soros’s push to radically reshape the judiciary and elect extremist district attorneys across the country to weaken law enforcement and protect lawless sanctuary cities is bearing fruit… He wants to cripple police in order to advance the neo-Marxist abstraction known as social justice that simplistically breaks the world down into race, class, and sex or gender.”
The public will suffer when politically driven prosecutors focus not on public safety but on social issues. The police will be marginalized, communities will live in fear of violence, and the needs of victims will be ignored – all in the name of “social justice.”
Justice Brandeis famously wrote: “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” It is time for us to “shine some sunlight” on the disastrous policies of these Trojan Horse prosecutors, inform the voters so they can “disinfect” America’s prosecutor offices to make public safety the priority of our justice system again.
Pat Nolan is the Director, Center for Criminal Justice Reform at The American Conservative Union Foundation.


The Counterrevolutionary Left

CWB honorees Alicia Garza , Opal Tometi and Patrisse Cullors speak onstage during attends The New York Women 's Foundation Celebrating Women Breakfast at Marriott Marquis Hotel on May 14 , 2015 ( Photo by Jemal Countess/Getty Images for The New York Women 's Foundation ) Reports about tons of dark money flooding Democratic operatives from “ left wing groups ” seems to confirm an analysis offered this week by Pedro Gonzalez in his column “ The Ruling Class Strikes Back ” : Here the ruling class is indeed striking back .
This “ carpet bombing ” money , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic presidential candidate over the finish line , is coming from neither inner-city blacks nor derelicts at a soup kitchen .
This dark money has issued from the wealthy and very wealthy .
It is meant to keep Donald Trump from winning the November election and thereby continuing what the donors view as a revolutionary experiment in American government .
Pedro urges us not to be distracted by screams about the underprivileged and Trump ’ s “ right wing extremism.
” The people who are behind the anti-Trump crusade and who manufacture daily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ represent an establishment that Trump ruffled without displacing .
And now they ’ re coming after him , the Deep State , the neocon global interventionists , the culture industry that resents Trump ’ s defiance , and the friends of the Clintons and Obamas in the media .
In their view and in that of the Never-Trump and Lincoln Project Republicans , Trump is not the kind of person who should be in the White House .
He is brash and shoots too often from the hip .
He also doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counsels of “ experts.
” Pedro Gonzalez is on the money that there is a counterrevolutionary character to much of the organized opposition to Trump .
The rich people and those in power loathe him , while working-class whites , church-going country folk , and the young women who never went to college form his base .
Who but a total idiot would confuse Michelle Obama , the ultimate pampered mediocrity , with an impoverished black mother , when she declaims against “ white privilege ” from her 11-million dollar pleasure dome on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while the Dems are hemorrhaging working class voters , such plutocrats as Ted Bezos , Jeff Zucker , George Soros , Mark Zuckerberg , and all kinds of Hollywood celebrities have rallied to their cause .
Tucker Carlson was paraphrasing this causal explanation when he observed that “ our leaders have decided to punish the middle class ” for having voted for Trump .
But I would offer two qualifications to Pedro ’ s argument that underscores the uniqueness of the present counterrevolution .
This enraged resistance is coming from the institutionalized Left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest is a challenge from the right .
Not all counterrevolutions originate on the right , and certainly not if leftists are the ones in power or are the ones who are fearful of losing power .
When the Communist regime in Poland fought Polish Catholic nationalists ; or the Republican government in Spain in 1936 resisted the Nationalists under General Franco , the leftist establishment might have described itself as counterrevolutionaries who were resisting a revolutionary right .
Throughout Western Europe today populists are battling to wrest power from a globalist capitalist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause and is welcoming Third World Muslim immigration .
Here too the counterrevolutionaries are located on the left .
Another complicating factor , which I discuss in a book in press , Antifascism : Course of a Crusade , is that the ruling class has allied itself with dangerous radicals , who want to push things beyond where our elites wish them to go .
The CEOs of Pepsico , Citibank , Netflex and dozens of other globally active corporations are delighted to shower money on BLM and even Antifa groups , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ present administration by creating chaos in our cities .
They may also play the fashionable role of woke capitalists and like Goldman-Sachs , or require their employees to use transgender pronouns in the workplace .
But do these benefactors really want thugs to continue rampaging through our cities if their party wins ?
What about Bill Kristol , Jennifer Rubin , Mitt Romney , John Kasich , Michael Blumberg , members of the Bush family and other pro-Biden establishmentarians ?
Are they looking forward to a Green New Deal , having AOC in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BLM “ peaceful protestors ” sitting across from them at the table of the new Democratic government ?
And assuming these counterrevolutionaries don ’ t want that to happen , what measures are they willing to take to keep the extremists with whom they are allied from sharing power ?
What may generate an instant crisis is if the rioters continue to run amok .
It will no longer be possible to blame these disturbances on the defeated “ racist ” president ; and at some point , the victorious Democrats may have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is not entirely unlikely that force will then be applied ; and as in the Minneapolis riots some attempt will be made to link the disorder to the “ far right.
” A possible comparison that comes to mind is the way Hitler wiped out the hell-raising Brown Shirts after he came to power .
We may not see in Biden ’ s America anything quite as disquieting as the Night of the Long Knives , but it ’ s also doubtful that the unruliness will go away on its own .

Reports about tons of dark money flooding Democratic operatives from “left wing groups” seems to confirm an analysis offered this week by Pedro Gonzalez in his column “The Ruling Class Strikes Back”:
“A network of left-wing groups with budgets eclipsing those of conservative powerhouses like the Heritage Foundation will likely ‘carpet bomb’ the 2020 election with anonymous dark money, a new report obtained by Fox News warns.”
Here the ruling class is indeed striking back. This “carpet bombing” money, which is intended to push the mentally deteriorated Democratic presidential candidate over the finish line, is coming from neither inner-city blacks nor derelicts at a soup kitchen. This dark money has issued from the wealthy and very wealthy. It is meant to keep Donald Trump from winning the November election and thereby continuing what the donors view as a revolutionary experiment in American government. Pedro urges us not to be distracted by screams about the underprivileged and Trump’s “right wing extremism.”
The people who are behind the anti-Trump crusade and who manufacture daily crises and scandals to bring him down represent an establishment that Trump ruffled without displacing. And now they’re coming after him, the Deep State, the neocon global interventionists, the culture industry that resents Trump’s defiance, and the friends of the Clintons and Obamas in the media. In their view and in that of the Never-Trump and Lincoln Project Republicans, Trump is not the kind of person who should be in the White House. He is brash and shoots too often from the hip. He also doesn’t defer often enough to the sage counsels of “experts.”
Pedro Gonzalez is on the money that there is a counterrevolutionary character to much of the organized opposition to Trump. The rich people and those in power loathe him, while working-class whites, church-going country folk, and the young women who never went to college form his base. Who but a total idiot would confuse Michelle Obama, the ultimate pampered mediocrity, with an impoverished black mother, when she declaims against “white privilege” from her 11-million dollar pleasure dome on Martha’s Vineyard? Moreover, while the Dems are hemorrhaging working class voters, such plutocrats as Jeff Bezos, Jeff Zucker, George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg, and all kinds of Hollywood celebrities have rallied to their cause. Tucker Carlson was paraphrasing this causal explanation when he observed that “our leaders have decided to punish the middle class” for having voted for Trump.
But I would offer two qualifications to Pedro’s argument that underscores the uniqueness of the present counterrevolution. This enraged resistance is coming from the institutionalized Left against what in its appeal to national interest is a challenge from the right. Not all counterrevolutions originate on the right, and certainly not if leftists are the ones in power or are the ones who are fearful of losing power. When the Communist regime in Poland fought Polish Catholic nationalists; or the Republican government in Spain in 1936 resisted the Nationalists under General Franco, the leftist establishment might have described itself as counterrevolutionaries who were resisting a revolutionary right. Throughout Western Europe today populists are battling to wrest power from a globalist capitalist class, which actively supports the LGBT cause and is welcoming Third World Muslim immigration. Here too the counterrevolutionaries are located on the left.
Another complicating factor, which I discuss in a book in press, Antifascism: Course of a Crusade, is that the ruling class has allied itself with dangerous radicals, who want to push things beyond where our elites wish them to go. The CEOs of Pepsico, Citibank, Netflix and dozens of other globally active corporations are delighted to shower money on BLM and even Antifa groups, but this may be mostly to topple the present administration by creating chaos in our cities. They may also play the fashionable role of woke capitalists and like Goldman-Sachs, or require their employees to use transgender pronouns in the workplace.
But do these benefactors really want thugs to continue rampaging through our cities if their party wins? What about Bill Kristol, Jennifer Rubin, Mitt Romney, John Kasich, Michael Bloomberg, members of the Bush family and other pro-Biden establishmentarians? Are they looking forward to a Green New Deal, having AOC in a Biden cabinet, or perhaps seeing BLM “peaceful protestors” sitting across from them at the table of the new Democratic government? And assuming these counterrevolutionaries don’t want that to happen, what measures are they willing to take to keep the extremists with whom they are allied from sharing power?
What may generate an instant crisis is if the rioters continue to run amok. It will no longer be possible to blame these disturbances on the defeated “racist” president; and at some point, the victorious Democrats may have to deal with their unruly voters. It is not entirely unlikely that force will then be applied; and as in the Minneapolis riots some attempt will be made to link the disorder to the “far right.” A possible comparison that comes to mind is the way Hitler wiped out the hell-raising Brown Shirts after he came to power. We may not see in Biden’s America anything quite as disquieting as the Night of the Long Knives, but it’s also doubtful that the unruliness will go away on its own.