theamericanconservative--2020-06-10--‘Radical Chic’: Still Cringey After All These Years

Like author Tom Wolfe 's caustic take in 1970 , radicalism is being cultivated today in the best penthouses and corporate suites .
New York magazine photograph of Leonard Bernstein ( seated at center ) , his wife Felicia Montealegre ( left ) and Don Cox ( standing ) , Field Marshal of the Black Panther Party , in the Bernsteins ' 13-room penthouse on Park Avenue in Manhattan , January 14 , 1970 .
( Photo by Stephen Salmieri/Wikimedia Commons ) The radicals are on the march .
Inspired by Antifa and Black Lives Matter , wokesters are trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cities such as Minneapolis .
Moreover , they ’ re shaking up newsrooms and getting top editors fired .
Yet even as the Woken are challenging the establishment , they ’ re facing an interesting reaction—they ’ re being embraced , and funded , by that establishment .
Needless to say , Hollywood-type celebrities have been all over the new cause .
Model-influencer Chrissy Teigen tweeted that she ’ d donate $ 100,000 to help bail out those arrested in Minneapolis , and when challenged about it , she upped her commitment to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joined , of course , by many other celebrities with money to burn ; support for the protests—and , let ’ s not kid ourselves , support for the riots—has become a haute status symbol .
Moreover , these glittering radicals are being joined by much of corporate America .
For instance , Amazon—not always known for its good treatment of minority workers at its shipping facilities , or for its sensitivity to racial stereotypes—has loudly endorsed Black Lives Matter .
Indeed , CEO Jeff Bezos proclaims that he ’ s “ happy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t join him in supporting the cause .
Yet the peak of 2020 corporate wokeness , at least so far , came when Jamie Dimon , CEO of JP Morgan Chase , posed for the camera while taking a knee … in front of a bank vault .
( We can observe that there ’ s a limit here ; Dimon was posing in front of the vault , not throwing it open . )
Still , we can ask : What gives , when radicals and the rich are on the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of history might recall that such alliances have been common in the past ; for instance , in the Roman republic of the second century BCE , two patrician brothers , Gaius Gracchus and Tiberius Gracchus , sought to outflank their fellow aristocrats by making an alliance with the plebeians .
The Gracchi failed , both dying violent deaths , but the concept of a high-low league has endured—and oftentimes has succeeded .
Here in America , for instance , we might think of such recent figures as Nelson Rockefeller and Teddy Kennedy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves to be champions of the non-rich , and both built upstairs-downstairs coalitions that brought them to high office—and close to the presidency .
Indeed , as we consider the current relationship between plutocrat George Soros and all the plebs he funds , we can see that the rich and the poor can still form an alliance—typically for the purpose of pincering the middle class .
One of the most insightful—and certainly the most entertaining—takes on the symbiotic relationship between plutocracy and poverty came from the writer Tom Wolfe .
Wolfe is most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stuff , his admiring 1979 history of the early space program , and The Bonfire of the Vanities , his caustic 1987 novel about greed and corruption in New York City .
Yet we can focus on another of Wolfe ’ s writings , a 7,000-word article appearing in the June 8 , 1970 issue of New York magazine , entitled , “ Radical Chic : That Party at Lenny ’ s. ” In the title , “ that party at Lenny ’ s ” refers to a fundraiser for the Black Panthers—the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a lineage BLM celebrates—held at famed conductor Leonard Bernstein ’ s swank Manhattan apartment .
And “ radical chic ” was Wolfe ’ s snarky label for rich people pretending to be revolutionaries , when , in fact , they were play-acting radicalism for the sake of raising their social status .
That is , leftier-than-thou politics became a new sort of one-upsmanship .
As Wolfe explained , New York ’ s socialites “ have always paid their dues to ‘ the poor , ’ via charity , as a way of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and of legitimizing their wealth.
” Continuing , he added , “ In 1965 two new political movements , the anti-war movement and black power , began to gain great backing among culturati in New York.
” As for black power , a mutant sprout from the civil rights movement , Wolfe allowed that “ one does have a sincere concern for the poor and the underprivileged and an honest outrage against discrimination.
” And yet at the same time , “ one also has a sincere concern for maintaining a proper East @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And part of that lifestyle-maintenance was espousing the right—which is to say , trendy left—positions on key issues .
In Wolfe ’ s words , the embrace of these causes served the purpose of “ certifying their superiority over the hated ‘ middle class.
’ ” By now , the reader will have gathered that Wolfe was not a fan of such posturing .
In fact , he was not only a poisoned-pen critic , but also a deep-dyed conservative .
Still , for a while at least , Wolfe ’ s right-wing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Journalism prose-style , relying heavily on streams of consciousness , irregular capitalization , lots of exclamation points , and spelled-out sound effects .
For instance , his 1963 article for Esquire about car customizers was headlined , “ There Goes ( VAROOM !
VAROOM ! )
that Kandy Kolored ( THPHHHHHH ! )
Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby ( RAHGHHHH ! )
Around the Bend ( BRUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM… ) ” So probably Leonard and Felicia Bernstein let Wolfe come to their Black Panther party , not realizing what he actually believed .
Yet in his 1970 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He wrote that the smart-set attendees were really practicing a safely distanced white tourism ; that is , in their romanticization of the Black Panthers and other Radicals of Color , they were seeking out the thrill of hanging out , briefly , with “ the styles of romantic , raw-vital , Low Rent.
” And Wolfe was just getting warmed up : “ Radical Chic invariably favors radicals , ” he wrote .
It lionizes the the “ exotic and romantic , such as the grape workers , who are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Panthers , with their leather pieces , Afros , shades , and shoot-outs ; and the Red Indians , who , of course , had always seemed … exotic and romantic.
” Then Wolfe pressed further his critique of the chic : “ All three groups had something else to recommend them , as well : they were headquartered 3,000 miles away from the East Side of Manhattan , in places like Delano ( the grape workers ) , Oakland ( the Panthers ) and Arizona and New Mexico ( the Indians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Manhattanites could enjoy their flirtation with radicalism without having to travel west of the Hudson River .
In that party at Lenny ’ s , the special guests were a dozen or so Black Panthers .
According to Wolfe , “ The emotional momentum was building rapidly when Ray ‘ Masai ’ Hewitt , the Panthers ’ Minister of Education and member of the Central Committee , rose to speak.
” He observes : “ Hewitt was an intense , powerful young man and in no mood to play the diplomacy game .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , may have some feelings left for the establishment , but we don ’ t .
We want to see it die .
We ’ re Maoist revolutionaries , and we have no choice but to fight to the finish.
” Okay , so that spiel was quite a thrill for the chic .
But maybe also , it was a bit too radical .
Wolfe closes with the nervous reaction to Hewitt ’ s anger : “ More than one Park Avenue matron was thrown into a Radical Chic confusion .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a magnificent man , but suppose some simple-minded schmucks take all that business about burning down buildings seriously ?
’ ” In other words , radicalism is cool , but let ’ s not let the schmucks get carried away—at least not in my neighborhood .
Of course , protests do sometime get carried away ; they turn into riots , destroy cities—and generate fierce backlashes .
And Wolfe , his rarified mien notwithstanding , was a part of that backlash .
Alas , Wolfe died in 2018 , and so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d be writing , today , about Radical Chic 2.0 .
In the meantime , radicalism is being funded and cultivated in Manhattan and other ritzy precincts—not only in penthouses , but now , too , in corporate C-suites .
So perhaps there ’ s a Tom Wolfe 2.0 out there , observing all this wealthy woke posing—and hopefully recording it all on a surreptitious cell phone .

The radicals are on the march. Inspired by Antifa and Black Lives Matter, wokesters are trying to de-fund the police—and winning votes in cities such as Minneapolis. Moreover, they’re shaking up newsrooms and getting top editors fired.
Yet even as the Woken are challenging the establishment, they’re facing an interesting reaction—they’re being embraced, and funded, by that establishment.
Needless to say, Hollywood-type celebrities have been all over the new cause. Model-influencer Chrissy Teigen tweeted that she’d donate $100,000 to help bail out those arrested in Minneapolis, and when challenged about it, she upped her commitment to $200,000. And she has been joined, of course, by many other celebrities with money to burn; support for the protests—and, let’s not kid ourselves, support for the riots—has become a haute status symbol.
Moreover, these glittering radicals are being joined by much of corporate America. For instance, Amazon—not always known for its good treatment of minority workers at its shipping facilities, or for its sensitivity to racial stereotypes—has loudly endorsed Black Lives Matter. Indeed, CEO Jeff Bezos proclaims that he’s “happy to lose” customers that don’t join him in supporting the cause.
Yet the peak of 2020 corporate wokeness, at least so far, came when Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase, posed for the camera while taking a knee … in front of a bank vault. (We can observe that there’s a limit here; Dimon was posing in front of the vault, not throwing it open.)
Still, we can ask: What gives, when radicals and the rich are on the same side, at least optically? Students of history might recall that such alliances have been common in the past; for instance, in the Roman republic of the second century BCE, two patrician brothers, Gaius Gracchus and Tiberius Gracchus, sought to outflank their fellow aristocrats by making an alliance with the plebeians. The Gracchi failed, both dying violent deaths, but the concept of a high-low league has endured—and oftentimes has succeeded.
Here in America, for instance, we might think of such recent figures as Nelson Rockefeller and Teddy Kennedy; both of these rich men declared themselves to be champions of the non-rich, and both built upstairs-downstairs coalitions that brought them to high office—and close to the presidency.
Indeed, as we consider the current relationship between plutocrat George Soros and all the plebs he funds, we can see that the rich and the poor can still form an alliance—typically for the purpose of pincering the middle class.
One of the most insightful—and certainly the most entertaining—takes on the symbiotic relationship between plutocracy and poverty came from the writer Tom Wolfe. Wolfe is most famous for two books, The Right Stuff, his admiring 1979 history of the early space program, and The Bonfire of the Vanities, his caustic 1987 novel about greed and corruption in New York City.
Yet we can focus on another of Wolfe’s writings, a 7,000-word article appearing in the June 8, 1970 issue of New York magazine, entitled, “Radical Chic: That Party at Lenny’s.” In the title, “that party at Lenny’s” refers to a fundraiser for the Black Panthers—the Black Lives Matter of a half-century ago, a lineage BLM celebrates—held at famed conductor Leonard Bernstein’s swank Manhattan apartment.
And “radical chic” was Wolfe’s snarky label for rich people pretending to be revolutionaries, when, in fact, they were play-acting radicalism for the sake of raising their social status. That is, leftier-than-thou politics became a new sort of one-upsmanship.
As Wolfe explained, New York’s socialites “have always paid their dues to ‘the poor,’ via charity, as a way of claiming the nobility inherent in noblesse oblige and of legitimizing their wealth.” Continuing, he added, “In 1965 two new political movements, the anti-war movement and black power, began to gain great backing among culturati in New York.”
As for black power, a mutant sprout from the civil rights movement, Wolfe allowed that “one does have a sincere concern for the poor and the underprivileged and an honest outrage against discrimination.” And yet at the same time, “one also has a sincere concern for maintaining a proper East Side lifestyle in New York Society.”
And part of that lifestyle-maintenance was espousing the right—which is to say, trendy left—positions on key issues. In Wolfe’s words, the embrace of these causes served the purpose of “certifying their superiority over the hated ‘middle class.’”
By now, the reader will have gathered that Wolfe was not a fan of such posturing. In fact, he was not only a poisoned-pen critic, but also a deep-dyed conservative.
Still, for a while at least, Wolfe’s right-wing views were obscured by his anarchic New Journalism prose-style, relying heavily on streams of consciousness, irregular capitalization, lots of exclamation points, and spelled-out sound effects. For instance, his 1963 article for Esquire about car customizers was headlined, “There Goes (VAROOM! VAROOM!) that Kandy Kolored (THPHHHHHH!) Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby (RAHGHHHH!) Around the Bend (BRUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM…)”
So probably Leonard and Felicia Bernstein let Wolfe come to their Black Panther party, not realizing what he actually believed.
Yet in his 1970 article, Wolfe put down his cards. He wrote that the smart-set attendees were really practicing a safely distanced white tourism; that is, in their romanticization of the Black Panthers and other Radicals of Color, they were seeking out the thrill of hanging out, briefly, with “the styles of romantic, raw-vital, Low Rent.”
And Wolfe was just getting warmed up: “Radical Chic invariably favors radicals,” he wrote. It lionizes the the “exotic and romantic, such as the grape workers, who are not merely radical … but also Latin; the Panthers, with their leather pieces, Afros, shades, and shoot-outs; and the Red Indians, who, of course, had always seemed … exotic and romantic.”
Then Wolfe pressed further his critique of the chic: “All three groups had something else to recommend them, as well: they were headquartered 3,000 miles away from the East Side of Manhattan, in places like Delano (the grape workers), Oakland (the Panthers) and Arizona and New Mexico (the Indians).” In other words, Manhattanites could enjoy their flirtation with radicalism without having to travel west of the Hudson River.
In that party at Lenny’s, the special guests were a dozen or so Black Panthers. According to Wolfe, “The emotional momentum was building rapidly when Ray ‘Masai’ Hewitt, the Panthers’ Minister of Education and member of the Central Committee, rose to speak.” He observes: “Hewitt was an intense, powerful young man and in no mood to play the diplomacy game. Some of you here, he said, may have some feelings left for the establishment, but we don’t. We want to see it die. We’re Maoist revolutionaries, and we have no choice but to fight to the finish.”
Okay, so that spiel was quite a thrill for the chic. But maybe also, it was a bit too radical. Wolfe closes with the nervous reaction to Hewitt’s anger: “More than one Park Avenue matron was thrown into a Radical Chic confusion. The most memorable quote was: ‘He’s a magnificent man, but suppose some simple-minded schmucks take all that business about burning down buildings seriously?’”
In other words, radicalism is cool, but let’s not let the schmucks get carried away—at least not in my neighborhood.
Of course, protests do sometime get carried away; they turn into riots, destroy cities—and generate fierce backlashes. And Wolfe, his rarified mien notwithstanding, was a part of that backlash.
Alas, Wolfe died in 2018, and so we can only imagine what he’d be writing, today, about Radical Chic 2.0.
In the meantime, radicalism is being funded and cultivated in Manhattan and other ritzy precincts—not only in penthouses, but now, too, in corporate C-suites.
So perhaps there’s a Tom Wolfe 2.0 out there, observing all this wealthy woke posing—and hopefully recording it all on a surreptitious cell phone.


theamericanconservative--2020-06-11--Stop the Train! No More COVID Bailouts for Amtrak

The quasi-government company has always mismanaged taxpayer funds .
Now it 's using the crisis to ask for more .
Amtrak assistant conductor James Spina looks over an empty platform while departing South Station in Boston , MA on on June 09 , 2020 .
( Photo by Craig F. Walker/The Boston Globe via Getty Images ) Since the start of the pandemic , millions of businesses have lined up for federal loans to help them weather temporary interruptions in operations .
Then there ’ s the National Railroad Passenger Corporation , aka Amtrak .
The rail entity has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for years yet still wants a handout .
Congress awards Amtrak nearly $ 2 billion per year in subsidies , in addition to more than $ 200 million from states .
And now , the rail corporation wants even more money from taxpayers despite a long history of mismanaging allocated dollars .
It ’ s time for Congress to reevaluate existing subsidies to Amtrak , rather than putting taxpayers on the hook for large bailouts with little accountability .
By now , Congress is used to hearing Amtrak ’ s federal funding appeals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxpayer-financed company $ 1 billion to offset its coronavirus-related losses .
Yet according to Amtrak , this wasn ’ t nearly enough to keep .
CNBC reports , “ U.S .
passenger railroad service Amtrak said on Tuesday it needs a further $ 1.475 billion bailout and disclosed plans to cut its workforce by up to 20 % in the coming budget year .
Amtrak said it also plans to reduce its operating costs by approximately $ 500 million.
” These reforms are supposed to reassure taxpayers and policymakers , but in reality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amtrak ’ s years of mismanagement .
In fact , on the eve of the pandemic , only 11 out of 45 Amtrak ’ s routes were showing a profit .
The Chicago to St. Louis corridor offers a useful glimpse into the mentality of Amtrak ’ s management .
For the past few years , Amtrak has been busy spending $ 2 billion on a route from Chicago to St. Louis .
To be clear , this route already exists .
Passengers currently can choose between a 5.5-hour rail journey between the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or a 4.5-hour drive .
Amtrak is throwing hard-earned taxpayer dollars into making the route slightly faster , reducing the journey to 4.5 hours instead of 5.5 .
Amtrak regularly pours untold sums of money into route improvement , which in theory is not a problem .
In the private sector , companies choose to double down on different service lines and operations every day .
But for companies that don ’ t have regular access to taxpayer dollars , these investments had better result in increased consumer satisfaction or the business could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these profitability pressures and uses a tortured accounting system that fails to realistically account for profits and losses .
As Cato Institute scholar Randal O ’ Toole explains , “ Amtrak counts subsidies it receives from 17 states as ‘ passenger revenues ’ even though the vast majority of taxpayers who pay those subsidies never ride Amtrak.
” Its routes thus look successful on paper , even if consumers by and large avoid them and taxpayers are left footing the bill .
O ’ Toole also points to an even more glaring error @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fails to take depreciation into account .
Assets tend to experience wear and tear over time , and train cars are certainly no exception .
Asset depreciation is a key contributor to maintenance costs and pivotal for calculating profitability .
Yet Amtrak ’ s investors ( read : taxpayers ) would be hard-pressed to find any mention of depreciation in the corporation ’ s financial press releases .
According to O ’ Toole , properly accounting for depreciation brings Amtrak ’ s total losses to $ 1.13 billion in 2019 ( 38 times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
Despite covering up their losses with accounting tricks , taxpayers are expected to take Amtrak at their word that they will decrease operating expenses by $ 500 million and winnow down their workforce by 20 percent .
Even if that were true , lawmakers would have little recourse if Amtrak , say , used the bailout funds to reduce the route time of its Chicago-St. Louis line by another hour .
Instead of continuing to play along with these tired accounting games , Congress should consider phasing out the rail service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amtrak to market forces .
Ross Marchand is the director of policy for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance .

Since the start of the pandemic, millions of businesses have lined up for federal loans to help them weather temporary interruptions in operations. Then there’s the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, aka Amtrak. The rail entity has been poorly managed and taken lavish taxpayer subsidies for years yet still wants a handout. Congress awards Amtrak nearly $2 billion per year in subsidies, in addition to more than $200 million from states. And now, the rail corporation wants even more money from taxpayers despite a long history of mismanaging allocated dollars.
It’s time for Congress to reevaluate existing subsidies to Amtrak, rather than putting taxpayers on the hook for large bailouts with little accountability.
By now, Congress is used to hearing Amtrak’s federal funding appeals. In March, lawmakers awarded the taxpayer-financed company $1 billion to offset its coronavirus-related losses. Yet according to Amtrak, this wasn’t nearly enough to keep. CNBC reports, “U.S. passenger railroad service Amtrak said on Tuesday it needs a further $1.475 billion bailout and disclosed plans to cut its workforce by up to 20% in the coming budget year. Amtrak said it also plans to reduce its operating costs by approximately $500 million.” These reforms are supposed to reassure taxpayers and policymakers, but in reality, these moves would hardly paper over Amtrak’s years of mismanagement. In fact, on the eve of the pandemic, only 11 out of 45 Amtrak’s routes were showing a profit.
The Chicago to St. Louis corridor offers a useful glimpse into the mentality of Amtrak’s management. For the past few years, Amtrak has been busy spending $2 billion on a route from Chicago to St. Louis. To be clear, this route already exists. Passengers currently can choose between a 5.5-hour rail journey between the two cities, an hour-long flight, or a 4.5-hour drive. Amtrak is throwing hard-earned taxpayer dollars into making the route slightly faster, reducing the journey to 4.5 hours instead of 5.5.
Amtrak regularly pours untold sums of money into route improvement, which in theory is not a problem. In the private sector, companies choose to double down on different service lines and operations every day. But for companies that don’t have regular access to taxpayer dollars, these investments had better result in increased consumer satisfaction or the business could go belly-up. Amtrak is insulated from these profitability pressures and uses a tortured accounting system that fails to realistically account for profits and losses. As Cato Institute scholar Randal O’Toole explains, “Amtrak counts subsidies it receives from 17 states as ‘passenger revenues’ even though the vast majority of taxpayers who pay those subsidies never ride Amtrak.” Its routes thus look successful on paper, even if consumers by and large avoid them and taxpayers are left footing the bill.
O’Toole also points to an even more glaring error in Amtrak’s accounting—the rail corporation fails to take depreciation into account. Assets tend to experience wear and tear over time, and train cars are certainly no exception. Asset depreciation is a key contributor to maintenance costs and pivotal for calculating profitability. Yet Amtrak’s investors (read: taxpayers) would be hard-pressed to find any mention of depreciation in the corporation’s financial press releases. According to O’Toole, properly accounting for depreciation brings Amtrak’s total losses to $1.13 billion in 2019 (38 times the amount the amount claimed by Amtrak).
Despite covering up their losses with accounting tricks, taxpayers are expected to take Amtrak at their word that they will decrease operating expenses by $500 million and winnow down their workforce by 20 percent. Even if that were true, lawmakers would have little recourse if Amtrak, say, used the bailout funds to reduce the route time of its Chicago-St. Louis line by another hour.
Instead of continuing to play along with these tired accounting games, Congress should consider phasing out the rail service’s federal subsidy and finally expose Amtrak to market forces.
Ross Marchand is the director of policy for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.


theamericanconservative--2020-06-11--Don’t Let Big Brother Dismantle Social Media

After President Donald Trump was irked by Twitter ’ s first ever fact checks , he took to the site with a warning : “ Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices .
We will strongly regulate , or close them down , before we can ever allow this to happen.
” Two days later , Trump penned a lengthy executive order ( EO ) , which mostly does away with private speech protections on social platforms .
In an attempt to address “ selective censorship , ” the order directs the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that engage in such practices .
The EO is undoubtedly reversible , and its legal basis is weak , but its intentions are clear .
Namely , Trump is addressing the cultural impression that social media is biased against conservatives .
Although Trump is hardly alone in believing this , and companies like Facebook haven ’ t always helped allay such concerns , his misguided efforts to have government bureaucrats control social media platforms rings of an Orwellian Ministry of Truth .
The law Trump would like to eliminate is Section 230 of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In essence , it makes platforms unaccountable for the speech of their users .
For two decades , CDA230 remained unchanged .
Then in 2018 , Congress poked a hole in immunity protection with the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act ( FOSTA ) .
FOSTA had a laudable goal , namely to protect victims of sex trafficking .
However , the act was so badly written that a group of sex trafficking survivors and sex workers along with the Department of Justice opposed it .
Enter Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sandberg , who supported FOSTA .
Yet however well-intentioned , her support was shortsighted .
Facebook ’ s support for FOSTA was characterized as a move to protect platform incumbents from competition from start-ups and smaller companies .
Not helping Facebook ’ s image in the social conservative space was Sandberg ’ s very public $ 1 million private donation to Planned Parenthood , which , she said , was directly motivated by abortion restrictions signed into law by Republican governors in Alabama , Georgia , and Missouri .
Later that year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctors to post a fact-check on a pro-life video .
Although Facebook has successfully addressed many anecdotal issues concerning censorship of right-leaning views , for some conservatives , its image is one of a progressive entity that favors liberal ideas .
Trump is hardly the only politician who wants to poke more holes in CDA230 .
Astoundingly , in 2019 , Senator Josh Hawley introduced a bill to dismantle CDA230 protections for big companies , similarly arguing that tech companies had gotten “ a sweetheart deal … with the complete exemption from traditional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forum free of political censorship … unsurprisingly , big tech has failed to hold up to its end of the bargain.
” And the resentment over big tech private speech protections did not stop at partisan lines .
Last year , Speaker Nancy Pelosi called CDA230 “ a gift ” to tech companies that can be taken away .
Pelosi then ominously added , “ for the privilege of 230 , there has to be a bigger sense of responsibility on it.
” In other words , if Big Brother giveth private free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away .
In other countries , similar government regulations have had chilling effects not only on private speech protections but on freedom of speech in general .
For instance , Thailand ’ s 2007 Computer Crimes Act holds bloggers liable if anyone using their services criticizes the Thai Royal Family .
In Turkey , it is a crime to criticize the founder of the Turkish Republic or to speak ill of “ Turkishness.
” Egyptian lawmakers have called for the banning of TikTok and Instagram for “ violating public morals.
” In these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the robust civil society discourse necessary for a healthy democracy .
In contrast , CDA230 in the U.S. has allowed us to use social media to speak directly to others , without chilling government regulations .
Ironically , platforms like Twitter have enabled the president of the United States to speak directly to the American people and to circumvent what he perceives to be media bias .
If politicians think the social platforms they are using are unfair or biased , their answer should be to incentivize competition and the private sector .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , Mark Zuckerberg gave equal access to voices from every possible demographic .
Last year , in a speech at Georgetown University , Zuckerberg noted that the idea for Facebook came to him while our country was going to war with Iraq and there was a sense that important voices were not being heard .
“ Those early years shaped my belief that giving everyone a voice empowers the powerless and pushes society to be better over time , ” he said , adding , “ People having the power to express @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of force in the world—a Fifth Estate alongside the other power structures of society.
” In short , “ people no longer have to rely on traditional gatekeepers in politics or media to make their voices heard.
” Addressing concerns about the centralized power of platforms , he said : “ I actually believe the much bigger story is how much these platforms have decentralized power by putting it directly into people ’ s hands .
It ’ s part of this amazing expansion of voice through law , culture , and technology.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ criticism or innovation .
Faced with an outcry over Facebook ’ s monitoring of content during the 2016 elections , he devoted $ 130 million to create an independent oversight board before which users could appeal Facebook ’ s decisions .
The first 20 members were announced last month and included representatives from differing viewpoints , including a conservative , Judge Michael McConnell .
It ’ s because of measures like those that CDA230 needs to stay .
If Big Brother ’ s repeated calls to do away with private speech protections prevail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be : all voices are equal , but some voices are more equal than others .
Kristina Arriaga frequently writes on freedom of speech and freedom of belief .
She served as the executive director of the Becket Law firm and vice chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom , and is the recipient of the Newseum ’ s Free Expression Award .
She is reading for her Doctorate in Philosophy in Law at the University of Oxford .

After President Donald Trump was irked by Twitter’s first ever fact checks, he took to the site with a warning: “Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen.”
Two days later, Trump penned a lengthy executive order (EO), which mostly does away with private speech protections on social platforms. In an attempt to address “selective censorship,” the order directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to review bias and sanction companies that engage in such practices. The EO is undoubtedly reversible, and its legal basis is weak, but its intentions are clear. Namely, Trump is addressing the cultural impression that social media is biased against conservatives. Although Trump is hardly alone in believing this, and companies like Facebook haven’t always helped allay such concerns, his misguided efforts to have government bureaucrats control social media platforms rings of an Orwellian Ministry of Truth.
The law Trump would like to eliminate is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA230). In essence, it makes platforms unaccountable for the speech of their users. For two decades, CDA230 remained unchanged. Then in 2018, Congress poked a hole in immunity protection with the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA). FOSTA had a laudable goal, namely to protect victims of sex trafficking. However, the act was so badly written that a group of sex trafficking survivors and sex workers along with the Department of Justice opposed it.
Enter Facebook’s chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, who supported FOSTA. Yet however well-intentioned, her support was shortsighted. Facebook’s support for FOSTA was characterized as a move to protect platform incumbents from competition from start-ups and smaller companies. Not helping Facebook’s image in the social conservative space was Sandberg’s very public $1 million private donation to Planned Parenthood, which, she said, was directly motivated by abortion restrictions signed into law by Republican governors in Alabama, Georgia, and Missouri. Later that year, four senators complained after Facebook allowed pro-choice doctors to post a fact-check on a pro-life video. Although Facebook has successfully addressed many anecdotal issues concerning censorship of right-leaning views, for some conservatives, its image is one of a progressive entity that favors liberal ideas.
Trump is hardly the only politician who wants to poke more holes in CDA230. Astoundingly, in 2019, Senator Josh Hawley introduced a bill to dismantle CDA230 protections for big companies, similarly arguing that tech companies had gotten “a sweetheart deal … with the complete exemption from traditional publisher liability in exchange for providing a forum free of political censorship … unsurprisingly, big tech has failed to hold up to its end of the bargain.”
And the resentment over big tech private speech protections did not stop at partisan lines. Last year, Speaker Nancy Pelosi called CDA230 “a gift” to tech companies that can be taken away. Pelosi then ominously added, “for the privilege of 230, there has to be a bigger sense of responsibility on it.” In other words, if Big Brother giveth private free speech privileges, big brother can taketh away.
In other countries, similar government regulations have had chilling effects not only on private speech protections but on freedom of speech in general. For instance, Thailand’s 2007 Computer Crimes Act holds bloggers liable if anyone using their services criticizes the Thai Royal Family. In Turkey, it is a crime to criticize the founder of the Turkish Republic or to speak ill of “Turkishness.” Egyptian lawmakers have called for the banning of TikTok and Instagram for “violating public morals.” In these countries, government regulations ended up weakening the robust civil society discourse necessary for a healthy democracy.
In contrast, CDA230 in the U.S. has allowed us to use social media to speak directly to others, without chilling government regulations. Ironically, platforms like Twitter have enabled the president of the United States to speak directly to the American people and to circumvent what he perceives to be media bias. If politicians think the social platforms they are using are unfair or biased, their answer should be to incentivize competition and the private sector.
Facebook is imperfect, but in creating it, Mark Zuckerberg gave equal access to voices from every possible demographic. Last year, in a speech at Georgetown University, Zuckerberg noted that the idea for Facebook came to him while our country was going to war with Iraq and there was a sense that important voices were not being heard. “Those early years shaped my belief that giving everyone a voice empowers the powerless and pushes society to be better over time,” he said, adding, “People having the power to express themselves at scale is a new kind of force in the world—a Fifth Estate alongside the other power structures of society.” In short, “people no longer have to rely on traditional gatekeepers in politics or media to make their voices heard.” Addressing concerns about the centralized power of platforms, he said: “I actually believe the much bigger story is how much these platforms have decentralized power by putting it directly into people’s hands. It’s part of this amazing expansion of voice through law, culture, and technology.”
Zuckerberg has not shied away from criticism or innovation. Faced with an outcry over Facebook’s monitoring of content during the 2016 elections, he devoted $130 million to create an independent oversight board before which users could appeal Facebook’s decisions. The first 20 members were announced last month and included representatives from differing viewpoints, including a conservative, Judge Michael McConnell.
It’s because of measures like those that CDA230 needs to stay. If Big Brother’s repeated calls to do away with private speech protections prevail, the message to social media platforms will be: all voices are equal, but some voices are more equal than others.
Kristina Arriaga frequently writes on freedom of speech and freedom of belief. She served as the executive director of the Becket Law firm and vice chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, and is the recipient of the Newseum’s Free Expression Award. She is reading for her Doctorate in Philosophy in Law at the University of Oxford.


theamericanconservative--2020-06-12--How Early Immigration Shifted Our Politics Permanently To The Left

Low-angle view of a campaign poster for American politician Franklin D. Roosevelt campaign poster sponsored by the Ranachque Club which reads : 'THE MAN WITH A HEART : THE PARTY WITH A SOUL .
We must Keep Going : Vote ' next to a likeness of Roosevelt .
( Photo by Jay Florian Mitchell/Getty Images ) A new paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research has confirmed an important but underappreciated fact of American history : in the 20th century , immigration shifted our politics permanently to the left .
“ European immigrants brought with them their preferences for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Giuliano and Marco Tabellini argue .
“ This had a long-lasting effect on the ideology of U.S. born individuals.
” Long-lasting is right .
The paper found that counties with high levels of immigration between 1900 and 1930 were more likely to be liberal today , nine decades later .
Even controlling for factors like industrialization and urbanization , residents of these counties were more likely to favor redistribution , oppose spending cuts , and identify with the Democratic party .
This is old news to any student of history .
The Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Irish potato famine .
The real puzzle is why .
Why do immigrants so consistently favor the left , and why does that effect persist decades later , after they and their children have Americanized in every other respect from language to education to employment ?
The sheer longevity of the effect refutes the most obvious theory , that immigrants are poor and poor people favor redistribution .
In 1952 , most American Catholics were immigrant-descended but far removed from any firsthand memory of tenement life , and Democrats still outnumbered Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , South Asian immigrants are wealthier and more educated than natives on average , and they favor Democrats as lopsidedly as Hispanic immigrants do .
Giuliano and Tabellini hypothesize that immigrants import political preferences from their home countries .
That theory has a long pedigree going back to Thomas Jefferson , who worried that immigrants from European monarchies “ will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave , imbibed in their early youth… These principles , with their language , they will transmit to their children.
” But it doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Giuliano and Tabellini cite the New Deal as the banner example of their thesis that more immigration means more redistribution , for obvious reasons .
It was a massive episode of redistribution , and it happened when immigrant voting power was at its peak just after the Immigration Act of 1924 .
Their instincts are more right than they know .
The closer we look at the New Deal , the more we see just how deeply entangled immigration is with the growth of the welfare state , in ways that go beyond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Deal was laid by two different political movements , both of which owed their existence to immigration : patronage and progressivism .
The former was mainly an immigrant invention .
Before 1850 , patronage in America mostly meant replacing Whig postal clerks with Jackson men and vice versa .
It was the Irish bosses of the big city machines that raised patronage from a tool into a system .
Tammany Hall pioneered ( in America at least ) the mass distribution of favors and largesse as a basis for long-term political power .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ generally not immigrants .
Quite the opposite—and that is the point .
Progressivism was a reaction to immigration by old stock Americans .
The appalling conditions in slums and sweatshops led the progressives to favor a more active government , and they were more willing to tolerate state intrusion into new facets of life because their proposed beneficiaries were immigrants who , in their eyes , were powerless to help themselves .
Jane Addams felt comfortable micromanaging the most intimate habits of Hull House residents because the ethnic difference between them made it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Franklin Roosevelt had ample opportunity to observe both these traditions as governor of New York , and when he got to the White House he drew on both to staff his administration .
It was not just that immigrant voters were a crucial part of the New Deal electoral coalition , as the NBER paper says .
It was that the New Deal was invented and implemented by people whose politics were shaped by immigration , from Tammany veterans like Jim Farley to longtime progressives like Frances Perkins .
What lessons for today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s paper ?
The first is that immigrant attachment to the left has very little to do with anything the opposition party does .
Immigrants and their descendants consistently favor Democrats , regardless of whether the GOP candidate has courted them or spent his campaign railing against popery .
Both Goldwater and Nixon believed that Catholic voters were natural conservatives , and both were snubbed by Catholics on election day despite their best efforts at outreach .
The second lesson is that immigration ’ s effect on domestic politics is not talked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done into how immigrants affect American labor markets , wages , culture , and cuisine , but “ to the best of our knowledge , ” Giuliano and Tabellini write , “ we are the first to systematically document a similar impact on economic preferences and on political ideology.
” It ’ s no wonder that the topic is under-researched , since it raises doubts about the partisan political advantage that Democrats derive from immigration .
The NBER paper suggests that immigrant bias in favor of Democrats has historically been due to factors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If that ’ s the case , then the problem isn ’ t anything Republicans have done or failed to do .
The liberal advantage is simply built in .
California today is what New York State was a century ago : a portent of the future .
Many assume that , as immigrants and their children assimilate into American culture in language and other externals , their politics , too , will come to resemble the American average .
Giuliano and Tabellini ’ s paper suggests that this is wrong .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was still boosting Democrats a century later .
If California ’ s Democratic advantage is similarly durable , it will remain a one-party state for a long time no matter what Republicans do , and so will any other state that follows California ’ s demographic path .
At a campaign rally in Madison Square Garden in 1936 , Franklin Roosevelt told the crowd that opponents of the New Deal were “ already aliens to the spirit of American democracy.
” Doubters should get out , he thundered .
“ Let them emigrate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flag in which they have more confidence.
” Ironically , the same factors that brought Roosevelt victory have ended up making his rhetorical flourish come true .
After a century of immigration pushing America ’ s political center of gravity to the left , it is big-government advocates who dominate the political spectrum and skeptics of the welfare state who are aliens in their own country .

A new paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research has confirmed an important but underappreciated fact of American history: in the 20th century, immigration shifted our politics permanently to the left. “European immigrants brought with them their preferences for the welfare state,” authors Paola Giuliano and Marco Tabellini argue. “This had a long-lasting effect on the ideology of U.S. born individuals.”
Long-lasting is right. The paper found that counties with high levels of immigration between 1900 and 1930 were more likely to be liberal today, nine decades later. Even controlling for factors like industrialization and urbanization, residents of these counties were more likely to favor redistribution, oppose spending cuts, and identify with the Democratic party.
This is old news to any student of history. The Democrats have been the immigrant party since before the Irish potato famine. The real puzzle is why. Why do immigrants so consistently favor the left, and why does that effect persist decades later, after they and their children have Americanized in every other respect from language to education to employment?
The sheer longevity of the effect refutes the most obvious theory, that immigrants are poor and poor people favor redistribution. In 1952, most American Catholics were immigrant-descended but far removed from any firsthand memory of tenement life, and Democrats still outnumbered Republicans among Catholics three to one. Today, South Asian immigrants are wealthier and more educated than natives on average, and they favor Democrats as lopsidedly as Hispanic immigrants do.
Giuliano and Tabellini hypothesize that immigrants import political preferences from their home countries. That theory has a long pedigree going back to Thomas Jefferson, who worried that immigrants from European monarchies “will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth… These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children.”
But it doesn’t capture the whole picture. Giuliano and Tabellini cite the New Deal as the banner example of their thesis that more immigration means more redistribution, for obvious reasons. It was a massive episode of redistribution, and it happened when immigrant voting power was at its peak just after the Immigration Act of 1924. Their instincts are more right than they know. The closer we look at the New Deal, the more we see just how deeply entangled immigration is with the growth of the welfare state, in ways that go beyond demographics.
The groundwork for the New Deal was laid by two different political movements, both of which owed their existence to immigration: patronage and progressivism. The former was mainly an immigrant invention. Before 1850, patronage in America mostly meant replacing Whig postal clerks with Jackson men and vice versa. It was the Irish bosses of the big city machines that raised patronage from a tool into a system. Tammany Hall pioneered (in America at least) the mass distribution of favors and largesse as a basis for long-term political power.
The Progressives, by contrast, were generally not immigrants. Quite the opposite—and that is the point. Progressivism was a reaction to immigration by old stock Americans. The appalling conditions in slums and sweatshops led the progressives to favor a more active government, and they were more willing to tolerate state intrusion into new facets of life because their proposed beneficiaries were immigrants who, in their eyes, were powerless to help themselves. Jane Addams felt comfortable micromanaging the most intimate habits of Hull House residents because the ethnic difference between them made it easier for her to be patronizing.
Franklin Roosevelt had ample opportunity to observe both these traditions as governor of New York, and when he got to the White House he drew on both to staff his administration. It was not just that immigrant voters were a crucial part of the New Deal electoral coalition, as the NBER paper says. It was that the New Deal was invented and implemented by people whose politics were shaped by immigration, from Tammany veterans like Jim Farley to longtime progressives like Frances Perkins.
What lessons for today can be drawn from Giuliano and Tabellini’s paper? The first is that immigrant attachment to the left has very little to do with anything the opposition party does. Immigrants and their descendants consistently favor Democrats, regardless of whether the GOP candidate has courted them or spent his campaign railing against popery. Both Goldwater and Nixon believed that Catholic voters were natural conservatives, and both were snubbed by Catholics on election day despite their best efforts at outreach.
The second lesson is that immigration’s effect on domestic politics is not talked about enough. Extensive research has been done into how immigrants affect American labor markets, wages, culture, and cuisine, but “to the best of our knowledge,” Giuliano and Tabellini write, “we are the first to systematically document a similar impact on economic preferences and on political ideology.”
It’s no wonder that the topic is under-researched, since it raises doubts about the partisan political advantage that Democrats derive from immigration. The NBER paper suggests that immigrant bias in favor of Democrats has historically been due to factors that preceded their arrival on American shores. If that’s the case, then the problem isn’t anything Republicans have done or failed to do. The liberal advantage is simply built in.
California today is what New York State was a century ago: a portent of the future. Many assume that, as immigrants and their children assimilate into American culture in language and other externals, their politics, too, will come to resemble the American average. Giuliano and Tabellini’s paper suggests that this is wrong. They found that Ellis Island era immigration was still boosting Democrats a century later. If California’s Democratic advantage is similarly durable, it will remain a one-party state for a long time no matter what Republicans do, and so will any other state that follows California’s demographic path.
At a campaign rally in Madison Square Garden in 1936, Franklin Roosevelt told the crowd that opponents of the New Deal were “already aliens to the spirit of American democracy.” Doubters should get out, he thundered. “Let them emigrate and try their lot under some foreign flag in which they have more confidence.” Ironically, the same factors that brought Roosevelt victory have ended up making his rhetorical flourish come true. After a century of immigration pushing America’s political center of gravity to the left, it is big-government advocates who dominate the political spectrum and skeptics of the welfare state who are aliens in their own country.


theamericanconservative--2020-06-12--Trump Deserves Credit for Bringing the Troops Home

Initiating withdrawals from Afghanistan and Germany is a good step and one he should follow up on .
President Donald Trump speaks to the troops during a surprise Thanksgiving day visit at Bagram Air Field , on November 28 , 2019 in Afghanistan .
( Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images ) In 1988 , a certain congressman from Texas ran for president on a platform of bringing home our troops from around the world .
Even then , more than 30 years ago , U.S. troops were in over 100 countries , and tens of thousands were still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my father , Ron Paul , who 20 years later ran again for the presidency and was still calling “ to begin bringing American troops home from around the world—an absolute necessity if the budget is ever to be brought under control .
We ’ re going broke and we still have 75,000 troops in Germany ?
” In his best-selling book The Revolution , my father wrote : “ We can either withdraw gracefully , as I propose , or we can stay in our fantasy world and wait until bankruptcy forces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” This week , President Trump called for a modest reduction of American troops in Germany , reducing them from 34,500 to 25,000 ( a great start that will hopefully lead to further reductions there ) .
The Republican neocon caucus responded exactly as you would expect .
You ’ d think the Berlin Wall was still in place and two million Russians were about to invade Germany .
Utter nonsense .
With the Cold War now 30 years moribund , the hysteria over removing troops is ludicrous .
Meanwhile the very real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each day .
Just this year , the United States will add $ 4 trillion to the national debt .
Can the Germans afford to defend themselves ?
Without question .
Germany actually balances its annual budget every year .
Yet the U.S. still has about 170,000 troops in about 150 countries at great expense in both lives and treasure .
Often that puts our soldiers on the front lines of civil wars whose origins we barely even comprehend .
The U.S. also becomes allied with governments , such as Saudi Arabia , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-American .
And yet the cycle continues because the war caucus vows to never , ever let our troops come home .
President Trump is also advocating ending our nation ’ s longest war in Afghanistan .
It couldn ’ t happen soon enough .
The American taxpayer is paying $ 50 billion a year to build roads and bridges in that country , while our own nation ’ s infrastructure crumbles .
President Trump has also discussed having fewer troops in South Korea , and has actually forced Seoul to pay more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aspect of the Trump presidency , though , has been his willingness to challenge the bipartisan neoconservative consensus on forever war .
Yet critics , including myself , will admit the Trump presidency has not always practiced what it ’ s preached here .
While Trump has consistently advocated for fewer troops in Europe , he has re-introduced U.S. troops into Saudi Arabia , a mistake that eventually will lead to more war or terrorism or both .
But today , give credit where credit is due .
Trump , the disrupter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And I say don ’ t stop until we once again have a military whose primary job is to defend America .

In 1988, a certain congressman from Texas ran for president on a platform of bringing home our troops from around the world. Even then, more than 30 years ago, U.S. troops were in over 100 countries, and tens of thousands were still in Europe.
That Texas congressman was my father, Ron Paul, who 20 years later ran again for the presidency and was still calling “to begin bringing American troops home from around the world—an absolute necessity if the budget is ever to be brought under control. We’re going broke and we still have 75,000 troops in Germany?”
In his best-selling book The Revolution, my father wrote: “We can either withdraw gracefully, as I propose, or we can stay in our fantasy world and wait until bankruptcy forces us to scale back our foreign commitments.”
This week, President Trump called for a modest reduction of American troops in Germany, reducing them from 34,500 to 25,000 (a great start that will hopefully lead to further reductions there). The Republican neocon caucus responded exactly as you would expect. You’d think the Berlin Wall was still in place and two million Russians were about to invade Germany. Utter nonsense.
With the Cold War now 30 years moribund, the hysteria over removing troops is ludicrous. Meanwhile the very real threat of bankruptcy and menacing debt grows each day. Just this year, the United States will add $4 trillion to the national debt. Can the Germans afford to defend themselves? Without question. Germany actually balances its annual budget every year.
Yet the U.S. still has about 170,000 troops in about 150 countries at great expense in both lives and treasure. Often that puts our soldiers on the front lines of civil wars whose origins we barely even comprehend. The U.S. also becomes allied with governments, such as Saudi Arabia, that are barbaric, despotic, and anti-American. And yet the cycle continues because the war caucus vows to never, ever let our troops come home.
President Trump is also advocating ending our nation’s longest war in Afghanistan. It couldn’t happen soon enough. The American taxpayer is paying $50 billion a year to build roads and bridges in that country, while our own nation’s infrastructure crumbles.
President Trump has also discussed having fewer troops in South Korea, and has actually forced Seoul to pay more for our presence. Possibly the best aspect of the Trump presidency, though, has been his willingness to challenge the bipartisan neoconservative consensus on forever war.
Yet critics, including myself, will admit the Trump presidency has not always practiced what it’s preached here. While Trump has consistently advocated for fewer troops in Europe, he has re-introduced U.S. troops into Saudi Arabia, a mistake that eventually will lead to more war or terrorism or both.
But today, give credit where credit is due. Trump, the disrupter, is right to bring the troops home. And I say don’t stop until we once again have a military whose primary job is to defend America.
Rand Paul is a Republican senator from Kentucky.


theamericanconservative--2020-06-13--Modern Progressivism: Aging and Strange

Modern Progressivism: Aging and Strange

A new history pits it in opposition to the Constitution and explores how far it 's come .
circa 1916 : Woodrow Wilson ( 1856 - 1924 ) the 28th President of the United States of America .
( Photo by Topical Press Agency/Getty Images ) “ This not who we are , ” President Obama used to say when something unbecoming to his progressivism occurred .
Few caught the statement ’ s colossal presumptuousness , casually arrogating progressivism ’ s pieties to America ’ s larger sense of self .
“ So diffuse and pervasive is the progressive outlook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1991 , “ that merely to articulate it is an achievement.
” In 2020 , progressivism appears hale .
Will the hordes elect a revanchist president ?
Per Martin Luther King ’ s formulation—also invoked by Obama—the justice-bound “ arc of the moral universe is long.
” In the meantime , let a million lawn-signs bloom , proclaiming fidelity to progressive catechisms and injunctions to “ Resist !
” ( as if Emma Goldman and not some account executive or corporate VP resides within ) .
Yet it ’ s also showing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unhinged in its policing of discourse , confounded by the recrudescence of forces like nationalism—supposedly consigned to the garbage can marked “ wrong side of history ” —and estranged from working-class constituents .
The ideology itself has become tangled in conflicting moral imperatives and its confused jumble of causes , both in pursuit of chimerical goals and mired in glum introspection .
The highest state to which many progressives aspire seems to be self-awareness of their own privilege ( though they ’ re conveniently obtuse to the status conferred by flaunting their exquisitely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” is a phrase du jour , but what about “ late progressivism ” ?
Another Brahmin gloss on our times is the Trump administration as “ hyperreal ” spectacle—a Kremlin/Fox News-inflected gilded simulacrum of reality .
But how does some variant of this not also apply to contemporary progressivism , with its conspiratorial claims of Russian skullduggery and unfalsifiable assertions of pervasive discrimination ?
Or the histrionics of media impeachment coverage , played out before a bored , listless public gallery ?
Then there ’ s a resurgent interest in the works @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of progressivism and disinterring of “ communitarian ” traditions .
All of this is converging on a sense of progressivism as one among , as the English philosopher John Gray put it recently , “ plural and contending ” value systems , subject to its own folkways , mythos , weltanschauung , and prejudices .
Bradley C. S. Watson ’ s Progressivism : The Strange History of a Radical Idea had me with the word “ strange.
” Progressivism today is strange .
Meanwhile , Trump ’ s election has spawned a shelf @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working class : how refreshing to see progressivism come in for similar treatment .
And presumably Watson , a political science professor at Pennsylvania ’ s Saint Vincent College , didn ’ t have to repair to Appalachian Ohio to conduct his fieldwork .
Wrong meeting .
Actually , Watson ’ s Progressivism is a history of the histories—refracted through the exigencies of the presents in which they were written—by which received wisdom about early 20th-century progressivism came down to us , and the revisionism underway since the 1980s .
Since that time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Leo Strauss have become associated with the “ Claremont School , ” a colony of constitutional conservative political scientists , and coalesced at California ’ s Claremont Colleges , Watson among them .
Historical depictions of progressivism served to domesticate the movement , he writes , emphasizing , variously , its congruence with prior U.S. history , diffuse non-doctrinaire populist character , small-bore nature ( rooted in the “ status anxiety ” of its supposed middle-class tribunes ) and—mediated by the New Left—essentially conservative cast as a tool of big business .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oblivious to their own editorializing , resoundingly undersold progressivism .
It posits that progressivism—imbued with social Darwinism , pragmatism , Hegel ’ s exaltation of the state and “ social gospel ” Christianity—was deeply transgressive of the founders ’ Constitution .
The older tradition was recast from transcendent holy writ to historical artifact belonging to an earlier , and thus less-evolved , era—a dead letter straitjacketing the Prometheus of government amid the imperative to reform the social ills attending industrialization and urbanization .
Extolling an infinitely extensible “ living Constitution ” and conceiving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within a Whiggish teleology trending toward ever more “ freedom , justice , and truth , ” progressivism represented a “ pivot point ” in U.S. history .
It sanctioned the projection of state authority into what had hitherto been considered the preserve of civil society ( recast as a redoubt of corruption ) and private conscience , elevating a proto-administrative state of technocrats .
At the same time , the progressives ushered in today ’ s heroic conception of the presidency as a seat of enlightened moral agency , as it judiciously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forces of history .
Fixated on the figure of Woodrow Wilson ( with his glinting pince-nez , priggish Victorian Dad mien , and anti-suffrage segregationist views , a suitably unambiguous villain ) , this is the wrong-turn narrative espoused in the Tea Party-era pedagogy of Glenn Beck .
And Watson ’ s Progressivism is in part an account of the academics working upstream of Beck and his chalkboard .
But it ’ s also a chronicle of the Straussian reckoning with progressivism : a cadre of scholars , governed by the conviction that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time and place , ” who accorded progressivism ’ s architects the dignity of taking them at their word , rather than reflexively discounting this as a product of self-interested historical actors ’ “ false consciousness.
” It ’ s a reminder of one of progressivism ’ s blind spots—in English soccer parlance , its inclination to play the man , not the ball .
Many of Watson ’ s historical observations about germinal-stage progressivism could have been written of its current form .
He remarks on the juxtaposition between its eyes-on-the-prize goal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to its reform agenda , witnessed in Wilson ’ s withering condescension toward “ public criticism ” as a “ clumsy nuisance , a rustic handling delicate machinery.
” And he draws a throughline from the God-bothering messianism of early progressives like Walter Rauschenbusch to sanctimonious social-justice activists .
But how far is today ’ s progressivism really descended from the 1900s version ?
University of Virginia political scientist James Ceaser has described the former as a compound of original progressivism , multiculturalism , and postmodernism , with an admixture of countercultural emphasis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crystalizes an inalienable aspect to progressivism past and present : its protean , remorselessly acquisitive nature , ever on the lookout for the next moral improvement project ( and the political clients this yields ) .
Progressivism is an uneven book .
Claremont Review of Books editor Charles R. Kesler contributes a foreword and figures in an exploration of the intellectual genealogy of the conservative challenge to the liberal consensus on progressivism , but excerpts from Kesler ’ s book , I Am the Change , materialize in the text as if delivered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the endnotes for their provenance .
One learns much from Watson ’ s survey of the literature about the historiography of progressivism , but soon wises up to his modus operandi of arraigning its works—finding each in error for slighting progressivism ’ s subversion of the Constitution .
And Watson ’ s otherwise felicitous prose is marred by occasional archaic locutions .
The obscure Latinate “ in fine ” is preferred to “ in short , ” and I thought “ desuetude ” had passed into…desuetude .
The Dwight Macdonald line about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or , more accurately , added to it , ” comes to mind .
But ultimately Progressivism is insightful and rewarding .
And Watson owns the prejudices of his cohort , referring to the “ deep attachment to the Constitution and to the regime that is experienced by the revisionists.
” This is more than can be said for progressives with their avowals that their creed is reality itself .
“ [ I ] n truth , ” Watson writes , “ liberalism was all about theory from the very beginning.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Spectator , Economist , Weekly Standard , Wall Street Journal , and Times Literary Supplement .

“This not who we are,” President Obama used to say when something unbecoming to his progressivism occurred. Few caught the statement’s colossal presumptuousness, casually arrogating progressivism’s pieties to America’s larger sense of self. “So diffuse and pervasive is the progressive outlook,” wrote the critic George Scialabba in 1991, “that merely to articulate it is an achievement.”
In 2020, progressivism appears hale. Will the hordes elect a revanchist president? Per Martin Luther King’s formulation—also invoked by Obama—the justice-bound “arc of the moral universe is long.” In the meantime, let a million lawn-signs bloom, proclaiming fidelity to progressive catechisms and injunctions to “Resist!” (as if Emma Goldman and not some account executive or corporate VP resides within).
Yet it’s also showing signs of wear. Progressivism is increasingly unhinged in its policing of discourse, confounded by the recrudescence of forces like nationalism—supposedly consigned to the garbage can marked “wrong side of history”—and estranged from working-class constituents. The ideology itself has become tangled in conflicting moral imperatives and its confused jumble of causes, both in pursuit of chimerical goals and mired in glum introspection. The highest state to which many progressives aspire seems to be self-awareness of their own privilege (though they’re conveniently obtuse to the status conferred by flaunting their exquisitely modulated penitence).
“Late capitalism” is a phrase du jour, but what about “late progressivism”? Another Brahmin gloss on our times is the Trump administration as “hyperreal” spectacle—a Kremlin/Fox News-inflected gilded simulacrum of reality. But how does some variant of this not also apply to contemporary progressivism, with its conspiratorial claims of Russian skullduggery and unfalsifiable assertions of pervasive discrimination? Or the histrionics of media impeachment coverage, played out before a bored, listless public gallery?
Then there’s a resurgent interest in the works of Christopher Lasch with their astringent critique of progressivism and disinterring of “communitarian” traditions.
All of this is converging on a sense of progressivism as one among, as the English philosopher John Gray put it recently, “plural and contending” value systems, subject to its own folkways, mythos, weltanschauung, and prejudices.
♦♦♦
Bradley C. S. Watson’s Progressivism: The Strange History of a Radical Idea had me with the word “strange.” Progressivism today is strange. Meanwhile, Trump’s election has spawned a shelf of histories and ethnographies about the white working class: how refreshing to see progressivism come in for similar treatment. And presumably Watson, a political science professor at Pennsylvania’s Saint Vincent College, didn’t have to repair to Appalachian Ohio to conduct his fieldwork.
Wrong meeting. Actually, Watson’s Progressivism is a history of the histories—refracted through the exigencies of the presents in which they were written—by which received wisdom about early 20th-century progressivism came down to us, and the revisionism underway since the 1980s. Since that time, acolytes of the German émigré scholar Leo Strauss have become associated with the “Claremont School,” a colony of constitutional conservative political scientists, and coalesced at California’s Claremont Colleges, Watson among them.
Historical depictions of progressivism served to domesticate the movement, he writes, emphasizing, variously, its congruence with prior U.S. history, diffuse non-doctrinaire populist character, small-bore nature (rooted in the “status anxiety” of its supposed middle-class tribunes) and—mediated by the New Left—essentially conservative cast as a tool of big business.
The conservative counter-narrative holds that these accounts, oblivious to their own editorializing, resoundingly undersold progressivism. It posits that progressivism—imbued with social Darwinism, pragmatism, Hegel’s exaltation of the state and “social gospel” Christianity—was deeply transgressive of the founders’ Constitution. The older tradition was recast from transcendent holy writ to historical artifact belonging to an earlier, and thus less-evolved, era—a dead letter straitjacketing the Prometheus of government amid the imperative to reform the social ills attending industrialization and urbanization. Extolling an infinitely extensible “living Constitution” and conceiving of man as “morally perfectible” within a Whiggish teleology trending toward ever more “freedom, justice, and truth,” progressivism represented a “pivot point” in U.S. history. It sanctioned the projection of state authority into what had hitherto been considered the preserve of civil society (recast as a redoubt of corruption) and private conscience, elevating a proto-administrative state of technocrats. At the same time, the progressives ushered in today’s heroic conception of the presidency as a seat of enlightened moral agency, as it judiciously marshals “popular will” and the forces of history.
Fixated on the figure of Woodrow Wilson (with his glinting pince-nez, priggish Victorian Dad mien, and anti-suffrage segregationist views, a suitably unambiguous villain), this is the wrong-turn narrative espoused in the Tea Party-era pedagogy of Glenn Beck. And Watson’s Progressivism is in part an account of the academics working upstream of Beck and his chalkboard. But it’s also a chronicle of the Straussian reckoning with progressivism: a cadre of scholars, governed by the conviction that “moral-political understandings” can transcend “time and place,” who accorded progressivism’s architects the dignity of taking them at their word, rather than reflexively discounting this as a product of self-interested historical actors’ “false consciousness.” It’s a reminder of one of progressivism’s blind spots—in English soccer parlance, its inclination to play the man, not the ball.
Many of Watson’s historical observations about germinal-stage progressivism could have been written of its current form. He remarks on the juxtaposition between its eyes-on-the-prize goal orientation and disdain for attaining popular assent to its reform agenda, witnessed in Wilson’s withering condescension toward “public criticism” as a “clumsy nuisance, a rustic handling delicate machinery.” And he draws a throughline from the God-bothering messianism of early progressives like Walter Rauschenbusch to sanctimonious social-justice activists.
But how far is today’s progressivism really descended from the 1900s version? University of Virginia political scientist James Ceaser has described the former as a compound of original progressivism, multiculturalism, and postmodernism, with an admixture of countercultural emphasis on personal growth. Still, Watson crystalizes an inalienable aspect to progressivism past and present: its protean, remorselessly acquisitive nature, ever on the lookout for the next moral improvement project (and the political clients this yields).
♦♦♦
Progressivism is an uneven book. Claremont Review of Books editor Charles R. Kesler contributes a foreword and figures in an exploration of the intellectual genealogy of the conservative challenge to the liberal consensus on progressivism, but excerpts from Kesler’s book, I Am the Change, materialize in the text as if delivered from on high, sending the reader to the endnotes for their provenance. One learns much from Watson’s survey of the literature about the historiography of progressivism, but soon wises up to his modus operandi of arraigning its works—finding each in error for slighting progressivism’s subversion of the Constitution. And Watson’s otherwise felicitous prose is marred by occasional archaic locutions. The obscure Latinate “in fine” is preferred to “in short,” and I thought “desuetude” had passed into…desuetude. The Dwight Macdonald line about a work having “enriched my vocabulary, or, more accurately, added to it,” comes to mind.
But ultimately Progressivism is insightful and rewarding. And Watson owns the prejudices of his cohort, referring to the “deep attachment to the Constitution and to the regime that is experienced by the revisionists.”
This is more than can be said for progressives with their avowals that their creed is reality itself. “[I]n truth,” Watson writes, “liberalism was all about theory from the very beginning.”
Stephen Phillips has reviewed numerous books for The Spectator, Economist, Weekly Standard, Wall Street Journal, and Times Literary Supplement.


theamericanconservative--2020-06-15--Virtue Signaling Maryland Officials Ignore Brutal Killing By Their Own Cops

They boast outrage over George Floyd , but refuse to tell us why Duncan Lemp was shot sleeping in his own bed .
Perhaps the most outrageous police killing of the year continues to be almost completely ignored by the American media .
Montgomery County , Maryland politicians and government officials have loudly lamented police killings in Minneapolis and elsewhere while continuing to cover up a no-knock raid that is difficult to distinguish from an extrajudicial killing .
Since banning so-called no-knock raids has been included in the new House Democratic proposal for police reforms , let ’ s take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ended in the death of a 21-year-old man .
At 4:30 a.m. on March 12 , a Montgomery County police SWAT team commenced a no-knock raid by firing into a bedroom window and fatally wounding Duncan Lemp as he lay in bed next to his pregnant girlfriend .
Police then stormed the house , using flash bangs to intimidate Lemp ’ s mother and other relatives living in the house .
Lemp bled to death while family members were handcuffed on the floor nearby .
Lemp was a savvy I.T .
guy who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in setting up secure websites and communications systems .
But Lemp had no security to protect himself against police bullets coming through his bedroom window before dawn that morning .
During the raid , police officers repeatedly shouted at family members that everything they said and did was being recorded .
However , Montgomery police may have either destroyed any videos or never made a recording .
On June 5 , lawyer Rene Sandler , representing the Lemp family , sent a letter to Montgomery County prosecutor Haley Roberts : “ We have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made an ‘ on the record ’ statement that no body cameras existed for the raid of the Lemp home and the killing of Duncan Lemp.
” Sandler sought confirmation that the raid video footage existed and requested its immediate release .
She received no response .
After seeing the Sandler letter , I emailed Montgomery County chief executive Marc Elrich and Montgomery County Police Chief Marcus Jones asking : “ Can you confirm or deny that there is no body cam footage of the Lemp shooting ?
” I received no reply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times to county prosecutor Roberts , the same lawyer who threatened Lemp ’ s parents if they attended a protest over his killing at County police headquarters in April .
Roberts replied on June 12 : “ This matter is an open criminal investigation being handled by the Howard County State ’ s Attorney ’ s Office , and as such any inquiries should be directed to that office.
” The coverup of the Lemp killing is being aided and abetted by the Orwellian-named “ Law Enforcement Trust and Transparency Act ” which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Montgomery County and Howard County have an agreement to conduct reciprocal investigations of police shootings .
Individuals I have spoken to involved in this case have zero confidence in the independence of the Howard County investigation—which conveniently permits Montgomery County officials to shirk all questions .
Perhaps some months or a year or two from now , an “ official report ” will reveal the following : “ We investigated our law enforcement friends and neighbors and found out that they did nothing wrong except for a glitch where one policeman ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killed a dastardly gun owner who was also guilty of tweeting ‘ The Constitution is Dead.
’ ” Montgomery County officials are offering endless dollops of piety in lieu of revealing how and why Duncan Lemp was killed , while the state government is perpetuating a “ stay-at-home ” dictate that is one of the nation ’ s strictest and has helped destroy tens of thousands of jobs .
But county officials have nonetheless cheered mass rallies to protest the Floyd killing and the racial injustice .
The county police shut down a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Matters marches in the heart of Rockville , Maryland , right outside of D.C..
In a June 4 Washington Post op-ed , county chief executive Marc Elrich declared , “ The killings committed by members of the police force are truly horrible , without justification , often explained away and seldom punished appropriately.
” But his fervor on this issue does not extend to revealing facts about killings by police under his command .
Elrich has said nothing on the Lemp case .
On June 8 , Chief Jones and the police chiefs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chief of the National Park Service local division , issued a joint statement : “ We…are angry and outraged over the killing of George Floyd by police officers in Minneapolis , Minnesota….We realize that we must work toward greater transparency and accountability in order to hold the public trust.
” The police chiefs then declared that they “ hereby commit ” to a set of reforms , including a pledge to “ improve training in cultural competency for our officers.
” “ Transparency ” was nowhere in the reforms .
Two days later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past couple of weeks , I have been beyond angry .
I ’ m sick to the core of my soul ” over Floyd ’ s killing .
But there is no evidence he has lost a moment ’ s sleep over a killing by his own SWAT team .
While Jones has had plenty of time to publicly condemn the action of the Minneapolis police , he has refused to meet with the mother and father of Duncan Lemp , who his own officers killed .
Selective outrage extends to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On June 10 , Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh , speaking on a Montgomery County panel organized by Communities United Against Hate , lamented that “ these past few weeks have been awful , ” referring to the deaths of George Floyd in Minneapolis and Breonna Taylor in Louisville .
Frosh declared , “ It ’ s not a surprise that many members of our community have lost trust in law enforcement when they see live , on videos , these events occurring.
” Floyd was brutally killed by an eight-minute-knee-on-the-neck after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a counterfeit $ 20 bill .
Breonna Taylor was killed during an unjustified no-knock raid in the middle of the night .
Police charged into her apartment seeking a drug suspect who she had dated years earlier but was nowhere near the scene .
Taylor ’ s boyfriend fired at the police , hitting one officer in the leg .
Police fired a volley of shots that left Breonna dead .
People are justifiably outraged by Taylor ’ s killing .
But in the Lemp case , there were no shots fired at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shooting into a bedroom window .
On June 12 , I emailed an inquiry to Frosh ’ s press office , asking whether he had made any public comments on the Lemp case and why he would “ publicly comment on a Kentucky case that sounds similar to a case under his own jurisdiction ?
” Frosh ’ s office did not respond .
Conservatives sometimes accuse liberals of being virtue signaling zealots who are more outraged by prejudice than by wrongful killings .
The Montgomery County Council could serve as Exhibit A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ County police officer used a racial slur during the trespassing arrest of four men who refused to leave a McDonald ’ s plagued by loitering and drug dealing .
( Two arrestees had marijuana . )
The policewoman who was caught on tape told the suspects that she had just used the same term to describe the defendants that they had just used .
Less than a week later , all nine members of the Montgomery County Council demanded the release of all body cam footage from the incident .
MyMCMedia reported that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calls related to this stop… the number and locations of all trespassing citations issued in the last two years… as well as demographic statistics about the residents stopped and frisked.
” Three hours of police video on the incident were posted on the police YouTube channel two months later amidst much wailing and gnashing of teeth .
For the Lemp case , not a single County Council member has requested body cam footage .
Actually , not one Council member has shown any interest in the case .
The Council has a Public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never heard of Duncan Lemp .
But the Council did take decisive action on June 11 to declare racism a “ public health emergency.
” Who actually killed Duncan Lemp ?
Nobody in Montgomery County appears to care .
The police have not even disclosed the name of the officer or officers who killed Lemp .
In a season when vast protests have occurred alleging racial bias by police , Montgomery County has gotten away with refusing to disclose whether Lemp ’ s killer ( s ) was white , Black , Hispanic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Montgomery County preens over its progressiveness but its police department procedures on disclosing the names of officers who kill are worse than Philadelphia , long renowned for police brutality .
Even more important than the name of the cop who killed Lemp is the question : Did the SWAT team intentionally turn a search warrant into a death warrant ?
If not , then why did they start the raid by firing into Lemp ’ s bedroom ?
Will we ever learn the facts ?
We hope that liberal Maryland hasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which the color one of one ’ s skin determines whether there is a fierce investigation into a police killing or officers get away with murder .
Duncan Lemp deserves more .
As American citizens , we all do .

Perhaps the most outrageous police killing of the year continues to be almost completely ignored by the American media.
Montgomery County, Maryland politicians and government officials have loudly lamented police killings in Minneapolis and elsewhere while continuing to cover up a no-knock raid that is difficult to distinguish from an extrajudicial killing. Since banning so-called no-knock raids has been included in the new House Democratic proposal for police reforms, let’s take a look at a recent one that ended in the death of a 21-year-old man.
At 4:30 a.m. on March 12, a Montgomery County police SWAT team commenced a no-knock raid by firing into a bedroom window and fatally wounding Duncan Lemp as he lay in bed next to his pregnant girlfriend. Police then stormed the house, using flash bangs to intimidate Lemp’s mother and other relatives living in the house. Lemp bled to death while family members were handcuffed on the floor nearby.
Lemp was a savvy I.T. guy who was volunteering to assist gun rights groups in setting up secure websites and communications systems. But Lemp had no security to protect himself against police bullets coming through his bedroom window before dawn that morning.
During the raid, police officers repeatedly shouted at family members that everything they said and did was being recorded. However, Montgomery police may have either destroyed any videos or never made a recording. On June 5, lawyer Rene Sandler, representing the Lemp family, sent a letter to Montgomery County prosecutor Haley Roberts: “We have been advised that Police Chief Marcus Jones made an ‘on the record’ statement that no body cameras existed for the raid of the Lemp home and the killing of Duncan Lemp.” Sandler sought confirmation that the raid video footage existed and requested its immediate release. She received no response.
After seeing the Sandler letter, I emailed Montgomery County chief executive Marc Elrich and Montgomery County Police Chief Marcus Jones asking: “Can you confirm or deny that there is no body cam footage of the Lemp shooting?” I received no reply. I sent the same question multiple times to county prosecutor Roberts, the same lawyer who threatened Lemp’s parents if they attended a protest over his killing at County police headquarters in April. Roberts replied on June 12: “This matter is an open criminal investigation being handled by the Howard County State’s Attorney’s Office, and as such any inquiries should be directed to that office.”
The coverup of the Lemp killing is being aided and abetted by the Orwellian-named “Law Enforcement Trust and Transparency Act” which the county council enacted last year. Montgomery County and Howard County have an agreement to conduct reciprocal investigations of police shootings. Individuals I have spoken to involved in this case have zero confidence in the independence of the Howard County investigation—which conveniently permits Montgomery County officials to shirk all questions. Perhaps some months or a year or two from now, an “official report” will reveal the following: “We investigated our law enforcement friends and neighbors and found out that they did nothing wrong except for a glitch where one policeman’s finger accidentally bumped a trigger and inadvertently killed a dastardly gun owner who was also guilty of tweeting ‘The Constitution is Dead.’”
Montgomery County officials are offering endless dollops of piety in lieu of revealing how and why Duncan Lemp was killed, while the state government is perpetuating a “stay-at-home” dictate that is one of the nation’s strictest and has helped destroy tens of thousands of jobs. But county officials have nonetheless cheered mass rallies to protest the Floyd killing and the racial injustice. The county police shut down a major road to assist protest Black Lives Matters marches in the heart of Rockville, Maryland, right outside of D.C..
In a June 4 Washington Post op-ed, county chief executive Marc Elrich declared, “The killings committed by members of the police force are truly horrible, without justification, often explained away and seldom punished appropriately.” But his fervor on this issue does not extend to revealing facts about killings by police under his command. Elrich has said nothing on the Lemp case.
On June 8, Chief Jones and the police chiefs of Rockville, Gaithersburg, and the chief of the National Park Service local division, issued a joint statement: “We…are angry and outraged over the killing of George Floyd by police officers in Minneapolis, Minnesota….We realize that we must work toward greater transparency and accountability in order to hold the public trust.”
The police chiefs then declared that they “hereby commit” to a set of reforms, including a pledge to “improve training in cultural competency for our officers.” “Transparency” was nowhere in the reforms.
Two days later, Chief Jones bewailed: “Over the past couple of weeks, I have been beyond angry. I’m sick to the core of my soul” over Floyd’s killing. But there is no evidence he has lost a moment’s sleep over a killing by his own SWAT team. While Jones has had plenty of time to publicly condemn the action of the Minneapolis police, he has refused to meet with the mother and father of Duncan Lemp, who his own officers killed.
Selective outrage extends to the top law enforcement official in the state. On June 10, Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, speaking on a Montgomery County panel organized by Communities United Against Hate, lamented that “these past few weeks have been awful,” referring to the deaths of George Floyd in Minneapolis and Breonna Taylor in Louisville. Frosh declared, “It’s not a surprise that many members of our community have lost trust in law enforcement when they see live, on videos, these events occurring.”
Floyd was brutally killed by an eight-minute-knee-on-the-neck after police sought to arrest him for passing a counterfeit $20 bill. Breonna Taylor was killed during an unjustified no-knock raid in the middle of the night. Police charged into her apartment seeking a drug suspect who she had dated years earlier but was nowhere near the scene. Taylor’s boyfriend fired at the police, hitting one officer in the leg. Police fired a volley of shots that left Breonna dead.
People are justifiably outraged by Taylor’s killing. But in the Lemp case, there were no shots fired at police who apparently began their assault by shooting into a bedroom window. On June 12, I emailed an inquiry to Frosh’s press office, asking whether he had made any public comments on the Lemp case and why he would “publicly comment on a Kentucky case that sounds similar to a case under his own jurisdiction?” Frosh’s office did not respond.
Conservatives sometimes accuse liberals of being virtue signaling zealots who are more outraged by prejudice than by wrongful killings. The Montgomery County Council could serve as Exhibit A.
In May 2019, a Montgomery County police officer used a racial slur during the trespassing arrest of four men who refused to leave a McDonald’s plagued by loitering and drug dealing. (Two arrestees had marijuana.) The policewoman who was caught on tape told the suspects that she had just used the same term to describe the defendants that they had just used. Less than a week later, all nine members of the Montgomery County Council demanded the release of all body cam footage from the incident. MyMCMedia reported that the council also sought “recordings of calls related to this stop… the number and locations of all trespassing citations issued in the last two years… as well as demographic statistics about the residents stopped and frisked.” Three hours of police video on the incident were posted on the police YouTube channel two months later amidst much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
For the Lemp case, not a single County Council member has requested body cam footage. Actually, not one Council member has shown any interest in the case. The Council has a Public Safety Committee but they appear to have never heard of Duncan Lemp. But the Council did take decisive action on June 11 to declare racism a “public health emergency.”
Who actually killed Duncan Lemp? Nobody in Montgomery County appears to care. The police have not even disclosed the name of the officer or officers who killed Lemp. In a season when vast protests have occurred alleging racial bias by police, Montgomery County has gotten away with refusing to disclose whether Lemp’s killer(s) was white, Black, Hispanic, Asian, or native American. Montgomery County preens over its progressiveness but its police department procedures on disclosing the names of officers who kill are worse than Philadelphia, long renowned for police brutality.
Even more important than the name of the cop who killed Lemp is the question: Did the SWAT team intentionally turn a search warrant into a death warrant? If not, then why did they start the raid by firing into Lemp’s bedroom? Will we ever learn the facts?
We hope that liberal Maryland hasn’t adopted some kind of warped double standard in which the color one of one’s skin determines whether there is a fierce investigation into a police killing or officers get away with murder. Duncan Lemp deserves more. As American citizens, we all do.