theamericanconservative--2020-11-11--It’s Not Your Father’s GOP

It’s Not Your Father’s GOP

The future of American conservatism is in the hands of the young , and it needs a radically different direction from the old one .
Whether or not President Trump remains President Trump , his impact on the trajectory of the Republican party is undeniable .
The party will never return to the party of Ronald Reagan ( eternal rest grant unto his soul ) .
Rather than mourning the death of the old party , conservatives should be thankful for what President Trump has done for the movement—regardless of how we view the man ’ s shortcomings ( of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump connected with a class of voters that the elites have long looked down upon—until , of course , it came time to cash in their votes ( we all know the type of paternalistic pandering , particularly about religious faith , that comes around every election cycle ) .
I ’ m talking about America ’ s multiracial , multiethnic , socially conservative middle class—the people who make America so great .
Despite constant allegations that President Trump embodies America ’ s racist history , he won the highest percentage of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Indeed , Trump ’ s heaviest losses were among white , upper-class males .
Whether one believes the president is actually a racist or not , this demographic shift is momentous , and we conservatives , particularly those of us who belong to traditional faith communities , should welcome it with open arms .
The 2020 election , far from being the blue wave that we were promised by America ’ s millionaire pundits , has thus far shown that many Americans reject the elites and their soft totalitarianism , the globalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the poor poorer and has encouraged constant war , and the growing rise of secularism and its outright mockery of religious faith .
What was the genius behind the Trump-led realignment of the GOP ?
The combination of traditional religious belief and its sister , social conservatism , with economic populism and foreign restraint .
( One quick disclaimer : I don ’ t contend that the president himself holds traditional religious beliefs , as there is certainly much evidence that he doesn ’ t .
But he has been friendlier to this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Catholics , than any President in recent memory . )
What President Reagan and his GOP-establishment successors ultimately failed to realize is that conservatism is not at odds with placing American economic interests first—including through social security and other social programs that actually work ( many do not ) —and ending constant , profit-driven wars .
For all his faults , President Trump has presented the Republican Party with the opportunity to finally realize its potential as the party of America ’ s faithful working class .
We can finally be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and orthodox Christian social teaching with the principles of prosperity that have made this country exceptional for so many years ; the party that rejects “ woke ” capitalism and cancel culture and embraces Senator Rubio ’ s common-good capitalism and the mercy of second chances ; the party that rejects federal funding for abortion and embraces the sanctity and dignity of human life from the womb to the tomb ; the party that believes in law and order and keeping our communities safe but aims to dismantle unjust criminal sentencing schemes ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bill Clinton ) and the structures that keep the poor from rising ; the party that believes in the idea of America and desires to build a nation where everyone can flourish , not just those who subscribe to the rapidly changing cultural orthodoxy .
This ideal of what we can be is not so far off—that is , if we can capitalize on this momentum .
With all this potential in mind , there is one major demographic that this new conservative shift needs to account for : the young , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2020 election , there were 27 percent more registered Democrats than Republicans in the 18-29 year-old age range , an increase of 8 percent from 2016 .
For the 30-44 year-old age range , the Democrats saw a 7 percent advantage , although their total margin actually decreased 3 percent from 2016 .
Surely , much of this has to do with the summer of activism we just watched unfold before our eyes .
But there is no disputing that America ’ s younger generations are trending leftward .
So , my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where do we go from here as a movement ?
How do we harness the energy of a new era of conservatism and win over our peers in the process ?
For starters , we must emphasize that religious faith and religious liberty are foundational to any successful republic .
Not only that , but religiosity belongs in the public sphere .
It is not something that we keep tucked away in a drawer or in the closet out of fear that Big Brother and his army of woke capitalists will cancel us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we owe Him , not the government , our ultimate due .
We must be faithful witnesses in our professional lives , even when it ’ s uncomfortable .
We must buy into the belief that subsidiarity and small government do not negate the government ’ s clear role in forming and maintaining the conscience of its population .
We are not social libertarians : we do not believe in laissez-faire morality .
Liberty ( freedom to do the right thing ) is not the same as license ( freedom to do whatever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a duty , unto God and unto the citizenry , to uphold the natural law , to protect marriage and the family , and to protect the most vulnerable in our population—including the unborn , racial and ethnic minorities , and the aging .
And we must constantly remind our peers that we Christians have always stood for these principles .
We must focus on reinvigorating America ’ s dwindling middle class and on helping everyone prosper , not just those who are born into elite status and material wealth .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and unrestricted free trade and instead embrace common-good capitalism and refuse to deal with countries , like China , that persecute their own citizens en masse for holding religious beliefs that privilege God over the state .
We must reject and combat the rising wave of socialism , an ideology that has historically led to millions of deaths .
We must always remember our duty to lift up the poor among us , to truly invest in them as human beings in a way that will actually alleviate their poverty and empower them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and implementing innovative solutions in areas where both the left ’ s welfare state and our “ slash the welfare state ” approaches have failed .
We must actively seek solutions to the broken healthcare system , to the extremes of criminal sentencing schemes , and to widespread violence in our communities .
We must emphasize that almost all of this should be done at the local level , acknowledging subsidiarity as a fundamental principle of government .
We must foster and commit to authentic fellowship , not online communities that far too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human beings , not computers .
We must encourage membership in religious and civic organizations .
We need community .
We need each other .
We must respect and cherish the true diversity—our uniqueness as children made in the image and likeness of our Creator .
We must welcome with open arms our brothers and sisters of different races , ethnicities , and socioeconomic backgrounds , assuring them that they belong in this movement now and in the future .
At the same time , we must remain united over our common purpose—most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faith in a Creator , then as Americans , and finally as conservatives .
If we accomplish even the majority of this , we will build a movement that lasts , one that saves America ’ s soul .
This movement , unlike the political and social movements we see so often today , is one that seeks to build , not to destroy .
But we have individual obligations , too .
We must act better than our counterparts on the left .
We can not succumb to the violence and destruction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last several months .
We must be above name-calling and petty jabs that tear others down , pollute our own souls , and lead to further division .
We must nevertheless resist all of the moral lies of the soft-totalitarian elites , never exchanging our souls for temporary comfort .
At the same time , we must reach out to our friends on the left with humility and charity .
They are all children of God , and we are all prodigal sons and daughters .
Let us embrace them with open arms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with us .
So too must we be better than our largely suburban , country club GOP-establishment predecessors , who have been silent for far too long as people who hate America fight endlessly to destroy her .
Whether out of indifference to the moral issues of our time or out of fear of being cancelled , our establishment fathers ( and mothers ) have failed to live out Christ ’ s command to “ Be not afraid.
” They have traded the good life for a life of comfort and safety .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ same way , or America will lose her soul ; we will likely suffer the same fate .
Now is the time to be bold , to fight for America ’ s future , to defend and protect the most vulnerable among us , to seek meaning , and to live lives of virtue .
Ultimately , we must do the hard work of fixing ourselves first .
And then we must go out into the world , formed by faith and freed from fear , to let them know that we won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we will not cooperate in the great lie that America is an evil and irredeemable country .
Throughout this earthly journey and throughout this young conservative renewal , we must never forget our ultimate destination .
When we get there , may St. Peter greet us with cheer and may our God say , “ Well done , good and faithful servant.
” A movement oriented toward this eternal end is destined to succeed .
Ben Hachten is a recent law graduate of The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Society and several Catholic organizations .

Whether or not President Trump remains President Trump, his impact on the trajectory of the Republican party is undeniable. The party will never return to the party of Ronald Reagan (eternal rest grant unto his soul). Rather than mourning the death of the old party, conservatives should be thankful for what President Trump has done for the movement—regardless of how we view the man’s shortcomings (of which one could find many).
President Trump connected with a class of voters that the elites have long looked down upon—until, of course, it came time to cash in their votes (we all know the type of paternalistic pandering, particularly about religious faith, that comes around every election cycle). I’m talking about America’s multiracial, multiethnic, socially conservative middle class—the people who make America so great.
Despite constant allegations that President Trump embodies America’s racist history, he won the highest percentage of non-white voters of any Republican since 1960. Indeed, Trump’s heaviest losses were among white, upper-class males. Whether one believes the president is actually a racist or not, this demographic shift is momentous, and we conservatives, particularly those of us who belong to traditional faith communities, should welcome it with open arms. The 2020 election, far from being the blue wave that we were promised by America’s millionaire pundits, has thus far shown that many Americans reject the elites and their soft totalitarianism, the globalism that has made the rich richer and the poor poorer and has encouraged constant war, and the growing rise of secularism and its outright mockery of religious faith.
What was the genius behind the Trump-led realignment of the GOP? The combination of traditional religious belief and its sister, social conservatism, with economic populism and foreign restraint. (One quick disclaimer: I don’t contend that the president himself holds traditional religious beliefs, as there is certainly much evidence that he doesn’t. But he has been friendlier to this group of believers, particularly orthodox Christians and Catholics, than any President in recent memory.) What President Reagan and his GOP-establishment successors ultimately failed to realize is that conservatism is not at odds with placing American economic interests first—including through social security and other social programs that actually work (many do not)—and ending constant, profit-driven wars.
For all his faults, President Trump has presented the Republican Party with the opportunity to finally realize its potential as the party of America’s faithful working class. We can finally be the party that combines the fullness of Catholic and orthodox Christian social teaching with the principles of prosperity that have made this country exceptional for so many years; the party that rejects “woke” capitalism and cancel culture and embraces Senator Rubio’s common-good capitalism and the mercy of second chances; the party that rejects federal funding for abortion and embraces the sanctity and dignity of human life from the womb to the tomb; the party that believes in law and order and keeping our communities safe but aims to dismantle unjust criminal sentencing schemes (I’m looking at you, Bill Clinton) and the structures that keep the poor from rising; the party that believes in the idea of America and desires to build a nation where everyone can flourish, not just those who subscribe to the rapidly changing cultural orthodoxy. This ideal of what we can be is not so far off—that is, if we can capitalize on this momentum.
With all this potential in mind, there is one major demographic that this new conservative shift needs to account for: the young, including both Gen Z and Millenials. In the 2020 election, there were 27 percent more registered Democrats than Republicans in the 18-29 year-old age range, an increase of 8 percent from 2016. For the 30-44 year-old age range, the Democrats saw a 7 percent advantage, although their total margin actually decreased 3 percent from 2016. Surely, much of this has to do with the summer of activism we just watched unfold before our eyes. But there is no disputing that America’s younger generations are trending leftward.
So, my fellow Gen Z and Millenial conservatives, where do we go from here as a movement? How do we harness the energy of a new era of conservatism and win over our peers in the process?
For starters, we must emphasize that religious faith and religious liberty are foundational to any successful republic. Not only that, but religiosity belongs in the public sphere. It is not something that we keep tucked away in a drawer or in the closet out of fear that Big Brother and his army of woke capitalists will cancel us for believing that God exists and that we owe Him, not the government, our ultimate due. We must be faithful witnesses in our professional lives, even when it’s uncomfortable.
We must buy into the belief that subsidiarity and small government do not negate the government’s clear role in forming and maintaining the conscience of its population. We are not social libertarians: we do not believe in laissez-faire morality. Liberty (freedom to do the right thing) is not the same as license (freedom to do whatever you want). The government thus has a duty, unto God and unto the citizenry, to uphold the natural law, to protect marriage and the family, and to protect the most vulnerable in our population—including the unborn, racial and ethnic minorities, and the aging. And we must constantly remind our peers that we Christians have always stood for these principles.
We must focus on reinvigorating America’s dwindling middle class and on helping everyone prosper, not just those who are born into elite status and material wealth. We must acknowledge the ills of crony capitalism and unrestricted free trade and instead embrace common-good capitalism and refuse to deal with countries, like China, that persecute their own citizens en masse for holding religious beliefs that privilege God over the state. We must reject and combat the rising wave of socialism, an ideology that has historically led to millions of deaths.
We must always remember our duty to lift up the poor among us, to truly invest in them as human beings in a way that will actually alleviate their poverty and empower them to flourish. This means looking for and implementing innovative solutions in areas where both the left’s welfare state and our “slash the welfare state” approaches have failed.
We must actively seek solutions to the broken healthcare system, to the extremes of criminal sentencing schemes, and to widespread violence in our communities. We must emphasize that almost all of this should be done at the local level, acknowledging subsidiarity as a fundamental principle of government.
We must foster and commit to authentic fellowship, not online communities that far too often fail to recognize that we are human beings, not computers. We must encourage membership in religious and civic organizations. We need community. We need each other.
We must respect and cherish the true diversity—our uniqueness as children made in the image and likeness of our Creator. We must welcome with open arms our brothers and sisters of different races, ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds, assuring them that they belong in this movement now and in the future. At the same time, we must remain united over our common purpose—most importantly as human beings with a shared faith in a Creator, then as Americans, and finally as conservatives.
If we accomplish even the majority of this, we will build a movement that lasts, one that saves America’s soul. This movement, unlike the political and social movements we see so often today, is one that seeks to build, not to destroy.
But we have individual obligations, too.
We must act better than our counterparts on the left. We cannot succumb to the violence and destruction that has plagued our cities for the last several months. We must be above name-calling and petty jabs that tear others down, pollute our own souls, and lead to further division. We must nevertheless resist all of the moral lies of the soft-totalitarian elites, never exchanging our souls for temporary comfort. At the same time, we must reach out to our friends on the left with humility and charity. They are all children of God, and we are all prodigal sons and daughters. Let us embrace them with open arms, just as our Father has done with us.
So too must we be better than our largely suburban, country club GOP-establishment predecessors, who have been silent for far too long as people who hate America fight endlessly to destroy her. Whether out of indifference to the moral issues of our time or out of fear of being cancelled, our establishment fathers (and mothers) have failed to live out Christ’s command to “Be not afraid.” They have traded the good life for a life of comfort and safety. We can’t fail in the same way, or America will lose her soul; we will likely suffer the same fate.
Now is the time to be bold, to fight for America’s future, to defend and protect the most vulnerable among us, to seek meaning, and to live lives of virtue. Ultimately, we must do the hard work of fixing ourselves first. And then we must go out into the world, formed by faith and freed from fear, to let them know that we won’t lay down anymore, that we will not cooperate in the great lie that America is an evil and irredeemable country.
Throughout this earthly journey and throughout this young conservative renewal, we must never forget our ultimate destination. When we get there, may St. Peter greet us with cheer and may our God say, “Well done, good and faithful servant.” A movement oriented toward this eternal end is destined to succeed.
Ben Hachten is a recent law graduate of The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. He is an active member of the Federalist Society and several Catholic organizations.


theamericanconservative--2020-11-11--Rishi Sunak Leads the Way

Rishi Sunak Leads the Way

Republicans are looking at four years of rebuilding and preparing for the next presidential election .
By that time , no Republican presidential nominee will have won the popular vote in twenty years .
However , President Donald Trump ’ s strong showing among Hispanic voters in Florida and Texas , scoring around 32 per cent of Hispanic voters nationally , has shown there is potential for the Republicans to expand their base and build a multi-ethnic , working-class coalition that can win a majority .
Reaching this point is easier said than done , especially after the failure of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy victories for working-class Americans .
In Britain , the Conservative Government is facing a similar challenge as it tries to deliver change for the new working-class voters it gained by promising to deliver on Brexit .
As Britain tackles the second wave of coronavirus , one of the politicians whose reputation has been buoyed by the crisis is Chancellor Rishi Sunak , who heads the Treasury .
An innovative economic response has made him a household name and a strong contender as a future Conservative leader .
Sunak grew up in Southampton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where his Indian grandparents arrived with their children from East Africa in the 1960s .
His parents worked hard to get him into a prestigious private school .
From there , Sunak went onto Oxford University and a Fulbright scholarship at Stanford University .
It was at Stanford where he met his future wife , Akshata Murphy , the daughter of an Indian tech billionaire .
Following graduation , Sunak began a career in investment banking , developing a reputation for quick thinking and problem-solving .
Despite his origins in the South and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a constituency in the North of England that backed Brexit in 2016 .
Sunak himself is a Brexiteer who was also fast to support Boris Johnson in the Conservative party leadership election last year .
As a young politician , only entering Parliament in 2015 , he carries very little ideological baggage .
Instead , Sunak presents himself as a pragmatic , compassionate and patriotic Conservative .
Since becoming Chancellor in February , Sunak has pledged “ to do whatever it takes ” to get the economy through the pandemic , providing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grants and loans to towns , businesses , and workers .
The economic impact of the virus is devastating Main Street , and Sunak is trying to make sure the Conservatives stand by the little guy and not just big business .
The combination of a strong communications operation and radical policy approach has turned Sunak into an effective and popular Chancellor .
In one of Sunak ’ s signature schemes , Eat Out to Help Out , the Treasury funded a 50 percent discount on all food and non-alcoholic drinks served by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Wednesdays through the whole of August .
Written off as a populist gimmick by the Labour opposition , it became a runaway success with over 100 million meals covered , helping recovering businesses .
Sunak gained the media nickname “ Dishy Rishi ” for his good looks as well as his scheme ’ s popularity .
Restaurants , bars , and pubs continued to use his personal brand for promoting new discounts and offers even after the scheme ended .
The spending on coronavirus schemes will have to be paid back once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ created serious questions for the Chancellor over how to keep the promises made by Prime Minister Boris Johnson in last year ’ s general election to “ level up ” the country .
The Conservatives have made it their mission to tackle the socio-economic divide between the North and South of England through increased investment in infrastructure and services for working-class communities that backed Brexit and have been left behind by globalization .
After Britain entered a second national lockdown this month , many of these costly coronavirus programs have been extended through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this challenge of leading the recovery and “ levelling up ” will define the Conservative Government for the next four years , but his rapid rise to power poses other questions for the Conservatives in light of the summer ’ s Black Lives Matter protests .
Although the Conservatives have fewer ethnic minority MPs than Labour , they have one of the most ethnically diverse Cabinets in British history .
Two of the four great offices of state , the Treasury and the Home Office , are held by British Asians .
Sunak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him a major target for the left .
A Labour-affiliated group ran a viral attack ad criticizing Sunak for his successful business background and personal wealth with classic class-war rhetoric .
On a BBC radio show , a comedian claimed that Sunak is “ not representing most brown people ” and is “ what Prince Charles would look like in brownface ” .
In much the same way that Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was at the receiving end of misogynistic vitriol from the left , so it is becoming common for ethnic minority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around racism dominated the headlines in Britain this summer in response to the Black Lives Matter protests , the Conservatives have been getting to grips with putting forward a counter-argument to “ critical race theory ” and broader identity politics .
While accepting that racism exists in Britain and that there are racial inequalities , Sunak defended Britain ’ s heritage , making clear that Britain has become a more inclusive and diverse place .
In Burkean language , he also denounced “ the acts of violence and vandalism ” and argued that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happen overnight—like all great acts of creation , it happens slowly , and depends on the cooperation of each of us toward that common goal.
” Framing the Conservatives ’ message to people from ethnic minority backgrounds in Britain is not new territory for Sunak .
Before entering Parliament , he worked with a center-right think tank to take an in-depth look at this issue as the head of their Black and Minority Ethnic ( BME ) Research Unit .
Despite the differences between people from various ethnic minority backgrounds , his research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to “ British-ness ” that is stronger than among their white peers .
Inspired by the success of the Canadian Conservatives in winning over ethnic minority voters , Sunak made the case for significant community engagement with different ethnic minority communities to gain a hearing and show that Conservatives share their values , such as hard work , faith , family , and community .
As Chancellor , Sunak has acted on these beliefs by launching a new “ Diversity Built Britain ” coin to recognize the contribution of minority communities to British @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to tear down statues and airbrush the history books , Sunak is helping make the case for building up the representation of non-white Britons as part of the national story .
To bring the country together , Sunak believes it is better to show how everyone has a stake in Britain and can feel a sense of belonging , not resentment or shame towards its past .
Sunak is creating a center-right vision with broad appeal that could hold onto and expand the party ’ s Brexit coalition of working-class voters ahead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ahead of the curve , but Republicans can follow Sunak ’ s progress as they start thinking strategically about how to win a majority again .
David A. Cowan is a writer based in London , UK , and is a graduate of the University of Cambridge .

Republicans are looking at four years of rebuilding and preparing for the next presidential election. By that time, no Republican presidential nominee will have won the popular vote in twenty years. However, President Donald Trump’s strong showing among Hispanic voters in Florida and Texas, scoring around 32 per cent of Hispanic voters nationally, has shown there is potential for the Republicans to expand their base and build a multi-ethnic, working-class coalition that can win a majority.
Reaching this point is easier said than done, especially after the failure of the past four years to secure significant policy victories for working-class Americans. In Britain, the Conservative Government is facing a similar challenge as it tries to deliver change for the new working-class voters it gained by promising to deliver on Brexit. As Britain tackles the second wave of coronavirus, one of the politicians whose reputation has been buoyed by the crisis is Chancellor Rishi Sunak, who heads the Treasury. An innovative economic response has made him a household name and a strong contender as a future Conservative leader.
Sunak grew up in Southampton, in the South of England, where his Indian grandparents arrived with their children from East Africa in the 1960s. His parents worked hard to get him into a prestigious private school. From there, Sunak went onto Oxford University and a Fulbright scholarship at Stanford University. It was at Stanford where he met his future wife, Akshata Murphy, the daughter of an Indian tech billionaire. Following graduation, Sunak began a career in investment banking, developing a reputation for quick thinking and problem-solving.
Despite his origins in the South and global finance, Sunak became an MP for a constituency in the North of England that backed Brexit in 2016. Sunak himself is a Brexiteer who was also fast to support Boris Johnson in the Conservative party leadership election last year. As a young politician, only entering Parliament in 2015, he carries very little ideological baggage. Instead, Sunak presents himself as a pragmatic, compassionate and patriotic Conservative.
Since becoming Chancellor in February, Sunak has pledged “to do whatever it takes” to get the economy through the pandemic, providing over £200 billion of wage subsidies, grants and loans to towns, businesses, and workers. The economic impact of the virus is devastating Main Street, and Sunak is trying to make sure the Conservatives stand by the little guy and not just big business. The combination of a strong communications operation and radical policy approach has turned Sunak into an effective and popular Chancellor.
In one of Sunak’s signature schemes, Eat Out to Help Out, the Treasury funded a 50 percent discount on all food and non-alcoholic drinks served by participating hospitality businesses on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays through the whole of August. Written off as a populist gimmick by the Labour opposition, it became a runaway success with over 100 million meals covered, helping recovering businesses. Sunak gained the media nickname “Dishy Rishi” for his good looks as well as his scheme’s popularity. Restaurants, bars, and pubs continued to use his personal brand for promoting new discounts and offers even after the scheme ended.
The spending on coronavirus schemes will have to be paid back once the crisis has passed, which has created serious questions for the Chancellor over how to keep the promises made by Prime Minister Boris Johnson in last year’s general election to “level up” the country. The Conservatives have made it their mission to tackle the socio-economic divide between the North and South of England through increased investment in infrastructure and services for working-class communities that backed Brexit and have been left behind by globalization.
After Britain entered a second national lockdown this month, many of these costly coronavirus programs have been extended through to next year. How Sunak addresses this challenge of leading the recovery and “levelling up” will define the Conservative Government for the next four years, but his rapid rise to power poses other questions for the Conservatives in light of the summer’s Black Lives Matter protests.
Although the Conservatives have fewer ethnic minority MPs than Labour, they have one of the most ethnically diverse Cabinets in British history. Two of the four great offices of state, the Treasury and the Home Office, are held by British Asians. Sunak’s position and popularity have made him a major target for the left. A Labour-affiliated group ran a viral attack ad criticizing Sunak for his successful business background and personal wealth with classic class-war rhetoric. On a BBC radio show, a comedian claimed that Sunak is “not representing most brown people” and is “what Prince Charles would look like in brownface”. In much the same way that Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was at the receiving end of misogynistic vitriol from the left, so it is becoming common for ethnic minority Conservatives to be targeted.
After questions around racism dominated the headlines in Britain this summer in response to the Black Lives Matter protests, the Conservatives have been getting to grips with putting forward a counter-argument to “critical race theory” and broader identity politics. While accepting that racism exists in Britain and that there are racial inequalities, Sunak defended Britain’s heritage, making clear that Britain has become a more inclusive and diverse place. In Burkean language, he also denounced “the acts of violence and vandalism” and argued that “a better society doesn’t happen overnight—like all great acts of creation, it happens slowly, and depends on the cooperation of each of us toward that common goal.”
Framing the Conservatives’ message to people from ethnic minority backgrounds in Britain is not new territory for Sunak. Before entering Parliament, he worked with a center-right think tank to take an in-depth look at this issue as the head of their Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) Research Unit. Despite the differences between people from various ethnic minority backgrounds, his research found that there is a shared commitment to “British-ness” that is stronger than among their white peers. Inspired by the success of the Canadian Conservatives in winning over ethnic minority voters, Sunak made the case for significant community engagement with different ethnic minority communities to gain a hearing and show that Conservatives share their values, such as hard work, faith, family, and community.
As Chancellor, Sunak has acted on these beliefs by launching a new “Diversity Built Britain” coin to recognize the contribution of minority communities to British history. Rather than supporting the call to tear down statues and airbrush the history books, Sunak is helping make the case for building up the representation of non-white Britons as part of the national story. To bring the country together, Sunak believes it is better to show how everyone has a stake in Britain and can feel a sense of belonging, not resentment or shame towards its past.
Sunak is creating a center-right vision with broad appeal that could hold onto and expand the party’s Brexit coalition of working-class voters ahead of the next general election. Britain is ahead of the curve, but Republicans can follow Sunak’s progress as they start thinking strategically about how to win a majority again.
David A. Cowan is a writer based in London, UK, and is a graduate of the University of Cambridge.


theamericanconservative--2020-11-12--The Realignment is Real

The Realignment is Real

In July of 2019 , conservatives gathered in Washington , D.C. for the National Conservatism Conference , the coming out party for the new Edmund Burke Foundation and a three-day discussion about the future of conservatism in the Age of Trump .
Everyone from J.D .
Vance , author of Hillbilly Elegy , to James L. Buckley , the former senator and brother of the late William F. Buckley , was in attendance .
Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri closed the conference with a rousing call to action .
Everyone agreed on one fundamental thing : The old GOP coalition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dead .
It was time to forge a new one .
The pivotal question was whether Trump ’ s 2016 victory was a fluke or a realignment .
Trump , after all , is Trump .
Did he expose potential new coalitions and growing fault lines in the Democratic base , or did his unique brand of celebrity and barnstorming rallies make him a one-off candidate ?
With the 2020 election results coming in , we have our answer .
There was no blue wave .
Trump lost by a handful of votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOP unexpectedly won congressional races ; if Republicans win the two run-off races in Georgia , they will retain the senate .
Trump , the “ white supremacist ” candidate , won the highest share of non-white voters of any Republican presidential candidate since Nixon in 1960—double Romney ’ s 2012 count and nearly triple Bush ’ s count in 2000 .
The realignment is real , and Republicans are faced with unprecedented opportunities .
Renowned conservative intellectual Robert P. George , McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University , says that the message for the GOP is clear .
“ The elections of 2016 and 2020 seem to show that there is a large constituency for a combination of social conservatism and economic populism , ” he told me .
“ That was Donald Trump ’ s message , and it worked—outperforming even Trump himself in 2020 , as the down ballot races tended to show .
The GOP is becoming a working ( and small business ) class party .
Its supporters are saying : ‘ Uphold our moral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against unfair practices and unfair competition , thus securing our jobs and reasonable prospects for real wage growth ; and protect and improve programs that we rely on such as Social Security and Medicare.
’ ” “ So far , the big inroads against the Democrats—who are now the party of the professional classes , ‘ Woke ’ corporate America , and the super-rich—have been with the white working class , ” George observed .
“ The obvious goal for Republicans now is to win over minority working class voters .
Their values @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the white working class .
Clearly , there has been some movement by working class minority voters ( Black and , especially , Latino voters ) towards the Republicans , and this should terrify Democrats .
Because of their professional class base , Democrats don ’ t have the option of trying to compete with Republicans on social issues such as abortion ; if minority voters see the Republicans as friendly , or at least not hostile , to them on economic issues , the Democrats are in trouble—big trouble.
” For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-life movement has known that large numbers of Hispanic and Black voters are socially conservative , but still consistently vote Democrat .
Many of these voters have grown increasingly turned off by gender ideology , Drag Queen Storytime , and other boutique social issues that have become so front and centre in the increasingly progressive Democratic Party .
This , George told me , indicates that a realignment is possible , “ though the Republicans could blow it .
The way to not blow it is to begin aggressively recruiting and supporting socially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Republican candidates of all backgrounds need to compete vigorously for the votes of socially conservative , economically populist voters , including minority voters .
Smart Republicans like Josh Hawley have figured this out.
” In fact , the 2020 results could upend years of conventional political wisdom .
“ The ‘ demography is destiny ’ trope presupposes that minorities are ‘ wholly owned ’ by the Democratic Party and will vote for its candidates no matter what , ” George told me .
“ I wouldn ’ t bet on that—not after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump has many personal faults—some of them hurt him badly with key segments of the electorate in the most recent election .
But he pulled back the curtain on American elites—including economic elites—and he revealed that there is a yawning gap between elites and working-class Americans.
” Social conservative scholar Charles Camosy , Associate Professor of Theological and Social Ethics at Fordham University , has been advocating this path for years—and the 2020 results confirm his thesis .
“ The alignment was , in some major sense , already underway , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rates in polling and historically weak parties .
Trump destroying and rebuilding the GOP coalition such that it isn ’ t even clear what the party stands for ( appropriately , there was no platform this year . )
The Democrats are in total disarray in their own caucus , with Joe Biden being , in the eyes of ‘ The Squad , ’ almost totally unacceptable except as a means to defeat Trump .
To Camosy , the potential is obvious .
“ Gone is the classic left/right binary around big and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Instead , there is a party—the Democrats—who seem to be becoming the party supported by elite money , elite ideology , and Big Tech .
The GOP , by contrast , seems to be becoming the party of populism and the working class .
I say ‘ seems ’ because the major complicating factor is the Black and Latino working class .
While still not doing good enough , the exit polls seem to suggest Trump and more populist Republicans are doing a much better job than they have done in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunity to build a multi-racial working-class party here.
” The author of several books on abortion ( the most recent being Resisting Throwaway Culture : How a Consistent Life Ethic Can Unite a Fractured People ) , Camosy is especially enthusiastic about the potential for the pro-life movement .
“ Being associated with Trump himself is toxic , especially for young people , but the fault lines his ‘ blowing up the system ’ have uncovered are incredible , ” he told me .
“ For many decades now , pro-lifers have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small-government mindsets dominated .
If massive government intrusion into private life regulating pregnancy seemed counter-intuitive in this coalition , social welfare programs to support mothers , children , and broader families were generally off the table .
But now , in the new realignment , pro-lifers need not choose between resisting abortion on both the demand and supply side.
” Additionally , says Camosy : “ We need not choose between making assisted suicide illegal and providing better care for our elders and those with disabilities .
Again , for decades our inability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Blacks and Latinos , natural allies to the pro-life movement .
There is an amazing opportunity to put our libertarian past behind us and build an ‘ all of the above ’ approach to protecting and supporting life .
The GOP should immediately move to build on the gains with Blacks and Latinos , especially with an eye to religious beliefs , social welfare for families and education , and life issues .
They should develop a populist approach with a focus on vulnerable populations that our elite leadership and institutions have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ P. George on the practical way forward .
The GOP , he says , needs to “ listen .
Do outreach .
Foster leadership from the working classes , not ‘ the Ivies.
’ This doesn ’ t mean being stupid , as Trump often was in his anti-intellectual approach to so many things .
What it does mean is listening to the wisdom of the working classes as a contrast to the censorious and extremist monied and elite class who ignore or castigate as regressive the views of the very people they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upended conventional wisdoms and inaugurated political chaos , with Donald Trump at the center of the maelstrom .
Democrats have been desperately hoping—even assuming—that Trump was a one-off detour on the long march towards Progress ( a goal that is forever just beyond the horizon . )
Instead , the 2020 election results prove that the conservatives who gathered last year are not delusional—they ’ re on to something .
Demography is not destiny .
A new fusion of economic populism and social conservatism just might be .
Jonathon Van Maren is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activist .
His commentary has appeared in National Review , The European Conservative , the National Post , and elsewhere .
Jonathon is the author of The Culture War and Seeing Is Believing : Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of Abortion as well as the co-author with Blaise Alleyne of A Guide to Discussing Assisted Suicide .

In July of 2019, conservatives gathered in Washington, D.C. for the National Conservatism Conference, the coming out party for the new Edmund Burke Foundation and a three-day discussion about the future of conservatism in the Age of Trump. Everyone from J.D. Vance, author of Hillbilly Elegy, to James L. Buckley, the former senator and brother of the late William F. Buckley, was in attendance. Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri closed the conference with a rousing call to action. Everyone agreed on one fundamental thing: The old GOP coalition of Big Business and social conservatives was dead. It was time to forge a new one.
The pivotal question was whether Trump’s 2016 victory was a fluke or a realignment. Trump, after all, is Trump. Did he expose potential new coalitions and growing fault lines in the Democratic base, or did his unique brand of celebrity and barnstorming rallies make him a one-off candidate? With the 2020 election results coming in, we have our answer. There was no blue wave. Trump lost by a handful of votes in a handful of states; the GOP unexpectedly won congressional races; if Republicans win the two run-off races in Georgia, they will retain the senate. Trump, the “white supremacist” candidate, won the highest share of non-white voters of any Republican presidential candidate since Nixon in 1960—double Romney’s 2012 count and nearly triple Bush’s count in 2000.
The realignment is real, and Republicans are faced with unprecedented opportunities. Renowned conservative intellectual Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, says that the message for the GOP is clear.
“The elections of 2016 and 2020 seem to show that there is a large constituency for a combination of social conservatism and economic populism,” he told me. “That was Donald Trump’s message, and it worked—outperforming even Trump himself in 2020, as the down ballot races tended to show. The GOP is becoming a working (and small business) class party. Its supporters are saying: ‘Uphold our moral and religious values; protect our industries against unfair practices and unfair competition, thus securing our jobs and reasonable prospects for real wage growth; and protect and improve programs that we rely on such as Social Security and Medicare.’”
“So far, the big inroads against the Democrats—who are now the party of the professional classes, ‘Woke’ corporate America, and the super-rich—have been with the white working class,” George observed. “The obvious goal for Republicans now is to win over minority working class voters. Their values and concerns line up well with those of the white working class. Clearly, there has been some movement by working class minority voters (Black and, especially, Latino voters) towards the Republicans, and this should terrify Democrats. Because of their professional class base, Democrats don’t have the option of trying to compete with Republicans on social issues such as abortion; if minority voters see the Republicans as friendly, or at least not hostile, to them on economic issues, the Democrats are in trouble—big trouble.”
For years, the political arm of the pro-life movement has known that large numbers of Hispanic and Black voters are socially conservative, but still consistently vote Democrat. Many of these voters have grown increasingly turned off by gender ideology, Drag Queen Storytime, and other boutique social issues that have become so front and centre in the increasingly progressive Democratic Party. This, George told me, indicates that a realignment is possible, “though the Republicans could blow it. The way to not blow it is to begin aggressively recruiting and supporting socially conservative Black and Latino candidates for office. Republican candidates of all backgrounds need to compete vigorously for the votes of socially conservative, economically populist voters, including minority voters. Smart Republicans like Josh Hawley have figured this out.”
In fact, the 2020 results could upend years of conventional political wisdom. “The ‘demography is destiny’ trope presupposes that minorities are ‘wholly owned’ by the Democratic Party and will vote for its candidates no matter what,” George told me. “I wouldn’t bet on that—not after 2016 and, especially, 2020. Trump has many personal faults—some of them hurt him badly with key segments of the electorate in the most recent election. But he pulled back the curtain on American elites—including economic elites—and he revealed that there is a yawning gap between elites and working-class Americans.”
Social conservative scholar Charles Camosy, Associate Professor of Theological and Social Ethics at Fordham University, has been advocating this path for years—and the 2020 results confirm his thesis. “The alignment was, in some major sense, already underway,” he told me. “Independents’ highest rates in polling and historically weak parties. Trump destroying and rebuilding the GOP coalition such that it isn’t even clear what the party stands for (appropriately, there was no platform this year.) The Democrats are in total disarray in their own caucus, with Joe Biden being, in the eyes of ‘The Squad,’ almost totally unacceptable except as a means to defeat Trump.
To Camosy, the potential is obvious. “Gone is the classic left/right binary around big and small government,” he pointed out. “Instead, there is a party—the Democrats—who seem to be becoming the party supported by elite money, elite ideology, and Big Tech. The GOP, by contrast, seems to be becoming the party of populism and the working class. I say ‘seems’ because the major complicating factor is the Black and Latino working class. While still not doing good enough, the exit polls seem to suggest Trump and more populist Republicans are doing a much better job than they have done in recent years. There is a real opportunity to build a multi-racial working-class party here.”
The author of several books on abortion (the most recent being Resisting Throwaway Culture: How a Consistent Life Ethic Can Unite a Fractured People), Camosy is especially enthusiastic about the potential for the pro-life movement.
“Being associated with Trump himself is toxic, especially for young people, but the fault lines his ‘blowing up the system’ have uncovered are incredible,” he told me. “For many decades now, pro-lifers have been part of a political coalition in which small-government mindsets dominated. If massive government intrusion into private life regulating pregnancy seemed counter-intuitive in this coalition, social welfare programs to support mothers, children, and broader families were generally off the table. But now, in the new realignment, pro-lifers need not choose between resisting abortion on both the demand and supply side.”
Additionally, says Camosy: “We need not choose between making assisted suicide illegal and providing better care for our elders and those with disabilities. Again, for decades our inability to do this has hurt our outreach to Blacks and Latinos, natural allies to the pro-life movement. There is an amazing opportunity to put our libertarian past behind us and build an ‘all of the above’ approach to protecting and supporting life. The GOP should immediately move to build on the gains with Blacks and Latinos, especially with an eye to religious beliefs, social welfare for families and education, and life issues. They should develop a populist approach with a focus on vulnerable populations that our elite leadership and institutions have left behind.”
Camosy agrees with Robert P. George on the practical way forward. The GOP, he says, needs to “listen. Do outreach. Foster leadership from the working classes, not ‘the Ivies.’ This doesn’t mean being stupid, as Trump often was in his anti-intellectual approach to so many things. What it does mean is listening to the wisdom of the working classes as a contrast to the censorious and extremist monied and elite class who ignore or castigate as regressive the views of the very people they claim to support.”
The 2016 election upended conventional wisdoms and inaugurated political chaos, with Donald Trump at the center of the maelstrom. Democrats have been desperately hoping—even assuming—that Trump was a one-off detour on the long march towards Progress (a goal that is forever just beyond the horizon.) Instead, the 2020 election results prove that the conservatives who gathered last year are not delusional—they’re on to something. Demography is not destiny. A new fusion of economic populism and social conservatism just might be.
Jonathon Van Maren is a public speaker, writer, and pro-life activist. His commentary has appeared in National Review, The European Conservative, the National Post, and elsewhere. Jonathon is the author of The Culture War and Seeing Is Believing: Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of Abortion as well as the co-author with Blaise Alleyne of A Guide to Discussing Assisted Suicide.


theamericanconservative--2020-11-12--Another Horror Show Election Means It’s Time for a New Localism

It ’ s time for a new electoral map , one that colors the states according to what Donald Trump thinks should happen to the votes there .
So make Pennsylvania and Michigan lavender since Trump wants their counting to stop .
Arizona can go mauve since he thinks the tallying there should continue , possibly forever .
And shade Nebraska ’ s Second Congressional District yellow indicating it holds important lessons for both sides that they ’ ll doggedly refuse to learn .
The end result will look like an tie-dye shirt as seen through a kaleidoscope , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Yes , Election Night was about as 2020 as it could have possibly been , or Election Fortnight , as it currently stands .
And while political campaigns always bring out a nation ’ s peculiarities , this one in particular has cast light on our patchwork of confusing state-based election laws and customs .
One imagines a Frenchman clicking over to CNN : so there are two Maines but only one New Hampshire ?
Keeping up with the results has sometimes felt like playing the world ’ s most sadistic game @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here , where mail-in ballots can ’ t be counted until Election Day and Senate races go to runoffs… Presidential elections show our federalist system at its very worst , as dozens of states play by thousands of rules in pursuit of a single answer to a single question .
And with the Precambrian Period now looking relatively brief compared to the current round of vote counting , it may be time to take up the cause of serious election reform .
After its 2000 debacle , Florida under Jeb Bush overhauled its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ optical scanners and reforming its ballots ; as a result , the Sunshine State is now always among the first in the nation to finish its counting .
And while most states already use optical scanners , there are other changes that can be made to smooth the process and speed it up .
Yet however arthritic Arizona ’ s vote system might look , the lesson of this election is not that we should give up on states ’ rights .
To the contrary , this campaign has been one long madcap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs to restore her federalist structure .
Over at First Things , Peter J. Leithart gets the ball rolling on this , arguing that because the country is so divided , “ Renewed federalism could produce a genuinely pluralist America.
” He adds , “ Such pluralism will be sturdier than our current enforced tolerance , because each experiment will be backed by the institutionalized power of a state.
” As it stands now , America has nationalized next to everything ; a state can ’ t even ask “ at what age @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feeling the federal gun against its temple .
And politics has followed suit , with progressives ever more reliant on Washington bureaucracy and conservatives embrace nationalism .
Sweeping moral questions are resolved at the national level , inflicting singular judgments on a diverse nation of 330 million people , making real consensus impossible .
The result has been tension , gridlock , and our current culture forever war .
Being a conservative writer , I have a stamp that reads “ The founders saw this coming , ” and I ’ m going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The founding fathers dispersed power not just horizontally among the three branches of the federal government , but vertically among the feds and the states .
This derived , as did much of their wisdom , from their studies of classical history .
“ The lawgivers of antiquity…legislated for single cities , ” wrote John Adams .
“ Who can legislate for 20 or 30 states , each of which is greater than Greece or Rome at those times ?
” Size and proportionality were of great concern in our early republic ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home , among the near and familiar rather than the faraway and alien .
Today , Washington not only attempts to legislate for 50 states even larger than what Adams could have imagined , it doesn ’ t even bother to involve the actual legislature .
Most rules and regulations originate in the executive bureaucracy , while most cultural issues require imprimatur by the Supreme Court .
This is why gifting Mountain Dew and firearms to young children is generally a calmer affair than a Supreme Court confirmation hearing .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less believable director ’ s cut of Freddy vs. Jason .
These are the only ways we can influence political power anymore and so we fight like hell over them .
Yet amid all the sturm und drang of the latest presidential deathmatch , it ’ s worth zooming the camera out and taking stock of the disgraceful broader picture .
I mean , really .
Really .
A great country has nearly come to blows over two bellowing geriatrics with some of the worst hair in political history .
On this , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at a time of serious economic want , with more to come .
I don ’ t deny that elections are important or that serious issues are at stake .
But any sense of context , of proportionality , has evaporated right into the blue mirage .
We need to stop thinking of every presidential election as Gettysburg , lower our gazes to where real improvements can actually be made .
There will be obstacles to reinvigorating our federalist system , of course .
The left has come to equate states ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s also come to equate Gone With the Wind , maple syrup , suburbs , and smirking boys with racism , the point is less salient than it used to be .
As for conservatives , federalism can bring with it an unpleasant odor of relativism .
Why should we let California be California ?
Isn ’ t what California is doing wrong ?
This admittedly can be a hard knot to untie , though not nearly so hard as a compulsory mandate for legal abortion handed down by nine lawyers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservatives must be realists , and right now they ’ ve lost the popular culture and the D.C. class .
They aren ’ t going to wield serious national power anytime soon , though they might yet keep Texas red by pointing quiveringly at Connecticut .
America is now entering her lame-duck period , that special time set aside by the founders for us to get the NBC election theme music out of our heads .
Trump will spend it trying to recount his way out of a 45,000-vote Philadelphia pothole , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive orders yet to come .
The rest of us should consider the best kind of election reform : lowering the stakes by devolving power down .
Whatever happens to Trumpism , neo-Trumpism , Dutch Reformed Trumpism , it ’ s clear we need a new localism .
Because Texas isn ’ t Connecticut and Connecticut isn ’ t Texas—not culturally , not economically , not in terms of COVID cases—and what a fine thing that is .

It’s time for a new electoral map, one that colors the states according to what Donald Trump thinks should happen to the votes there. So make Pennsylvania and Michigan lavender since Trump wants their counting to stop. Arizona can go mauve since he thinks the tallying there should continue, possibly forever. And shade Nebraska’s Second Congressional District yellow indicating it holds important lessons for both sides that they’ll doggedly refuse to learn.
The end result will look like an tie-dye shirt as seen through a kaleidoscope, the perfect color muddle for this hallucinatory year. Yes, Election Night was about as 2020 as it could have possibly been, or Election Fortnight, as it currently stands. And while political campaigns always bring out a nation’s peculiarities, this one in particular has cast light on our patchwork of confusing state-based election laws and customs. One imagines a Frenchman clicking over to CNN: so there are two Maines but only one New Hampshire? Keeping up with the results has sometimes felt like playing the world’s most sadistic game of Carmen Sandiego. Robocrook was spotted here, where mail-in ballots can’t be counted until Election Day and Senate races go to runoffs…
Presidential elections show our federalist system at its very worst, as dozens of states play by thousands of rules in pursuit of a single answer to a single question. And with the Precambrian Period now looking relatively brief compared to the current round of vote counting, it may be time to take up the cause of serious election reform. After its 2000 debacle, Florida under Jeb Bush overhauled its election system, ditching hanging chads for optical scanners and reforming its ballots; as a result, the Sunshine State is now always among the first in the nation to finish its counting. And while most states already use optical scanners, there are other changes that can be made to smooth the process and speed it up.
Yet however arthritic Arizona’s vote system might look, the lesson of this election is not that we should give up on states’ rights. To the contrary, this campaign has been one long madcap cram session as to why America badly needs to restore her federalist structure. Over at First Things, Peter J. Leithart gets the ball rolling on this, arguing that because the country is so divided, “Renewed federalism could produce a genuinely pluralist America.” He adds, “Such pluralism will be sturdier than our current enforced tolerance, because each experiment will be backed by the institutionalized power of a state.” As it stands now, America has nationalized next to everything; a state can’t even ask “at what age may people drink alcohol?” without feeling the federal gun against its temple. And politics has followed suit, with progressives ever more reliant on Washington bureaucracy and conservatives embrace nationalism. Sweeping moral questions are resolved at the national level, inflicting singular judgments on a diverse nation of 330 million people, making real consensus impossible.
The result has been tension, gridlock, and our current culture forever war. Being a conservative writer, I have a stamp that reads “The founders saw this coming,” and I’m going to bring it down right here. The founding fathers dispersed power not just horizontally among the three branches of the federal government, but vertically among the feds and the states. This derived, as did much of their wisdom, from their studies of classical history. “The lawgivers of antiquity…legislated for single cities,” wrote John Adams. “Who can legislate for 20 or 30 states, each of which is greater than Greece or Rome at those times?” Size and proportionality were of great concern in our early republic; many powers were reserved for closer to home, among the near and familiar rather than the faraway and alien. Today, Washington not only attempts to legislate for 50 states even larger than what Adams could have imagined, it doesn’t even bother to involve the actual legislature. Most rules and regulations originate in the executive bureaucracy, while most cultural issues require imprimatur by the Supreme Court.
This is why gifting Mountain Dew and firearms to young children is generally a calmer affair than a Supreme Court confirmation hearing. It’s why every presidential election turns into a less believable director’s cut of Freddy vs. Jason. These are the only ways we can influence political power anymore and so we fight like hell over them. Yet amid all the sturm und drang of the latest presidential deathmatch, it’s worth zooming the camera out and taking stock of the disgraceful broader picture. I mean, really. Really. A great country has nearly come to blows over two bellowing geriatrics with some of the worst hair in political history. On this, we’ve spent $14 billion, at a time of serious economic want, with more to come. I don’t deny that elections are important or that serious issues are at stake. But any sense of context, of proportionality, has evaporated right into the blue mirage.
We need to stop thinking of every presidential election as Gettysburg, lower our gazes to where real improvements can actually be made. There will be obstacles to reinvigorating our federalist system, of course. The left has come to equate states’ rights with racism, though given that it’s also come to equate Gone With the Wind, maple syrup, suburbs, and smirking boys with racism, the point is less salient than it used to be. As for conservatives, federalism can bring with it an unpleasant odor of relativism. Why should we let California be California? Isn’t what California is doing wrong? This admittedly can be a hard knot to untie, though not nearly so hard as a compulsory mandate for legal abortion handed down by nine lawyers in robes. Before anything else, conservatives must be realists, and right now they’ve lost the popular culture and the D.C. class. They aren’t going to wield serious national power anytime soon, though they might yet keep Texas red by pointing quiveringly at Connecticut.
America is now entering her lame-duck period, that special time set aside by the founders for us to get the NBC election theme music out of our heads. Trump will spend it trying to recount his way out of a 45,000-vote Philadelphia pothole, while Biden rubs his hands together and contemplates executive orders yet to come. The rest of us should consider the best kind of election reform: lowering the stakes by devolving power down. Whatever happens to Trumpism, neo-Trumpism, Dutch Reformed Trumpism, it’s clear we need a new localism. Because Texas isn’t Connecticut and Connecticut isn’t Texas—not culturally, not economically, not in terms of COVID cases—and what a fine thing that is.


theamericanconservative--2020-11-13--What We Can Learn from the Labor Left

What We Can Learn from the Labor Left

Organize Right is a regular column with not so much a beat as a meander on the subject of organizing : how the right does it , how the left does it , lessons from its history , and its implications for today .
This is a column about hows .
As conservatives , we tend to focus on lot of Who , What , Why , When , Where : Who is a Villain ( those nasty lefties ) ; What America Must Do ( vote for righties ! )
; When Everything Went Wrong ( typically , after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; Where People Went Wrong ( they didn ’ t listen to the author ) .
While I enjoy as much as anybody else hearing for the ninety-fifth time exactly how lefties are wrong , I haven ’ t been able to help noticing that for people who are wrong about everything they seem get a lot more of what they want than I do , in part because they ’ re a lot better at organizing to push for it .
So how is the left so good at organizing , anyway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot from people on the right is that it “ just comes naturally to them.
” Organizing seems unpleasant and unnatural to us , after all .
And leftists just being innately talented is a comforting answer , in much the same way it is comforting to believe that you don ’ t need to put forth any effort in life , because people will love you for who you are .
Of course , neither of these beliefs are true .
Organizing doesn ’ t come naturally to anybody ; that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizing.
” Even if you ’ re innately talented , it ’ s still a technical skill that you have to learn , and practice—like woodworking , or playing the piano .
Thinking in those terms : what does it take to learn a technical skill ?
Well , it depends on the skill , but it always helps to have mentors .
You need the necessary tools ( like a workbench , or a piano ) and a place to practice .
It ’ s useful to have good practical literature on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worrying about cops breaking down their door , so it helps if the thing you ’ re practicing is legally allowed .
And if you want to be part of a big community , it has to be accessible to pretty much everyone .
As it happens , there is an area of organizing that meets all of these criteria .
It is legally protected , has an extensive training network , comes with a voluminous literature geared at practical application , and it ’ s widely applicable because it focuses on someplace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The big Rosetta Stone that explains the success of the modern left is union organizing .
This is where the skills come from—and , in fallow periods for leftist activism , where they are maintained .
Saul Alinsky , the only organizing name that most people on the right know , wasn ’ t a self-taught genius ; he learned his skills as a mobilizer for the CIO .
Cesar Chavez , who has his own holiday in California , learned his skills from union organizer Fred Ross .
The civil rights movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters , led by A. Philip Randolph—being mobile and independent of local whites , they could transport black newspapers produced in Northern cities to the the South .
Even when big unions are less active , more go-along-to-get-along , the legal protections they enjoy also provide cover to more militant unions and organizers—and the organizing skills that unions teach can be used outside the workplace for other kinds of campaigns .
A union might get you a better paycheck , or better working conditions .
It can force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down , or change policies .
It can help you understand what the company benefits can do for you , like an HR department that works for you rather than the company .
But for radical union organizers , a union is a stepping stone to a more radical world .
It teaches members to identify problems in the workplace and put people together to use power , rather than pleading , to solve them .
The act of building a union gives workers an experience of living in a radical future in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forces and build enough power to twist the arms of those above them .
Forcing the employer to meet employee demands .
Identifying and resolving individual problems that are actually common problems .
Encouraging people to think of themselves , not as individual employees , but as members of the union .
A union is , in a sense , a voluntary state .
And voluntary states have the ability to declare war outside their borders .
So once a collective body of people knows and trusts each other , identifies as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to apply pressure to their employers , they can join forces with allied groups and apply pressure to people who aren ’ t their employers .
This is how unions project power , and other groups can use the same skills to pressure all kinds of people .
In North Carolina , for example , a long fight to unionize a pork factory paid off because the newly minted union members provided bodies for regular protests of the state legislature—which helped pay electoral dividends down the line .
Union organizing provides skills to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hands of the most radical organizers—does so in a way that encourages people to imagine and work toward a radical future .
Conservatives don ’ t really have this sort of thing .
We learn to run campaigns , not build infrastructure , and outside of electoral politics we ’ re not very good at imparting skills or building effective organization .
The closest you see is something like church-planting , but that ’ s a very different approach with very different goals .
Nor are we big on presenting people with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that evokes the world we ’ d like to see .
( It ’ s interesting to imagine what , for various flavors of conservative , such an arrangement might look like , but imagination isn ’ t good enough—you ’ d have to get lots of groups of people experimenting in the real world to see what works and what flops , and we don ’ t have that either . )
So what can we learn ?
Well , let ’ s look at some of the things that unions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ differently from us .
For one thing , they teach people how to form groups without using general publicity .
Righties who want to form a group will put up a notice on Facebook or post a bulletin-board flier .
There were days when doing that for union organizing could get you killed , so the first step in forming a union is talking to people quietly .
And they talk differently than we do , too .
Conservatives like public debate , showy stunts like setting up a table with a sign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senators was a mistake—change my mind !
” but union organizers are trained—get this—to have conversations designed to produce recruits .
They ’ re not selling “ supporting unions is an acceptable opinion , ” but “ having a union is the right choice for you and me , right here , right now.
” Union organizers aren ’ t looking for grudging tolerance , they ’ re looking for people to see that it ’ s in their self-interests to join up and do the work .
Another useful technique crucial to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is mapping the territory .
This can take a variety of forms .
For organizing a union , it ’ s literally a map of the workplace : where workstations are , who works there , where people congregate , the flow of movement .
This helps union organizers assess power relationships , build their networks , and see where union organizers or stewards are needed .
Other times , such as during the design of a pressure campaign , the map looks like an organogram—just who works where in what jobs with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staging a pressure campaign , because an organization ’ s decisions are made by individuals within that organization .
You ’ re not facing an implacable , faceless opposition .
You are facing an opposition whose decisions are made by people , and people have wants and needs and can be pressured or coaxed .
That ’ s a skill we don ’ t teach .
But we should .
Here ’ s a project that you can do yourself , or as a group : make an onboarding manual for your city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state .
By “ onboarding manual , ” I mean a document that explains how the jurisdiction works : how it ’ s organized , what the various districts are and who represents them , how that level of government operates , how your local political party works .
Something you can hand new people so they have a good understanding of how things actually work , and that serves as an aid to make your opinions felt — not as one person who can be ignored , but as a group .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a decision you don ’ t like , will help you identify who made the decision , how to pressure them about it , and where their office is .
I ’ m sure a lot of local parties out there have something like this already .
If you ’ ve got one , send it my way ; I ’ d love to see what it ’ s like , and I ’ ll use them to make recommendations in future editions of this column to help people in places that don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Unlike lefties , righties tend to silo ; our people in different places , particularly grassroots activists , don ’ t talk to each other and learn from each other as much as they should .
But we can change that , and should .
So if you ’ re involved in grassroots organizing on the right , drop me a line at [ email protected ] .
And hey , if you ’ re a conservative who works in a union shop , step up and spend some more time doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real learning experience .
David Hines has a professional background in international human rights work with a focus on recovery from forced disappearances and mass homicide .
He lives in Los Angeles .

Organize Right is a regular column with not so much a beat as a meander on the subject of organizing: how the right does it, how the left does it, lessons from its history, and its implications for today.
This is a column about hows.
As conservatives, we tend to focus on lot of Who, What, Why, When, Where: Who is a Villain (those nasty lefties); What America Must Do (vote for righties!); When Everything Went Wrong (typically, after the author’s own childhood); Where People Went Wrong (they didn’t listen to the author). While I enjoy as much as anybody else hearing for the ninety-fifth time exactly how lefties are wrong, I haven’t been able to help noticing that for people who are wrong about everything they seem get a lot more of what they want than I do, in part because they’re a lot better at organizing to push for it.
So how is the left so good at organizing, anyway?
One of the answers you hear a lot from people on the right is that it “just comes naturally to them.” Organizing seems unpleasant and unnatural to us, after all. And leftists just being innately talented is a comforting answer, in much the same way it is comforting to believe that you don’t need to put forth any effort in life, because people will love you for who you are.
Of course, neither of these beliefs are true. Organizing doesn’t come naturally to anybody; that’s why they call it “organizing.” Even if you’re innately talented, it’s still a technical skill that you have to learn, and practice—like woodworking, or playing the piano.
Thinking in those terms: what does it take to learn a technical skill? Well, it depends on the skill, but it always helps to have mentors. You need the necessary tools (like a workbench, or a piano) and a place to practice. It’s useful to have good practical literature on the subject. Everybody works better without worrying about cops breaking down their door, so it helps if the thing you’re practicing is legally allowed. And if you want to be part of a big community, it has to be accessible to pretty much everyone.
As it happens, there is an area of organizing that meets all of these criteria. It is legally protected, has an extensive training network, comes with a voluminous literature geared at practical application, and it’s widely applicable because it focuses on someplace most people go nearly every day.
The big Rosetta Stone that explains the success of the modern left is union organizing. This is where the skills come from—and, in fallow periods for leftist activism, where they are maintained. Saul Alinsky, the only organizing name that most people on the right know, wasn’t a self-taught genius; he learned his skills as a mobilizer for the CIO. Cesar Chavez, who has his own holiday in California, learned his skills from union organizer Fred Ross. The civil rights movement had a lot of groundwork laid by the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, led by A. Philip Randolph—being mobile and independent of local whites, they could transport black newspapers produced in Northern cities to the the South. Even when big unions are less active, more go-along-to-get-along, the legal protections they enjoy also provide cover to more militant unions and organizers—and the organizing skills that unions teach can be used outside the workplace for other kinds of campaigns.
A union might get you a better paycheck, or better working conditions. It can force the employer to negotiate, or back down, or change policies. It can help you understand what the company benefits can do for you, like an HR department that works for you rather than the company.
But for radical union organizers, a union is a stepping stone to a more radical world. It teaches members to identify problems in the workplace and put people together to use power, rather than pleading, to solve them. The act of building a union gives workers an experience of living in a radical future in which ordinary people like them can join forces and build enough power to twist the arms of those above them. Forcing the employer to meet employee demands. Identifying and resolving individual problems that are actually common problems. Encouraging people to think of themselves, not as individual employees, but as members of the union.
A union is, in a sense, a voluntary state. And voluntary states have the ability to declare war outside their borders. So once a collective body of people knows and trusts each other, identifies as a group, and has experience working together to apply pressure to their employers, they can join forces with allied groups and apply pressure to people who aren’t their employers. This is how unions project power, and other groups can use the same skills to pressure all kinds of people.
In North Carolina, for example, a long fight to unionize a pork factory paid off because the newly minted union members provided bodies for regular protests of the state legislature—which helped pay electoral dividends down the line. Union organizing provides skills to individuals, manpower to causes, and—in the hands of the most radical organizers—does so in a way that encourages people to imagine and work toward a radical future.
Conservatives don’t really have this sort of thing. We learn to run campaigns, not build infrastructure, and outside of electoral politics we’re not very good at imparting skills or building effective organization. The closest you see is something like church-planting, but that’s a very different approach with very different goals. Nor are we big on presenting people with an arrangement in the here and now that evokes the world we’d like to see. (It’s interesting to imagine what, for various flavors of conservative, such an arrangement might look like, but imagination isn’t good enough—you’d have to get lots of groups of people experimenting in the real world to see what works and what flops, and we don’t have that either.)
So what can we learn? Well, let’s look at some of the things that unions, and other forms of organizers, do differently from us.
For one thing, they teach people how to form groups without using general publicity. Righties who want to form a group will put up a notice on Facebook or post a bulletin-board flier. There were days when doing that for union organizing could get you killed, so the first step in forming a union is talking to people quietly. And they talk differently than we do, too. Conservatives like public debate, showy stunts like setting up a table with a sign that reads, “Direct election of senators was a mistake—change my mind!” but union organizers are trained—get this—to have conversations designed to produce recruits. They’re not selling “supporting unions is an acceptable opinion,” but “having a union is the right choice for you and me, right here, right now.” Union organizers aren’t looking for grudging tolerance, they’re looking for people to see that it’s in their self-interests to join up and do the work.
Another useful technique crucial to organizing a union or a pressure campaign is mapping the territory. This can take a variety of forms. For organizing a union, it’s literally a map of the workplace: where workstations are, who works there, where people congregate, the flow of movement. This helps union organizers assess power relationships, build their networks, and see where union organizers or stewards are needed. Other times, such as during the design of a pressure campaign, the map looks like an organogram—just who works where in what jobs with what responsibilities. This is essential for staging a pressure campaign, because an organization’s decisions are made by individuals within that organization. You’re not facing an implacable, faceless opposition. You are facing an opposition whose decisions are made by people, and people have wants and needs and can be pressured or coaxed.
That’s a skill we don’t teach. But we should.
Here’s a project that you can do yourself, or as a group: make an onboarding manual for your city. Or your county. Or your state. By “onboarding manual,” I mean a document that explains how the jurisdiction works: how it’s organized, what the various districts are and who represents them, how that level of government operates, how your local political party works. Something you can hand new people so they have a good understanding of how things actually work, and that serves as an aid to make your opinions felt — not as one person who can be ignored, but as a group. Something that, when the government makes a decision you don’t like, will help you identify who made the decision, how to pressure them about it, and where their office is.
I’m sure a lot of local parties out there have something like this already. If you’ve got one, send it my way; I’d love to see what it’s like, and I’ll use them to make recommendations in future editions of this column to help people in places that don’t have them write their own. Unlike lefties, righties tend to silo; our people in different places, particularly grassroots activists, don’t talk to each other and learn from each other as much as they should. But we can change that, and should. So if you’re involved in grassroots organizing on the right, drop me a line at organizeright@protonmail.com.
And hey, if you’re a conservative who works in a union shop, step up and spend some more time doing union stuff. It could be a real learning experience.
David Hines has a professional background in international human rights work with a focus on recovery from forced disappearances and mass homicide. He lives in Los Angeles.


theamericanconservative--2020-11-14--A Biden Foreign Policy: Restraint by Circumstance, Not Design

The hope for many after the election is that the Biden administration will represent a return to normal , an opportunity to press U.S. primacy and restore the country to a position of pride and responsibility in the international system .
While there might be much hand wringing about a return of the Foreign policy blob , the reality will be much more tepid .
Given new domestic and international realities , any coming Biden administration foreign policy will be restrained by circumstance , but not design .
The domestic , political , and economic environment in the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ability to adopt ambitious foreign policy goals .
The United States can hardly be expected to police the world and respond to every crisis abroad when it is facing social and economic strife at home all the while continuing to confront the pandemic .
A new surge of COVID-19 cases will prolong the virus ’ s already disastrous effects on the U.S. economy , altering forever the way we work and spend .
While there is a spurt of optimism around the election and the news of an effective vaccine trial , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way to go before it can return to pre-pandemic levels of productivity and employment .
Economic recovery is a long way off and the rest of the world will also face longer recoveries as COVID-19 cases rise in other regions .
Working through domestic challenges like fighting the pandemic , rebuilding the economy , and addressing structural racism will be at the forefront of a Biden presidency .
President-elect Biden is probably not a true believer when it comes to a restraint-oriented foreign policy .
Biden ’ s foreign policy vision sees the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shining example to the world .
Yet , the new administration will likely adopt several of the ideas and principles that exhibit restraint .
The two broad areas most likely to see restraint-friendly change in U.S. foreign policy are the scope of U.S. goals and the rebuilding of America ’ s non-military policy tools and institutions .
Washington desperately needs a course correction to rein in global ambitions .
The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the trend of declining U.S. power .
The American people possess neither the political appetite nor the economic strength at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of undisputed global military hegemon that has undergirded U.S. foreign policy since the end of the Cold War .
The incoming Biden administration should take this new reality to heart and adjust its foreign policy goals accordingly .
Two issue areas ripe for a change include U.S. relations with Iran and North Korea .
The Trump administration ’ s all-or-nothing approach to both the Iran nuclear deal and diplomacy with North Korea highlight the limits of U.S. power .
The Biden administration could chalk up some early foreign policy wins if it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as those in the original Iran nuclear deal , collaborating with like-minded partners willing to help enforce a diplomatic and economic encirclement of Iran until they give up nuclear ambitions .
The other area of focus will be arms control with North Korea , a revision away from complete denuclearization .
The toothpaste is already out of the tube in North Korea given recent ballistic missile tests and displays of new capabilities , and myopic focus on denuclearization has failed to advance U.S. interests .
Adjusting U.S. foreign policy ambitions should go hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. foreign policy toolkit .
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted both the dangers of focusing on the military aspects of national security and the value of diplomacy , international institutions , and cooperative engagement to deal with collective threats .
The Trump administration actively sought to withdraw the United States from global cooperative forums such as the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Accord .
While Trump rightly pressured allies to shoulder a greater burden for their own defense , his general approach to alliance management also made it harder for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by cooperating with friendly countries .
The Biden administration could make some small course corrections that would begin rebuilding the foreign policy toolkit .
A return to diplomacy and reinvigoration of the State Department as an effective institution will restore the brains of U.S. foreign policy .
Moving beyond Trump will be an important signal about American values and soft power , providing a strong counter point to Chinese wolf-warrior diplomacy .
Rampant spending exhibited by the U.S. defense budget will end simply as a reaction to the economic damage caused by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the national debt .
Pressing domestic political and economic challenges will have to be addressed before the incoming Biden administration can adopt anything approaching a proactive grand strategy .
The world has changed significantly in the last four years , and U.S. foreign policy ambitions and approaches will have to evolve to meet this new reality .
The errors of the last four years will have to be reversed , resulting in a restrained vision of American power moving forward .
There can be no other choice given the giant hurdles the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effectively wield power and influence on the global stage .
Brandon Valeriano is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute .
Eric Gomez is director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute .

The hope for many after the election is that the Biden administration will represent a return to normal, an opportunity to press U.S. primacy and restore the country to a position of pride and responsibility in the international system. While there might be much hand wringing about a return of the Foreign policy blob, the reality will be much more tepid. Given new domestic and international realities, any coming Biden administration foreign policy will be restrained by circumstance, but not design.
The domestic, political, and economic environment in the United States will significantly constrain the Biden administration’s ability to adopt ambitious foreign policy goals. The United States can hardly be expected to police the world and respond to every crisis abroad when it is facing social and economic strife at home all the while continuing to confront the pandemic.
A new surge of COVID-19 cases will prolong the virus’s already disastrous effects on the U.S. economy, altering forever the way we work and spend. While there is a spurt of optimism around the election and the news of an effective vaccine trial, the U.S. economy still has a long way to go before it can return to pre-pandemic levels of productivity and employment. Economic recovery is a long way off and the rest of the world will also face longer recoveries as COVID-19 cases rise in other regions. Working through domestic challenges like fighting the pandemic, rebuilding the economy, and addressing structural racism will be at the forefront of a Biden presidency.
President-elect Biden is probably not a true believer when it comes to a restraint-oriented foreign policy. Biden’s foreign policy vision sees the United States leading global efforts as a shining example to the world. Yet, the new administration will likely adopt several of the ideas and principles that exhibit restraint. The two broad areas most likely to see restraint-friendly change in U.S. foreign policy are the scope of U.S. goals and the rebuilding of America’s non-military policy tools and institutions.
Washington desperately needs a course correction to rein in global ambitions. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the trend of declining U.S. power. The American people possess neither the political appetite nor the economic strength at the current moment to reclaim the position of undisputed global military hegemon that has undergirded U.S. foreign policy since the end of the Cold War.
The incoming Biden administration should take this new reality to heart and adjust its foreign policy goals accordingly. Two issue areas ripe for a change include U.S. relations with Iran and North Korea. The Trump administration’s all-or-nothing approach to both the Iran nuclear deal and diplomacy with North Korea highlight the limits of U.S. power.
The Biden administration could chalk up some early foreign policy wins if it is willing to set more limited goals such as those in the original Iran nuclear deal, collaborating with like-minded partners willing to help enforce a diplomatic and economic encirclement of Iran until they give up nuclear ambitions. The other area of focus will be arms control with North Korea, a revision away from complete denuclearization. The toothpaste is already out of the tube in North Korea given recent ballistic missile tests and displays of new capabilities, and myopic focus on denuclearization has failed to advance U.S. interests.
Adjusting U.S. foreign policy ambitions should go hand in hand with the restoration of the U.S. foreign policy toolkit. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted both the dangers of focusing on the military aspects of national security and the value of diplomacy, international institutions, and cooperative engagement to deal with collective threats. The Trump administration actively sought to withdraw the United States from global cooperative forums such as the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Accord. While Trump rightly pressured allies to shoulder a greater burden for their own defense, his general approach to alliance management also made it harder for the United States to accomplish non-military policy goals by cooperating with friendly countries.
The Biden administration could make some small course corrections that would begin rebuilding the foreign policy toolkit. A return to diplomacy and reinvigoration of the State Department as an effective institution will restore the brains of U.S. foreign policy. Moving beyond Trump will be an important signal about American values and soft power, providing a strong counter point to Chinese wolf-warrior diplomacy. Rampant spending exhibited by the U.S. defense budget will end simply as a reaction to the economic damage caused by the pandemic and a restoration of Republican fears over the national debt.
Pressing domestic political and economic challenges will have to be addressed before the incoming Biden administration can adopt anything approaching a proactive grand strategy. The world has changed significantly in the last four years, and U.S. foreign policy ambitions and approaches will have to evolve to meet this new reality. The errors of the last four years will have to be reversed, resulting in a restrained vision of American power moving forward. There can be no other choice given the giant hurdles the U.S. has to overcome before it can effectively wield power and influence on the global stage.
Brandon Valeriano is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Eric Gomez is director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute.