Our Individualistic West

Almost a decade ago , I attended a counterterrorism conference paneled by several academic experts on Islamic terrorism .
During the host ’ s introductory remarks , he made what he thought was an uncontroversial comment : that those raised in predominantly Muslim , non-Western cultures think differently and see the world differently than those in the West .
“ Excuse me !
” one of the experts interrupted , obviously offended .
“ That is simply not true , ” this Arab professor declared , and proceeded to explain how such Western prejudicial ways of perceiving the Muslim world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The over-simplifications in the host ’ s observation notwithstanding , there are significant , well-documented differences between Western and non-Western cultures .
This premise underlies NYU professor Lawrence M. Mead ’ s recently published Burdens of Freedom : Cultural Difference and American Power , which examines the effects of these dissimilarities on American policy .
“ The great divide , ” notes the book ’ s jacket cover , “ is between the individualist West , for which life is a project , and the rest of the world , in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ achieve.
” Mead ’ s work covers much ground , but one of the more interesting , if also contentious , topics it addresses is the intersection of cultural difference and immigration .
For if there truly are fundamental divergences between members of Western and non-Western cultures , than welcoming large numbers of non-Westerners into the United States could pose a threat to our political and social stability .
Yet even to contemplate such a thesis elicits charges of bigotry , as detractors sniff out the ever-present odor of racism .
Considered in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s liberal , open-border immigration policies that are bigoted towards non-Western cultures .
If differences between the West and the rest are legitimate , then papering over them , or labeling them negligible or non-existent , shows a flippant disregard for other cultures .
Woodrow Wilson ’ s claim that “ America lives in the heart of every man everywhere who wishes to…be free to work out his destiny as he chooses ” would be not a paean to diversity , but an imposition of American ideals upon the unwilling .
To assert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that immigrants can assume the character of native-born Americans as easily as trying on a new shirt and jacket might represent the height of cultural prejudice .
Mead offers three examples of cultural differences between the West and other cultures : ( 1 ) individualism versus collectivism ; ( 2 ) moralism versus situational ethics ; and ( 3 ) theory versus experience .
( It should also be noted that these distinctions are to be understood generally rather than universally .
Of course there are exceptions .
Indeed , a significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are either educated in the West or Western-style institutions .
Many also exhibit Western traits in their thinking and lifestyles . )
By individualism , Mead means the “ idea that people can and should guide their own lives ” and “ pursue goals and values that they themselves have chosen.
” Westerners “ typically see themselves as willing and able to act autonomously ” and have a strong sense of agency .
Mead cites social psychologist Richard Nisbett , who in his comparison between Western and non-Western cultures found East Asians to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Observed Nisbett , “ for Easterners , action is something that is undertaken in concert with others or that is a consequence of the self operating in a field of forces.
” Easterners , much more than Westerners , “ follow outside direction — whether from tradition , from the society around them , or from public authorities.
” While Western languages attribute events to individuals , Eastern languages apply a passive voice , perceiving events happening to individuals .
Dutch social psychologist Geert Hofstede , after surveying IBM personnel in 66 countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , found individualism to be highest in employees in Britain , the United States , and Canada , followed by other European countries , Latin America , and lastly Asia .
Hofstede also found high levels of assertiveness and tolerance of uncertainty in Westerners , as well as stronger aversions to hierarchy .
Non-Westerners in turn were “ less assertive , more hierarchical , and more afraid of uncertainty.
” Other research in the business realm and political scientist Ronald Inglehart ’ s World Values Surveys corroborates this .
Moralism also distinguishes West @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of such academics as F.S.C .
Northrop , Mead means that in evaluating moral decisions , Westerners consult principles internalized early in their lives , principles they interpret to be universal and timeless .
This process allows them to make ethical judgments based on their own authority , without recourse to external society .
It also means people are held individually responsible for their decisions , and that they can be persuaded to choose the right .
The “ psychic sanction ” driving good behavior is guilt , “ the sense that one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Non-Western cultures , in contrast , make moral judgements based primarily on social context .
Right and wrong are derived from the expectations of one ’ s immediate associates—such as family , neighbors , and coworkers .
In this paradigm where morality is externalized , there is less of a sense of freedom and responsibility , and more choosing based on situational factors .
Shame , rather than guilt , is the psychic sanction for good behavior , and people are pushed to choose the right less out of persuasion than on command @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by theory , or abstract thinking .
Typically for Westerners , what constitutes truth and reality is theoretical , and does not need to be experienced directly .
Sense-experience is “ only an instance of something universal.
” This focus on the abstract—dating back to Plato ’ s “ forms ” and Aristotelian logic—was critical to the development of the scientific method , as well as Western political philosophy , which seeks to “ reconcile the individual with political order.
” Non-Western cultures , alternatively , are more empirical and less theoretical .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is tangible and practical , and the intellect ’ s ability to accurately understand reality is suspect .
“ In Asia , ” notes Mead , “ the world is seen as endlessly complex , beyond human comprehension .
Objects and people are not distinct from one another but , rather , related by myriad ties .
Individuals are not distinct from society but bound to it by many duties.
” Thus , rather than seeking mastery through reason , the East “ seeks harmony through sensibility.
” It is not difficult to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on political and social life .
Western individualism , which begins with freedom and ends with obligation , tends to focus on long-term goals .
Eastern collectivism , which begins with obligation and ends with freedom , tends to focus on the immediate endurance of just “ getting by.
” Western moralism promotes caring for the vulnerable , defending liberty against oppression , and insisting on fairness over favoritism .
Eastern situational ethics focuses on hierarchy , promoting loyalty , safeguarding authority against subversion , and protecting the sacred .
America , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation it is because it manifests the Western principles of individualism , moralism , and abstract thinking .
This isn ’ t necessarily to assert American superiority over non-Western societies .
Indeed , while these traits have done much good for our nation , they have also caused much grief .
America , to its credit , has promoted democratic principles , civic responsibility , and positive technological developments both at home and abroad .
To its shame , its current socio-political distemper , as many other commentators have observed , stems from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s left us increasingly isolated and atomized .
Nor does this suggest that non-Western cultures are incapable of becoming more “ Western.
” Technological and political developments in the Middle East , for example , are increasing individualism among Arab populations .
Nevertheless , if there is a tangible chasm between America and non-Western cultures , then an immigration policy that welcomes and attempts to assimilate large numbers of non-Westerners ( about one million per year ) is a threat to national cohesion .
At present , our nation has more immigrants than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 40 million people living in the U.S. were born in another country .
As Mead notes , though first-generation immigrants , driven by their ambitions for a better life , often achieve success in America , their children frequently do not .
“ Latinos are the most pronounced exception to the absorptive capacity of the American social structure , ” argues sociologist Morris Janowitz .
During the relative economic prosperity between 1990 and 2004 , the number of Latinos in poverty rose by 52 percent .
While some Asian Americans ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ household incomes above the national average , this is not the case for other Asian demographics .
Muslim Americans—most of them predominantly from Asia and Africa—also have poverty levels above the national average .
A significant percentage of second- and third-generation Latin-American and Asian immigrants are simply not assimilating and assuming what Mead calls the “ burdens of freedom ” necessary to be productive contributors to American society .
Millions of recent non-Western immigrants , though they ’ ve created a diverse and interesting American fabric , lack to varying degrees the qualities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ society .
To think these immigrants in a few short years can shed cultural traits developed over centuries is the height of hubris .
This is compounded by a destructive irony : advocates of multiculturalism , while promoting vive la difference , downplay distinctions when it comes to assimilation , and then applaud immigrants who censure American history and culture .
To preserve an authentically American civitas requires not this dangerous doublespeak , but recognizing and appreciating cultural differences , as well as the limits of assimilation .
Casey Chalk covers religion and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a senior writer for Crisis Magazine .
He has degrees in history and teaching from the University of Virginia , and a masters in theology from Christendom College .

Almost a decade ago, I attended a counterterrorism conference paneled by several academic experts on Islamic terrorism. During the host’s introductory remarks, he made what he thought was an uncontroversial comment: that those raised in predominantly Muslim, non-Western cultures think differently and see the world differently than those in the West. “Excuse me!” one of the experts interrupted, obviously offended. “That is simply not true,” this Arab professor declared, and proceeded to explain how such Western prejudicial ways of perceiving the Muslim world had fanned the flames of Islamic extremism.
The over-simplifications in the host’s observation notwithstanding, there are significant, well-documented differences between Western and non-Western cultures. This premise underlies NYU professor Lawrence M. Mead’s recently published Burdens of Freedom: Cultural Difference and American Power, which examines the effects of these dissimilarities on American policy. “The great divide,” notes the book’s jacket cover, “is between the individualist West, for which life is a project, and the rest of the world, in which most people seek to survive rather than achieve.”
Mead’s work covers much ground, but one of the more interesting, if also contentious, topics it addresses is the intersection of cultural difference and immigration. For if there truly are fundamental divergences between members of Western and non-Western cultures, than welcoming large numbers of non-Westerners into the United States could pose a threat to our political and social stability. Yet even to contemplate such a thesis elicits charges of bigotry, as detractors sniff out the ever-present odor of racism.
Considered in a different light, perhaps it’s liberal, open-border immigration policies that are bigoted towards non-Western cultures. If differences between the West and the rest are legitimate, then papering over them, or labeling them negligible or non-existent, shows a flippant disregard for other cultures. Woodrow Wilson’s claim that “America lives in the heart of every man everywhere who wishes to…be free to work out his destiny as he chooses” would be not a paean to diversity, but an imposition of American ideals upon the unwilling. To assert, as so many open-door proponents do, that immigrants can assume the character of native-born Americans as easily as trying on a new shirt and jacket might represent the height of cultural prejudice.
Mead offers three examples of cultural differences between the West and other cultures: (1) individualism versus collectivism; (2) moralism versus situational ethics; and (3) theory versus experience. (It should also be noted that these distinctions are to be understood generally rather than universally. Of course there are exceptions. Indeed, a significant percentage of the elite in non-Western societies are either educated in the West or Western-style institutions. Many also exhibit Western traits in their thinking and lifestyles.)
By individualism, Mead means the “idea that people can and should guide their own lives” and “pursue goals and values that they themselves have chosen.” Westerners “typically see themselves as willing and able to act autonomously” and have a strong sense of agency. Mead cites social psychologist Richard Nisbett, who in his comparison between Western and non-Western cultures found East Asians to be more influenced by social pressures. Observed Nisbett, “for Easterners, action is something that is undertaken in concert with others or that is a consequence of the self operating in a field of forces.” Easterners, much more than Westerners, “follow outside direction — whether from tradition, from the society around them, or from public authorities.” While Western languages attribute events to individuals, Eastern languages apply a passive voice, perceiving events happening to individuals.
Dutch social psychologist Geert Hofstede, after surveying IBM personnel in 66 countries during the late 1960s and early 1970s, found individualism to be highest in employees in Britain, the United States, and Canada, followed by other European countries, Latin America, and lastly Asia. Hofstede also found high levels of assertiveness and tolerance of uncertainty in Westerners, as well as stronger aversions to hierarchy. Non-Westerners in turn were “less assertive, more hierarchical, and more afraid of uncertainty.” Other research in the business realm and political scientist Ronald Inglehart’s World Values Surveys corroborates this.
Moralism also distinguishes West from East. Relying on the work of such academics as F.S.C. Northrop, Mead means that in evaluating moral decisions, Westerners consult principles internalized early in their lives, principles they interpret to be universal and timeless. This process allows them to make ethical judgments based on their own authority, without recourse to external society. It also means people are held individually responsible for their decisions, and that they can be persuaded to choose the right. The “psychic sanction” driving good behavior is guilt, “the sense that one has violated some universal moral norm.”
Non-Western cultures, in contrast, make moral judgements based primarily on social context. Right and wrong are derived from the expectations of one’s immediate associates—such as family, neighbors, and coworkers. In this paradigm where morality is externalized, there is less of a sense of freedom and responsibility, and more choosing based on situational factors. Shame, rather than guilt, is the psychic sanction for good behavior, and people are pushed to choose the right less out of persuasion than on command.
Finally, Western culture is defined by theory, or abstract thinking. Typically for Westerners, what constitutes truth and reality is theoretical, and does not need to be experienced directly. Sense-experience is “only an instance of something universal.” This focus on the abstract—dating back to Plato’s “forms” and Aristotelian logic—was critical to the development of the scientific method, as well as Western political philosophy, which seeks to “reconcile the individual with political order.”
Non-Western cultures, alternatively, are more empirical and less theoretical. What is “real” is what is tangible and practical, and the intellect’s ability to accurately understand reality is suspect. “In Asia,” notes Mead, “the world is seen as endlessly complex, beyond human comprehension. Objects and people are not distinct from one another but, rather, related by myriad ties. Individuals are not distinct from society but bound to it by many duties.” Thus, rather than seeking mastery through reason, the East “seeks harmony through sensibility.”
It is not difficult to appreciate the impact of these paradigmatic dissimilarities on political and social life. Western individualism, which begins with freedom and ends with obligation, tends to focus on long-term goals. Eastern collectivism, which begins with obligation and ends with freedom, tends to focus on the immediate endurance of just “getting by.” Western moralism promotes caring for the vulnerable, defending liberty against oppression, and insisting on fairness over favoritism. Eastern situational ethics focuses on hierarchy, promoting loyalty, safeguarding authority against subversion, and protecting the sacred.
America, for better and for worse, is the nation it is because it manifests the Western principles of individualism, moralism, and abstract thinking. This isn’t necessarily to assert American superiority over non-Western societies. Indeed, while these traits have done much good for our nation, they have also caused much grief. America, to its credit, has promoted democratic principles, civic responsibility, and positive technological developments both at home and abroad. To its shame, its current socio-political distemper, as many other commentators have observed, stems from a radicalization of Western individualism that’s left us increasingly isolated and atomized. Nor does this suggest that non-Western cultures are incapable of becoming more “Western.” Technological and political developments in the Middle East, for example, are increasing individualism among Arab populations.
Nevertheless, if there is a tangible chasm between America and non-Western cultures, then an immigration policy that welcomes and attempts to assimilate large numbers of non-Westerners (about one million per year) is a threat to national cohesion. At present, our nation has more immigrants than any other country in the world: more than 40 million people living in the U.S. were born in another country. As Mead notes, though first-generation immigrants, driven by their ambitions for a better life, often achieve success in America, their children frequently do not.
“Latinos are the most pronounced exception to the absorptive capacity of the American social structure,” argues sociologist Morris Janowitz. During the relative economic prosperity between 1990 and 2004, the number of Latinos in poverty rose by 52 percent. While some Asian Americans (e.g. Indians, Filipinos) have household incomes above the national average, this is not the case for other Asian demographics. Muslim Americans—most of them predominantly from Asia and Africa—also have poverty levels above the national average. A significant percentage of second- and third-generation Latin-American and Asian immigrants are simply not assimilating and assuming what Mead calls the “burdens of freedom” necessary to be productive contributors to American society.
Millions of recent non-Western immigrants, though they’ve created a diverse and interesting American fabric, lack to varying degrees the qualities necessary for participation in an individualist Western society. To think these immigrants in a few short years can shed cultural traits developed over centuries is the height of hubris. This is compounded by a destructive irony: advocates of multiculturalism, while promoting vive la difference, downplay distinctions when it comes to assimilation, and then applaud immigrants who censure American history and culture. To preserve an authentically American civitas requires not this dangerous doublespeak, but recognizing and appreciating cultural differences, as well as the limits of assimilation.
Casey Chalk covers religion and other issues for The American Conservative and is a senior writer for Crisis Magazine. He has degrees in history and teaching from the University of Virginia, and a masters in theology from Christendom College.


theamericanconservative--2020-02-03--Can Democrats Use the Impeachment Loss to Their Advantage?

The GOP succeeded in keeping witnesses out of the trial .
Maybe that was for the best .
U.S .
Senator Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) discusses the impeachment trial in Washington , DC.- ( Michael Brochstein / Echoes Wire/Barcroft Media via Getty Images ) Republicans succeeded in keeping witnesses out of the Senate impeachment trial on Friday—maybe Democrats should count their blessings .
Which is a better position to run with going into November : that the Senate held an open , fair impeachment trial complete with witnesses , was unconvinced , and acquitted Trump ?
Or that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial ” and kept witnesses out ?
The Senate voted 51-49 against witnesses , with Senators Susan Collins and Mitt Romney the only Republicans voting with Democrats .
An impeachment trial without witnesses is “ a job only half done , ” charged John Kelly , Trump ’ s former chief of staff , on Friday .
“ In my view , [ senators ] kind of leave themselves open to a lot of criticism .
It seems it was half a trial.
” That ’ s a view that most people appear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that 75 percent of Americans were for witnesses in the trial .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and the Democrat House impeachment managers could not have been more insistent on the need to hear from witnesses , like former national security advisor John Bolton , acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , or other officials with first-hand knowledge of the events surrounding Trump ’ s freezing of lethal aid to Ukraine .
But would witnesses really have helped Democrats ?
If they got their way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monumental task , having to convince two-thirds of the GOP controlled Senate to vote against their president , a president who famously values loyalty above all else , with a vast war chest topping $ 100 million , a mere months ahead of the general election .
That ’ s not all .
Assuming that the Senate voted to allow witnesses , they would then have to hold a vote on which witnesses and documents to allow .
In response to the potentially-damaging testimony of former administration officials like Bolton , whose unpublished @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help extract damaging information on Democrats from Ukraine , Republicans would want to call some witnesses of their own .
Witnesses like Vice President Biden and his son Hunter , who made over $ 80,000 a month to sit on the board of a Ukrainian oil company .
They ’ d want to hear from the whistleblower whose complaint got the impeachment rolling , as well as any of Congressman Adam Schiff ’ s staff that the whistleblower spoke to .
This would have allowed Republicans to air grievances and give Guiliani @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukraine corruption scheme a prime-time audience .
It could poison voters ’ minds on establishment favorite Biden .
That ’ s not what Democrats want—which is why they ’ ve been so insistent that under no circumstances will they make a trade for witnesses : a Bolton for a Biden , if you will .
Plus , anything that Bolton could testify to has already been said by House witnesses like Jennifer Williams , aide to Vice President Mike Pence , and former national security advisor Fiona Hill .
So the supposed “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not actually new .
It was reasonable to believe that Republican Senators weren ’ t going to be swayed by the testimony of officials like Williams , Gordon Sondland , or Hill anyway , so addding Bolton would not have been the ace in the whole the Democrats were seeking .
Ditto for Mulvaney .
It ’ s far easier for GOP senators like Marco Rubio to punt the decision to the American people at the ballot box in November .
Most Americans outside the Beltway bubble aren ’ t paying attention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forgiven for not having a working knowledge of impeachment procedure—fortunately , we ’ ve only been through this divisive process a handful of times in our nation ’ s history .
But the witness issue could linger .
Going forward , Democrats will have to find a way to use this loss to their advantage .
They have no choice .
In politics , as in storytelling , a simple narrative with a kernel of truth is best .
“ The Democrats have been trying to undo the election since the day Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a very effective line for Republicans ; and they were able to make a lot of hay out of the fact that their witnesses were kept out of the House inquiry .
Since they weren ’ t able to convict him , Democrats may find that “ a fair trial has witnesses ” will serve them equally well going into November .

Republicans succeeded in keeping witnesses out of the Senate impeachment trial on Friday—maybe Democrats should count their blessings.
Which is a better position to run with going into November: that the Senate held an open, fair impeachment trial complete with witnesses, was unconvinced, and acquitted Trump? Or that the Republican controlled Senate held a “show trial” and kept witnesses out?
The Senate voted 51-49 against witnesses, with Senators Susan Collins and Mitt Romney the only Republicans voting with Democrats.
An impeachment trial without witnesses is “a job only half done,” charged John Kelly, Trump’s former chief of staff, on Friday. “In my view, [senators] kind of leave themselves open to a lot of criticism. It seems it was half a trial.”
That’s a view that most people appear agree with—polls taken before the vote found that 75 percent of Americans were for witnesses in the trial.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and the Democrat House impeachment managers could not have been more insistent on the need to hear from witnesses, like former national security advisor John Bolton, acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, or other officials with first-hand knowledge of the events surrounding Trump’s freezing of lethal aid to Ukraine.
But would witnesses really have helped Democrats?
If they got their way, they’d still face a monumental task, having to convince two-thirds of the GOP controlled Senate to vote against their president, a president who famously values loyalty above all else, with a vast war chest topping $100 million, a mere months ahead of the general election.
That’s not all. Assuming that the Senate voted to allow witnesses, they would then have to hold a vote on which witnesses and documents to allow. In response to the potentially-damaging testimony of former administration officials like Bolton, whose unpublished manuscript reportedly states that Trump directed him to help extract damaging information on Democrats from Ukraine, Republicans would want to call some witnesses of their own. Witnesses like Vice President Biden and his son Hunter, who made over $80,000 a month to sit on the board of a Ukrainian oil company. They’d want to hear from the whistleblower whose complaint got the impeachment rolling, as well as any of Congressman Adam Schiff’s staff that the whistleblower spoke to.
This would have allowed Republicans to air grievances and give Guiliani’s theory on Biden’s Ukraine corruption scheme a prime-time audience. It could poison voters’ minds on establishment favorite Biden. That’s not what Democrats want—which is why they’ve been so insistent that under no circumstances will they make a trade for witnesses: a Bolton for a Biden, if you will.
Plus, anything that Bolton could testify to has already been said by House witnesses like Jennifer Williams, aide to Vice President Mike Pence, and former national security advisor Fiona Hill. So the supposed “revelations” in Bolton’s book are not actually new. It was reasonable to believe that Republican Senators weren’t going to be swayed by the testimony of officials like Williams, Gordon Sondland, or Hill anyway, so addding Bolton would not have been the ace in the hole the Democrats were seeking. Ditto for Mulvaney.
It’s far easier for GOP senators like Marco Rubio to punt the decision to the American people at the ballot box in November.
Most Americans outside the Beltway bubble aren’t paying attention to impeachment. And they can be forgiven for not having a working knowledge of impeachment procedure—fortunately, we’ve only been through this divisive process a handful of times in our nation’s history. But the witness issue could linger.
Going forward, Democrats will have to find a way to use this loss to their advantage. They have no choice. In politics, as in storytelling, a simple narrative with a kernel of truth is best. “The Democrats have been trying to undo the election since the day Donald Trump was sworn in” has been a very effective line for Republicans; and they were able to make a lot of hay out of the fact that their witnesses were kept out of the House inquiry. Since they weren’t able to convict him, Democrats may find that “a fair trial has witnesses” will serve them equally well going into November.


theamericanconservative--2020-02-04--The Coup That Failed, or, The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight

The Coup That Failed , or , The Gang That Couldn ’ t Shoot Straight It 's been a really bad week for the establishment .
It has been a bad few days for the establishment , really bad .
In a 51-49 vote , the Senate refused to call witnesses in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump and agreed to end the trial Wednesday , with a near-certain majority vote to acquit the president of all charges .
As weekend polls show socialist Bernie Sanders surging into the lead for the nomination in the states of Iowa , New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ panic among Democratic Party elites is palpable .
Former Secretary of State and Joe Biden surrogate John Kerry was overheard Sunday at a Des Moines hotel talking of the “ possibility of Bernie Sanders taking down the Democratic Party — down whole.
” Tuesday , Trump takes his nationally televised victory lap in the U.S. Capitol with his State of the Union address , as triumphant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and a humiliated Speaker Nancy Pelosi sit silently side-by-side behind him .
Democrats may declare the Trump impeachment a victory for righteousness , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moans and groans now coming off the editorial and op-ed pages and cable TV suggest the media know otherwise .
History , we are told , will vindicate what Pelosi and the Democrats did and stain forever the Republican Party for voting to acquit .
Perhaps , but only if some future Howard Zinn is writing the history .
Reality : The impeachment of Trump was an attempted — and failed — coup that not a single Republican supported , only Democrats in the House and their Senate caucus .
The impeachment of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and itself an abuse of power .
What was the heart of the Democrats ’ case to remove Trump ?
Trump failed to invite Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to the White House , and held up military aid to Kyiv for several months , to get Zelenskiy to hold a press conference to announce that Kyiv was looking into how Hunter Biden got on the board of a corrupt energy company at a retainer of $ 83,000 a month while his father was the chief international monitor of corruption in Ukraine .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of military aid imperiled “ our national security ” by denying arms to an “ ally ” who was fighting the Russians over there , so we don ’ t have to fight them over here .
And what was the outcome of it all ?
Zelenskiy got his meeting with the president .
He got the military aid in September .
He did not hold the press conference requested .
He did not announce an investigation of the Bidens .
After Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea and intervened to protect pro-Russian secessionists in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House restricted U.S. lethal military aid to Kyiv and provided blankets and meals ready to eat .
What punishment did House and Senate Democrats and anti-Trump media demand for the pause in sending weapons for Ukraine ?
Democrats demanded that a Republican Senate overturn the election of 2016 , make Trump the first president ever impeached and removed , and then ensure that the American people could never vote for him again .
Nancy Pelosi ’ s House and the Democratic minority in the Senate were demanding that a Republican Senate do their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballot in 2020 , lest he win a second term .
For four years , elements of the liberal establishment — in the media , “ deep state ” and major institutions — have sought to destroy Trump .
First , they aimed to smear him and prevent his election , and then to overturn it as having been orchestrated by the Kremlin , and then to impeach and remove him , and then to block him from running again .
The damage they have inflicted upon our country ’ s institutions is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigated by U.S. Attorney John Durham for their role in instigating an investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign .
The FBI has been discredited by exposure of a conspiracy of top-level agents to spy on Trump ’ s campaign .
The media , by endlessly echoing unproven claims that Trump was a stooge of the Kremlin , discredited themselves to a degree unknown since the “ Yellow Press ” prostituted itself to get us into war with Spain .
Media claims to be unbiased pursuers of truth have suffered , not only from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own biased and bigoted coverage and commentary .
The NSC and State Department have been exposed as employing individuals with an exaggerated view of their role in the origination and the execution of foreign policy .
Disloyalty and animosity toward the chief executive appear to permeate the upper echelons of the “ deep state.
” Not in our lifetime have the institutions of government and the establishment been held in lower regard .
Almost all now concede we have become an us vs. them nation .
How we accomplish great things again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remains a mystery .
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon ’ s White House Wars : The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever .

It has been a bad few days for the establishment, really bad.
In a 51-49 vote, the Senate refused to call witnesses in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump and agreed to end the trial Wednesday, with a near-certain majority vote to acquit the president of all charges.
As weekend polls show socialist Bernie Sanders surging into the lead for the nomination in the states of Iowa, New Hampshire and California, the sense of panic among Democratic Party elites is palpable.
Former Secretary of State and Joe Biden surrogate John Kerry was overheard Sunday at a Des Moines hotel talking of the “possibility of Bernie Sanders taking down the Democratic Party — down whole.”
Tuesday, Trump takes his nationally televised victory lap in the U.S. Capitol with his State of the Union address, as triumphant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and a humiliated Speaker Nancy Pelosi sit silently side-by-side behind him.
Democrats may declare the Trump impeachment a victory for righteousness, but the anger and outrage, the moans and groans now coming off the editorial and op-ed pages and cable TV suggest the media know otherwise.
History, we are told, will vindicate what Pelosi and the Democrats did and stain forever the Republican Party for voting to acquit.
Perhaps, but only if some future Howard Zinn is writing the history.
Reality: The impeachment of Trump was an attempted — and failed — coup that not a single Republican supported, only Democrats in the House and their Senate caucus. The impeachment of Trump was an exercise in pure partisanship and itself an abuse of power.
What was the heart of the Democrats’ case to remove Trump?
Trump failed to invite Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to the White House, and held up military aid to Kyiv for several months, to get Zelenskiy to hold a press conference to announce that Kyiv was looking into how Hunter Biden got on the board of a corrupt energy company at a retainer of $83,000 a month while his father was the chief international monitor of corruption in Ukraine.
The specific indictment: Trump’s suspension of military aid imperiled “our national security” by denying arms to an “ally” who was fighting the Russians over there, so we don’t have to fight them over here.
And what was the outcome of it all?
Zelenskiy got his meeting with the president. He got the military aid in September. He did not hold the press conference requested. He did not announce an investigation of the Bidens.
No harm, no foul.
How did President Obama handle Ukraine?
After Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea and intervened to protect pro-Russian secessionists in the Donbass, Obama’s White House restricted U.S. lethal military aid to Kyiv and provided blankets and meals ready to eat.
What punishment did House and Senate Democrats and anti-Trump media demand for the pause in sending weapons for Ukraine?
Capital punishment, a political death penalty.
Democrats demanded that a Republican Senate overturn the election of 2016, make Trump the first president ever impeached and removed, and then ensure that the American people could never vote for him again.
Nancy Pelosi’s House and the Democratic minority in the Senate were demanding that a Republican Senate do their dirty work and keep Trump off the ballot in 2020, lest he win a second term.
For four years, elements of the liberal establishment — in the media, “deep state” and major institutions — have sought to destroy Trump. First, they aimed to smear him and prevent his election, and then to overturn it as having been orchestrated by the Kremlin, and then to impeach and remove him, and then to block him from running again.
The damage they have inflicted upon our country’s institutions is serious.
U.S. intelligence agencies are being investigated by U.S. Attorney John Durham for their role in instigating an investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign. The FBI has been discredited by exposure of a conspiracy of top-level agents to spy on Trump’s campaign.
The media, by endlessly echoing unproven claims that Trump was a stooge of the Kremlin, discredited themselves to a degree unknown since the “Yellow Press” prostituted itself to get us into war with Spain. Media claims to be unbiased pursuers of truth have suffered, not only from Trump’s attacks, but from their own biased and bigoted coverage and commentary.
The NSC and State Department have been exposed as employing individuals with an exaggerated view of their role in the origination and the execution of foreign policy. Disloyalty and animosity toward the chief executive appear to permeate the upper echelons of the “deep state.”
Not in our lifetime have the institutions of government and the establishment been held in lower regard.
Almost all now concede we have become an us vs. them nation.
How we accomplish great things again, giving our seemingly unbridgeable differences, remains a mystery.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.


theamericanconservative--2020-02-04--Dems Don’t Realize How Much Impeachment Hurts Them

Rep. Nancy Pelosi stands with other Democrats on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial , as they speak at the `` Women 's March on Washington 2018 '' .
( Photo by Cheriss May/NurPhoto/Getty ) We are watching the pathetic ending to one of the most pathetic periods in American politics .
All the smoking guns have been firing blanks .
Following one of the most childish tantrums of denial ever recorded , Democrats set about destroying the Trump presidency in its crib ; a WaPo headline from January 20 , 2017 – Inauguration Day itself – exclaimed “ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The opening gambit was going to be Emoluments , including rent paid by the Industrial & Commercial Bank of China for its space in Trump Tower in New York .
After three years , it looks like that attempt finally reached its end game , failure , one gray afternoon .
On Friday the Senate brought impeachment proceedings to their effective conclusion , declaring the witnesses already called before the House were to be the last .
The formal vote to acquit Trump is scheduled as an anti-climax for Wednesday .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the entire apparatus of the American intelligence community , operating fully outside the law , Democrats declared the President of the United States a Russian spy .
They forced gentlemen to explain to their elderly mothers what a pee tape was .
We had to hear over dinner about Trump ’ s sexual peccadilloes and look deeper into Stormy Daniel ’ s cleavage than our own political souls .
They made expedient heroes out of small , dishonest men like Michael Avenatti , John Brennan , and James Comey for perceived political gain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with a setup “ crime ” driven by a faux whistleblower , supported by State Department gossips and not much more .
Look at the series of plays attempted within this Hail Mary of a Hail Mary .
Back in August the manufactured worry was that Trump—by messing with Ukrainian aid—was a threat to national security that would send the Red Army rolling west .
Then there was the continued attempt to link up two created memes—Trump ’ s help from the Russians in 2016 and Trump ’ s help from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole to damage democracy .
At the end it was to be about how not allowing additional witnesses chosen by leaks to the NYT would distort the 2020 election .
One reporter called acquittal “ the worst day for America since the Civil War.
” We had to listen to another round of democracy dying , existential threats , end of the Republic , as repetitive as summer Top 40 .
The House chose not to wait out a special prosecutor , or even subpoena witnesses back in the fall .
The cries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how the House called 17 witnesses in their own impeachment , not a single one of which had first-hand knowledge of the events unless we were willing to believe some State Department Obama fan-boy magically overheard both sides of a cell phone conversation .
If they had a real case a special prosecutor could have sorted through Parnas and Hunter and Bolton , with subpoenas if necessary , and warrants could have shown us exactly what was said in those calls .
But that would have come up weaker than Mueller and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t think voters see they were played — again ?
As with Brett Kavanaugh , when things seemed darkest , the Democrats produced a witness that appeared to turn everything around .
Back then Christine Blasey Ford was the deus ex machina .
Same with John Bolton and his “ manuscript ” ( shall we call it a dossier ? )
and instead of dealing with it months ago in a calm fashion , The New York Times drops the leak right into the middle of the impeachment punch bowl so it could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can ’ t wait for thoughtful deliberation or even a court ruling , we must do something right away .
So really , in the end this game-changer was supposed to be lifelong conservative John Bolton ratting out a Republican administration ?
That was how you were going to get Trump ?
Only a week earlier it was going to be Ukrainian grifter Lev Parnas .
Before him was it “ fixer ” Michael Cohen , or Paul “ Fredo ” Manafort , who was going to flip ?
Was it taxes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upon a time going to be the final blow ?
Do you think voters won ’ t remember it was Adam Schiff who failed in Russiagate , issuing his infamous Schiff Memo defending as legal the FISA court surveillance of Carter Page now shown to be unconstitutional ?
The same Schiff who worked with the “ whistleblower ” to shape the impeachment narrative and then buried the whistleblower from scrutiny ?
History will remember Schiff poorly , and judge those who put their party ’ s future in his dirty hands , Nancy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Elizabeth Warren , who submitted a “ question ” at the impeachment proceedings which asked if the proceedings themselves “ contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice , the Supreme Court , and the Constitution ?
” Nancy Pelosi picked up the theme saying the president will not be exonerated after the Senate acquits because “ You can not be acquitted if you don ’ t have a trial .
And you don ’ t have a trial if you don ’ t have witnesses and documentation , ” echoing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Electoral College isn ’ t really being elected president .
Do Democrats think the Super Bowl victory went to the team with the most yards rushing , or the one with the most points scored ?
Impeachment failed in the Senate , ultimately , because it was phony .
Senators are politicians , with their noses always in the wind .
They sniffed not a modicum of support for this impeachment , and saw nothing akin to the evidence that would encourage them to return to their constituents and explain their contrary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with Nixon ’ s wrongdoings .
It ’ s really over now .
Our democracy , which you regularly declare so in peril , will be forced to hold an election of all things to determine its next president .
Democrats , you led your supporters off a cliff .
While you create false excuses for losing in 2016 , they watched Republicans confirm judge after judge .
As they listened in their sleep to you bark about diversity , they woke up to see mostly a handful of old , white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election .
You lied to them repeatedly about Russia and Ukraine and what a danger Trump is .
You continue to try to convince people a strong economy is an illusion and cheer on a recession .
You continue to paint an inaccurate picture of a society with gun nuts , Nazis , and white supremacists on the march .
You convinced a generation of young voters they are fundamentally unhappy , awash in racism , homophobia , and misogyny , and when they just can ’ t see it the way you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with dorm room level political piety to insist that is how it is out there .
Now , instead of respecting one another at work and school , they tip-toe around as wanna-be defendants looking for targets to sue or complain to HR about .
Describe yourself in one word ?
Offended .
Would you trust the nation to the people the Democratic party has become ?
Because that is the question Democrats have thrust into the minds of voters .
As they have said many times , this was always more about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Peter Van Buren , a 24-year State Department veteran , is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People , Hooper ’ s War : A Novel of WWII Japan , and Ghosts of Tom Joad : A Story of the # 99 Percent .

We are watching the pathetic ending to one of the most pathetic periods in American politics. All the smoking guns have been firing blanks.
Following one of the most childish tantrums of denial ever recorded, Democrats set about destroying the Trump presidency in its crib; a WaPo headline from January 20, 2017 – Inauguration Day itself – exclaimed “The Campaign to Impeach President Trump has Begun.” The opening gambit was going to be Emoluments, including rent paid by the Industrial & Commercial Bank of China for its space in Trump Tower in New York.
After three years, it looks like that attempt finally reached its end game, failure, one gray afternoon. On Friday the Senate brought impeachment proceedings to their effective conclusion, declaring the witnesses already called before the House were to be the last. The formal vote to acquit Trump is scheduled as an anti-climax for Wednesday.
It has been ugly and mean. Using the entire apparatus of the American intelligence community, operating fully outside the law, Democrats declared the President of the United States a Russian spy. They forced gentlemen to explain to their elderly mothers what a pee tape was. We had to hear over dinner about Trump’s sexual peccadilloes and look deeper into Stormy Daniel’s cleavage than our own political souls. They made expedient heroes out of small, dishonest men like Michael Avenatti, John Brennan, and James Comey for perceived political gain.
Shame on you, Democrats.
When Russiagate collapsed they plunged deeper, with a setup “crime” driven by a faux whistleblower, supported by State Department gossips and not much more. Look at the series of plays attempted within this Hail Mary of a Hail Mary. Back in August the manufactured worry was that Trump—by messing with Ukrainian aid—was a threat to national security that would send the Red Army rolling west. Then there was the continued attempt to link up two created memes—Trump’s help from the Russians in 2016 and Trump’s help from the Ukrainians in 2020 as part of some whole to damage democracy. At the end it was to be about how not allowing additional witnesses chosen by leaks to the NYT would distort the 2020 election. One reporter called acquittal “the worst day for America since the Civil War.” We had to listen to another round of democracy dying, existential threats, end of the Republic, as repetitive as summer Top 40.
The House chose not to wait out a special prosecutor, or even subpoena witnesses back in the fall. The cries today about no witnesses in fact ignores how the House called 17 witnesses in their own impeachment, not a single one of which had first-hand knowledge of the events unless we were willing to believe some State Department Obama fan-boy magically overheard both sides of a cell phone conversation. If they had a real case a special prosecutor could have sorted through Parnas and Hunter and Bolton, with subpoenas if necessary, and warrants could have shown us exactly what was said in those calls. But that would have come up weaker than Mueller and the Democrats knew it.
You don’t think voters see they were played — again? As with Brett Kavanaugh, when things seemed darkest, the Democrats produced a witness that appeared to turn everything around. Back then Christine Blasey Ford was the deus ex machina. Same with John Bolton and his “manuscript” (shall we call it a dossier?) and instead of dealing with it months ago in a calm fashion, The New York Times drops the leak right into the middle of the impeachment punch bowl so it could create its own sense of urgency saying we can’t wait for thoughtful deliberation or even a court ruling, we must do something right away.
So really, in the end this game-changer was supposed to be lifelong conservative John Bolton ratting out a Republican administration? That was how you were going to get Trump? Only a week earlier it was going to be Ukrainian grifter Lev Parnas. Before him was it “fixer” Michael Cohen, or Paul “Fredo” Manafort, who was going to flip? Was it taxes or the 25th Amendment which was once upon a time going to be the final blow?
Do you think voters won’t remember it was Adam Schiff who failed in Russiagate, issuing his infamous Schiff Memo defending as legal the FISA court surveillance of Carter Page now shown to be unconstitutional? The same Schiff who worked with the “whistleblower” to shape the impeachment narrative and then buried the whistleblower from scrutiny? History will remember Schiff poorly, and judge those who put their party’s future in his dirty hands, Nancy, equally poorly.
As it will Elizabeth Warren, who submitted a “question” at the impeachment proceedings which asked if the proceedings themselves “contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution?” Nancy Pelosi picked up the theme saying the president will not be exonerated after the Senate acquits because “You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial. And you don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation,” echoing the insanity of saying a victory in the Electoral College isn’t really being elected president. Do Democrats think the Super Bowl victory went to the team with the most yards rushing, or the one with the most points scored?
Impeachment failed in the Senate, ultimately, because it was phony. Senators are politicians, with their noses always in the wind. They sniffed not a modicum of support for this impeachment, and saw nothing akin to the evidence that would encourage them to return to their constituents and explain their contrary votes as they did confronted, overwhelmingly, with Nixon’s wrongdoings.
It’s really over now. Our democracy, which you regularly declare so in peril, will be forced to hold an election of all things to determine its next president.
Democrats, you led your supporters off a cliff. While you create false excuses for losing in 2016, they watched Republicans confirm judge after judge. As they listened in their sleep to you bark about diversity, they woke up to see mostly a handful of old, white men to lead the party into the election.
You lied to them repeatedly about Russia and Ukraine and what a danger Trump is. You continue to try to convince people a strong economy is an illusion and cheer on a recession. You continue to paint an inaccurate picture of a society with gun nuts, Nazis, and white supremacists on the march. You convinced a generation of young voters they are fundamentally unhappy, awash in racism, homophobia, and misogyny, and when they just can’t see it the way you do, you corrupted movies and TV with dorm room level political piety to insist that is how it is out there.
Now, instead of respecting one another at work and school, they tip-toe around as wanna-be defendants looking for targets to sue or complain to HR about. Describe yourself in one word? Offended.
Would you trust the nation to the people the Democratic party has become? Because that is the question Democrats have thrust into the minds of voters. As they have said many times, this was always more about America than it was about Trump.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People, Hooper’s War: A Novel of WWII Japan, and Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent.


theamericanconservative--2020-02-04--The Other Presidential Primary

The Other Presidential Primary

Trump cleaned up among Republican caucusgoers in Iowa .
Yet he could face a less marginal challenge in New Hampshire from a familiar face .
Former Massachusetts Governor William Weld arrives at a campaign stop at the Red Arrow Diner in Manchester , NH on April 16 , 2019 .
( Photo by Jessica Rinaldi/The Boston Globe via Getty Images ) It ’ s the forgotten primary , and perhaps understandably so .
While Democrats bludgeon each other , Bill Weld is pushing a giant boulder up a mountain in the Granite State as he tries to win the Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has practically lived in New Hampshire for much of the past year .
The state is part of the Boston media market , with plenty of voters who remember him from more than two decades ago , when he became a bona fide conservative success story in a state not known for them .
“ I am an economic conservative , which at least used to be associated with the Republican party and should still be , ” Weld tells TAC .
“ I was ranked the most fiscally conservative governor in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Cato Institute .
The state was in a big hole when I took over from Governor [ Michael ] Dukakis.
” When Weld came into office , Massachusetts had a 9.1 percent unemployment rate , a $ 1.3 billion budget shortfall , and the nickname “ Taxachusetts.
” Weld says he went to the business community in the state to find out what was keeping them from hiring .
He said he “ scratched those itches ” by cutting taxes 21 times and rolling back regulations .
He won reelection resoundingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ morning in Massachusetts ” message .
The libertarian Cato Institute report card on governors in 1992 gave him an A , and a B in 1994 and 1996 .
For some perspective , the current Republican governor of Massachusetts , Charlie Baker , got a D for fiscal policy from Cato in 2018 , indicating that Weld wasn ’ t just a run-of-the-mill socially liberal Republican up north .
Last night , in his first ballot test since impeachment , President Trump won 97 percent of the Republican vote in the Iowa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former one-term Illinois congressman Joe Walsh .
It seemed like a major victory for the president , but Weld only spent nominal time campaigning in Iowa , so the chances of his making a dent in New Hampshire are somewhat higher .
“ I worked for Ronald Reagan and remember him fondly , ” says Weld , whom Reagan appointed U.S. attorney in Massachusetts .
“ He made you feel good about America .
Mr. Trump does not set about to make you feel good about America.
” That said , despite being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominee in 2016 , Weld has said he would keep Obamacare and supports fees on carbon emissions .
His libertarianism derives from his being very pro-choice on abortion and favoring drug decriminalization .
“ If all goes well , we will over-perform in New Hampshire , then win a few states on Super Tuesday , ” Weld said in late January after finishing his fifth of 12 campaign events for the day in New Hampshire .
Weld said his campaign is aiming for potential victories in his home state of Massachusetts and neighboring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maybe even California .
Most states aren ’ t winner-take-all , so it ’ s in the realm of possibility that he could win delegates .
Weld hopes to net at least six states , which would guarantee him a speaking spot at the Republican National Convention .
He ’ s also shooting for the almost two dozen states that have open primaries , where independents and Democrats can vote .
He ’ s on the ballot in about 20 states now and expects to be on most state ballots by the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states where state Republican parties have canceled primaries .
“ I hope to win in crossover states , where independents and some Democrats can vote , ” Weld says .
“ My appeal to Democrats has been to vote against Trump twice rather than just throw a dart into the crowded Democratic field.
” Weld has repeatedly said that his goal is to do well enough in New Hampshire , which has an open primary , to ensure Trump ’ s eventual defeat in November .
He wants to—oddly enough—follow the Pat Buchanan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vote against President George H.W .
Bush in New Hampshire in 1992 , and Bush went on to lose to Bill Clinton .
Presidents Jimmy Carter in 1980 , Gerald Ford in 1976 , Lyndon Johnson in 1968 , and Harry Truman in 1952 all had opponents who carried 40 percent or more in the New Hampshire primary , before either losing in November or—in the case of Truman and Johnson—just dropping out .
However , polls show Weld is hardly making the big impact in New Hampshire that he hopes for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just 9 percent of likely Republican primary voters planned on backing him .
That number had growth potential .
But a January CNN poll lowered his share to just 4 percent .
Another precedent that neither Weld nor the media has talked about is a more recent one—the 2012 Democratic primary .
President Obama had no credible Democratic challenger when he ran for re-election .
Yet in West Virginia , an inmate managed to win 41 percent in the state ’ s Democratic primary .
In Kentucky , 42 percent of the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” over Obama .
In Arkansas , a Tennessee lawyer named John Wolfe polled 42 percent against Obama .
This garnered only nominal attention , as Obama had no chance of winning such states in the general election .
Red state Democrats weren ’ t really voting for the prisoner , uncommitted , or the no-name ; they were registering disapproval of Obama .
But it ’ s not hard to imagine certain die-hard blue states ( perhaps in New England or on the left coast ) simply registering dislike for Trump—particularly if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expected and it ’ s an open primary .
If Weld were to gain even 30 percent in even one blue state , MSNBC and CNN would likely explode with gleeful speculation over how this is the beginning of the end for Trump .
It wouldn ’ t be true , but it would be a media bump that a qualified Weld could capitalize on .
Perhaps not enough to win six states , but enough for a bigger platform .
Weld has unleashed attacks on Trump as severely as any Democrat .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ discipline when it comes to not punching back .
Weld says he understands that an attack from the president would elevate his candidacy .
“ If I was advising Donald Trump , I would tell him don ’ t mention Bill Weld ’ s name , ” Weld says .
“ The only thing he said about me is that he wouldn ’ t debate Bill Weld .
He hasn ’ t said a word since .
I would welcome him attacking me.
” Fred Lucas is the author of Tainted by Suspicion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Disputed Presidential Elections .
The views expressed are solely his own .
Title and publications are listed are for identification purposes only .
Follow him @ FredLucasWH .

It’s the forgotten primary, and perhaps understandably so. While Democrats bludgeon each other, Bill Weld is pushing a giant boulder up a mountain in the Granite State as he tries to win the Republican presidential nomination.
The former Massachusetts governor has practically lived in New Hampshire for much of the past year. The state is part of the Boston media market, with plenty of voters who remember him from more than two decades ago, when he became a bona fide conservative success story in a state not known for them.
“I am an economic conservative, which at least used to be associated with the Republican party and should still be,” Weld tells TAC. “I was ranked the most fiscally conservative governor in the United States by the Wall Street Journal and the Cato Institute. The state was in a big hole when I took over from Governor [Michael] Dukakis.”
When Weld came into office, Massachusetts had a 9.1 percent unemployment rate, a $1.3 billion budget shortfall, and the nickname “Taxachusetts.” Weld says he went to the business community in the state to find out what was keeping them from hiring. He said he “scratched those itches” by cutting taxes 21 times and rolling back regulations. He won reelection resoundingly in 1994 with what was basically a “morning in Massachusetts” message.
The libertarian Cato Institute report card on governors in 1992 gave him an A, and a B in 1994 and 1996. For some perspective, the current Republican governor of Massachusetts, Charlie Baker, got a D for fiscal policy from Cato in 2018, indicating that Weld wasn’t just a run-of-the-mill socially liberal Republican up north.
Last night, in his first ballot test since impeachment, President Trump won 97 percent of the Republican vote in the Iowa caucuses. His main rival there was former one-term Illinois congressman Joe Walsh. It seemed like a major victory for the president, but Weld only spent nominal time campaigning in Iowa, so the chances of his making a dent in New Hampshire are somewhat higher.
“I worked for Ronald Reagan and remember him fondly,” says Weld, whom Reagan appointed U.S. attorney in Massachusetts. “He made you feel good about America. Mr. Trump does not set about to make you feel good about America.”
That said, despite being the Libertarian Party’s vice presidential nominee in 2016, Weld has said he would keep Obamacare and supports fees on carbon emissions. His libertarianism derives from his being very pro-choice on abortion and favoring drug decriminalization.
“If all goes well, we will over-perform in New Hampshire, then win a few states on Super Tuesday,” Weld said in late January after finishing his fifth of 12 campaign events for the day in New Hampshire.
Weld said his campaign is aiming for potential victories in his home state of Massachusetts and neighboring Vermont, as well as Utah and maybe even California. Most states aren’t winner-take-all, so it’s in the realm of possibility that he could win delegates. Weld hopes to net at least six states, which would guarantee him a speaking spot at the Republican National Convention. He’s also shooting for the almost two dozen states that have open primaries, where independents and Democrats can vote.
He’s on the ballot in about 20 states now and expects to be on most state ballots by the end of February, except for the nine states where state Republican parties have canceled primaries.
“I hope to win in crossover states, where independents and some Democrats can vote,” Weld says. “My appeal to Democrats has been to vote against Trump twice rather than just throw a dart into the crowded Democratic field.”
Weld has repeatedly said that his goal is to do well enough in New Hampshire, which has an open primary, to ensure Trump’s eventual defeat in November. He wants to—oddly enough—follow the Pat Buchanan model. Buchanan got 38 percent of the vote against President George H.W. Bush in New Hampshire in 1992, and Bush went on to lose to Bill Clinton.
Presidents Jimmy Carter in 1980, Gerald Ford in 1976, Lyndon Johnson in 1968, and Harry Truman in 1952 all had opponents who carried 40 percent or more in the New Hampshire primary, before either losing in November or—in the case of Truman and Johnson—just dropping out.
However, polls show Weld is hardly making the big impact in New Hampshire that he hopes for. A December WBUR survey found that just 9 percent of likely Republican primary voters planned on backing him. That number had growth potential. But a January CNN poll lowered his share to just 4 percent.
Another precedent that neither Weld nor the media has talked about is a more recent one—the 2012 Democratic primary. President Obama had no credible Democratic challenger when he ran for re-election. Yet in West Virginia, an inmate managed to win 41 percent in the state’s Democratic primary. In Kentucky, 42 percent of the state’s Democrats voted for “uncommitted” over Obama. In Arkansas, a Tennessee lawyer named John Wolfe polled 42 percent against Obama.
This garnered only nominal attention, as Obama had no chance of winning such states in the general election. Red state Democrats weren’t really voting for the prisoner, uncommitted, or the no-name; they were registering disapproval of Obama.
But it’s not hard to imagine certain die-hard blue states (perhaps in New England or on the left coast) simply registering dislike for Trump—particularly if a Democratic nominee is chosen quicker than expected and it’s an open primary. If Weld were to gain even 30 percent in even one blue state, MSNBC and CNN would likely explode with gleeful speculation over how this is the beginning of the end for Trump. It wouldn’t be true, but it would be a media bump that a qualified Weld could capitalize on. Perhaps not enough to win six states, but enough for a bigger platform.
Weld has unleashed attacks on Trump as severely as any Democrat. Still, Trump has shown unusual Twitter discipline when it comes to not punching back. Weld says he understands that an attack from the president would elevate his candidacy.
“If I was advising Donald Trump, I would tell him don’t mention Bill Weld’s name,” Weld says. “The only thing he said about me is that he wouldn’t debate Bill Weld. He hasn’t said a word since. I would welcome him attacking me.”
Fred Lucas is the author of Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections. The views expressed are solely his own. Title and publications are listed are for identification purposes only. Follow him @FredLucasWH.


theamericanconservative--2020-03-30--Anthony Fauci is a Doctor, Not a Dragon Slayer

Never Trumpers are trying to position him as the next head of the Resistance .
That can only end badly .
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci listens during a briefing on the coronavirus pandemic in the press briefing room of the White House on March 27 , 2020 in Washington , DC .
( Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images ) A few weeks after Donald Trump won the Republican nomination , Camille Paglia penned an unforgettable essay in which she dubbed Trump the “ viking dragon.
” Today , that gold-and-maiden-hoarding beast has settled into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s proven largely un-slayable , the disgruntled Never Trumpers are yet again throwing a bright-eyed tribute into his lair .
First it was James Comey , then Robert Mueller , and now they ’ re turning to poor Dr. Fauci .
There is a troubling spate of messianism in the American politic , a yearning for a savior .
For many on the disaffected right , Trump was that messiah .
For the left , it ’ s since become Fauci .
The devotional candles are already being sold .
Prayers are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evil.
” The LA Times editorial board recently published a piece that , in the first paragraph , characterized Fauci as an icon with a history of rebuffing egotistical anti-science ignorance , positioning him as directly opposed to President Trump .
And with Fauci making his late-night debut this week on Trevor Noah ’ s Daily Show , it seems the machine is well on its way to grooming its next St. George .
We know where this will go—we ’ ve already seen it with Comey and Mueller .
The acolytes will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expectations , faithful that he will be the one to defeat the great serpent in the White House .
But it ’ s a Sisyphean fantasy .
Fauci is only a man , doomed to fall short of these righteous expectations .
And by plastering his face on stickers , T-shirts , and candles , his admirers will draw the president ’ s unforgiving attention to him , and Fauci will be ousted .
This is such an overplayed story that I ’ m half convinced that Fauci is really Comey walking on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At least with Comey , his physical size ( a towering six-foot-eight ) fit the image .
A titan to slay the dragon !
But Fauci ?
He ’ s a doctor , and a good one .
But he ’ s far more cleric than he is knight .
Fauci was a pioneer of AIDS research , and he deserves accolades for this work .
I ’ m glad he has the president ’ s ear , as much as anyone can .
But this fragile relationship is liable to be spoiled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems remarkably unphased by the brewing mania .
Though he ’ s been getting attention from celebrities and media giants , he ’ s remained detached and professional .
It ’ s not like he can actually do anything to “ defeat ” Trump anyway .
Yet as the ephemeral Anthony Scaramucci once famously said about the president himself—it isn ’ t literal , it ’ s symbolic .
Though impeachment was practically a waste of time , it was a great symbolic victory .
Similarly , the Never Trumpers want to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Imagine if the kind doctor were to take the podium at the next press conference and call the president an incompetent boob .
What a triumph that would be !
The dragon would be slain , no ?
No .
Fauci is a good doctor , but he ’ s no dragon-slayer .
And if the disgruntled townspeople prop him up like one , he ’ ll be cut down like all the others .
The president , an ever-fickle dragon , would detect the rumbles of discord , and at the slightest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ armor , devour yet another sacrifice .
Don ’ t make him a saint .
Don ’ t make him a knight .
Just let the man be a doctor and vote out the dragon if you wish .
Shaun Cammack ( @ shaunjcammack ) is a graduate student at the University of Chicago and a contributor to Young Voices .

A few weeks after Donald Trump won the Republican nomination, Camille Paglia penned an unforgettable essay in which she dubbed Trump the “viking dragon.” Today, that gold-and-maiden-hoarding beast has settled into the Oval Office. And though he’s proven largely un-slayable, the disgruntled Never Trumpers are yet again throwing a bright-eyed tribute into his lair. First it was James Comey, then Robert Mueller, and now they’re turning to poor Dr. Fauci.
There is a troubling spate of messianism in the American politic, a yearning for a savior. For many on the disaffected right, Trump was that messiah. For the left, it’s since become Fauci. The devotional candles are already being sold. Prayers are being whispered: “Deliver us from evil.”
The LA Times editorial board recently published a piece that, in the first paragraph, characterized Fauci as an icon with a history of rebuffing egotistical anti-science ignorance, positioning him as directly opposed to President Trump. And with Fauci making his late-night debut this week on Trevor Noah’s Daily Show, it seems the machine is well on its way to grooming its next St. George.
We know where this will go—we’ve already seen it with Comey and Mueller. The acolytes will sing the dragon-slayer hymn, hyping their expectations, faithful that he will be the one to defeat the great serpent in the White House.
But it’s a Sisyphean fantasy. Fauci is only a man, doomed to fall short of these righteous expectations. And by plastering his face on stickers, T-shirts, and candles, his admirers will draw the president’s unforgiving attention to him, and Fauci will be ousted.
This is such an overplayed story that I’m half convinced that Fauci is really Comey walking on his knees in a lab coat. At least with Comey, his physical size (a towering six-foot-eight) fit the image. A titan to slay the dragon! But Fauci? He’s a doctor, and a good one. But he’s far more cleric than he is knight.
Fauci was a pioneer of AIDS research, and he deserves accolades for this work. I’m glad he has the president’s ear, as much as anyone can. But this fragile relationship is liable to be spoiled by partisan brawlers.
Fortunately, Fauci seems remarkably unphased by the brewing mania. Though he’s been getting attention from celebrities and media giants, he’s remained detached and professional. It’s not like he can actually do anything to “defeat” Trump anyway. Yet as the ephemeral Anthony Scaramucci once famously said about the president himself—it isn’t literal, it’s symbolic.
Though impeachment was practically a waste of time, it was a great symbolic victory. Similarly, the Never Trumpers want to make Fauci a symbol of the resistance. Imagine if the kind doctor were to take the podium at the next press conference and call the president an incompetent boob. What a triumph that would be! The dragon would be slain, no?
No. Fauci is a good doctor, but he’s no dragon-slayer. And if the disgruntled townspeople prop him up like one, he’ll be cut down like all the others. The president, an ever-fickle dragon, would detect the rumbles of discord, and at the slightest sign of Fauci donning a sword and armor, devour yet another sacrifice.
Don’t make him a saint. Don’t make him a knight. Just let the man be a doctor and vote out the dragon if you wish.
Shaun Cammack (@shaunjcammack) is a graduate student at the University of Chicago and a contributor to Young Voices.


theamericanconservative--2020-03-30--Has Biden’s COVID-Era Campaign Gone Cold?

The famously hands-on pol now has to compete at a distance , while the president stands astride the ship of state .
WASHINGTON– The president of the United States goes where he pleases .
Weeks into de facto American lockdown , Donald Trump offers journalists handshakes , floats an Easter resumption of business , and still spars unsparingly with critics in high places .
His foe du jour is Gretchen Whitmer , the rumored vice presidential candidate and rising star governor of Michigan , a state the president won four years ago by ten thousand votes .
He intervenes in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensuring that his signature , penmanship on the Richter scale , is on every parchment .
Trump ’ s administration still reports to work .
Though much of the country is shut down , the president ’ s aides grind out longer days than even the prior norm .
I can ’ t tell you what the White House looks like these days , but if anything can be gleaned by the lack of social distance that National Security Advisor Robert C. O ’ Brien and Chief of Staff Mark Meadows kept from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s that the administration is no hypochondriac ’ s delight .
Trump ’ s disciples , such as Florida Gov .
Ron DeSantis , are among the most laissez-faire in responding to COVID-19 , opting , for now , to grin and bear it and preserve something resembling a modern economy .
A confidante of Trump ’ s told me once that he knew the past three presidents , and in each instance , the Oval changed the man .
But , Donald Trump ?
Not a chance .
Meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans from his basement .
Last week , his first video message in days was delivered in what looked like a lounge cardigan .
He reported to Jimmy Kimmel on the contents of his stomach , proudly having just dined on some flounder .
It ’ s awkward .
Biden ’ s opponent in the fall— for the Rachel Maddow viewers in my readership , let me be the first to report Andrew Cuomo will not be the Democratic nominee for president—stands astride the ship of state .
The former vice president , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groundhog like the rest of us .
Biden ’ s obvious discomfort with his new reality—he ’ s got the tech boys working on ways to make him more accessible , he ’ ll tell you , come on , man—has poured gasoline into the speculation firestorm .
All is not well , is the conjecture.Tucker Carlson is unconvinced Biden will be the nominee .
I would only point out that many of the voices that said Biden wouldn ’ t triumph in the primaries are largely indistinguishable from those now forecasting doom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general .
Biden ’ s style is misunderstood , and currently muted .
The would-be oldest president in history is a retail politician in the old school mold .
Historically , Biden has seen his proper opposite not as Barack Obama , or Donald Trump , but Bill Clinton .
Four years older than the forty-second president , Biden ’ s longtime inner circle sees much of history as cruel twists of fate .
That ’ s easy to do if you have a personal life so utterly beset by tragedy , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden , as a young man , that set the tone for a new generation of leadership .
If Biden had triumphed in his first presidential run , in 1988 , who knows , perhaps America could have been spared the Clintons and rid of the Bushes .
Biden certainly would have fared better , old loyalists maintain , than the disastrous Michael Dukakis , had he not been DQ ’ ed by a scandal , law school plagiarism , few would have cared about today in our new age of Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the mirror and see a motor of history .
And Biden is no exception .
Like Bill Clinton , Biden won major elected office before thirty .
Unlike the imperious Obama and the enigmatic Trump , Biden is a gladhander in the old style , and back in the day a notorious windbag in a windbag ’ s valhalla , the United States Senate .
The true politician is less Caesar than Freud , dissecting and psychoanalyzing the contradictions of the human condition , a friendly ear to his most lonesome constituents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dubbed Biden the nation ’ s “ designated mourner , ” and I think that ’ s right .
Those who missed Biden ’ s potency in the Democratic primaries this year were usually not the reporters and pundits on the ground .
Biden ’ s style , of bravado , of exaggeration , of long-winded , stumbling anecdote , is a ghastly fit for TikTok culture .
Buton the trail , and among those who actually vote , those older , richer and less online , Biden ’ s still golden , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has an easy , egalitarian manner about him .
“ All men are created equal , ” Biden is fond of quoting .
“ You know the thing.
” As New York Magazine ’ s Olivia Nuzzi reported : “ He calls every male-presenting human he encounters ‘ man.
’ I watched him call a baby ‘ man.
’ As in , Hey !
Howareya , man ?
!
” That ’ s actually the biggest disadvantage for Biden during America ’ s quixotic quarantine .
He ’ s a grass player and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As an aside : Biden ’ s all-American , aviators visage would seem to have quietly , if perfectly translated to consistent acclaim in Hollywood .
As ex-studio honcho Sherry Lansing , who hosted a confab for the career pol in Bel Fair , noted to the Mercury News : “ When he shook their hands , he had something personal to say to them whether he knew them or not .
… There ’ s nothing that can replace face-to-face human contact.
” Trump is doing well , with by many measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To see Trump triumph , yet again , is to the president ’ s many critics the latest in a series of cosmic jokes .
Nothing matters .
But I wouldn ’ t count out Joe Biden .
The PredictIt price for Biden to win the White House is now at 40 cents , below Trump ’ s at 51 cents .
I don ’ t trade , but I always find interesting the assessments of those who put their money where their mouths are .
But that price is too low @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will have receded– but so , too , will have the economy .
If Biden ’ s an aged , uncritical figurehead , he could preside over a monstrous restoration in Washington .
You can still hate Donald Trump and love Barack Obama , but this time came from that time .
To his leftist critics , Biden is pollyannish : irrepressibly retro , dangerously accommodationist of the Republican Right .
“ As much as I dislike Trump and think what a bad job he ’ s doing , there ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on you if you get too far out there .
I don ’ t think the public wants to hear criticism of Trump right now , ” an outside advisor to BidentoldPolitico ‘ s Ryan Lizza last week , in an excerpt that went negatively viral .
But what if that outside advisor is right ?
Biden offers a more palatable alternative than Hillary Clinton did four years ago .
Just ask Bernie Sanders , who ’ s actually on track to perform worse , when it ’ s all said and done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 .
Biden ’ s reported vice presidential shortlist is savvy , not somnolent : Whitmer , Nevada Senator Catherine Cortez Mastro , Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar .
Former Governor Mitt Romney in the 2012 campaign pursued , until he didn ’ t , a strategy of consistent , but unspecific opposition to Barack Obama , amidst a shaky economy .
Figures such as former Minnesota Gov .
Tim Pawlenty and Ohio Sen .
Rob Portman were the prospective choices .
But the now-Utah senator panicked and changed course as the summer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ William Kristol to go big or go home , and to select either Sen. Marco Rubio or Rep. Paul Ryan .
Among other factors , Rubio ’ s vetters werespooked , and the baton was passed to Ryan , creating a ticket that was soundly defeated and rightly mocked as neoconservative— and market fundamentalist .
For Biden , the lesson should be clear enough : It might not take all that much .
Time will tell if Joe Biden is , indeed , the hallow man .
But President Trump still has reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @

WASHINGTON– The president of the United States goes where he pleases.
Weeks into de facto American lockdown, Donald Trump offers journalists handshakes, floats an Easter resumption of business, and still spars unsparingly with critics in high places. His foe du jour is Gretchen Whitmer, the rumored vice presidential candidate and rising star governor of Michigan, a state the president won four years ago by ten thousand votes. He intervenes in the dissemination of government relief checks, ensuring that his signature, penmanship on the Richter scale, is on every parchment.
Trump’s administration still reports to work. Though much of the country is shut down, the president’s aides grind out longer days than even the prior norm. I can’t tell you what the White House looks like these days, but if anything can be gleaned by the lack of social distance that National Security Advisor Robert C. O’Brien and Chief of Staff Mark Meadows kept from each other while Trump addressed reporters Saturday, it’s that the administration is no hypochondriac’s delight.
Trump’s disciples, such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, are among the most laissez-faire in responding to COVID-19, opting, for now, to grin and bear it and preserve something resembling a modern economy. A confidante of Trump’s told me once that he knew the past three presidents, and in each instance, the Oval changed the man. But, Donald Trump? Not a chance.
Meanwhile, former Vice President Joe Biden addresses Americans from his basement.
Last week, his first video message in days was delivered in what looked like a lounge cardigan. He reported to Jimmy Kimmel on the contents of his stomach, proudly having just dined on some flounder. It’s awkward.
Biden’s opponent in the fall— for the Rachel Maddow viewers in my readership, let me be the first to report Andrew Cuomo will not be the Democratic nominee for president—stands astride the ship of state. The former vice president, not in government, is just a groundhog like the rest of us.
Biden’s obvious discomfort with his new reality—he’s got the tech boys working on ways to make him more accessible, he’ll tell you, come on, man—has poured gasoline into the speculation firestorm. All is not well, is the conjecture. Tucker Carlson is unconvinced Biden will be the nominee. I would only point out that many of the voices that said Biden wouldn’t triumph in the primaries are largely indistinguishable from those now forecasting doom for the doyen of Delaware in the general.
Biden’s style is misunderstood, and currently muted. The would-be oldest president in history is a retail politician in the old school mold. Historically, Biden has seen his proper opposite not as Barack Obama, or Donald Trump, but Bill Clinton. Four years older than the forty-second president, Biden’s longtime inner circle sees much of history as cruel twists of fate. That’s easy to do if you have a personal life so utterly beset by tragedy, as Biden does.
It could have been Biden, as a young man, that set the tone for a new generation of leadership. If Biden had triumphed in his first presidential run, in 1988, who knows, perhaps America could have been spared the Clintons and rid of the Bushes. Biden certainly would have fared better, old loyalists maintain, than the disastrous Michael Dukakis, had he not been DQ’ed by a scandal, law school plagiarism, few would have cared about today in our new age of Trump.
To run for president is to look in the mirror and see a motor of history. And Biden is no exception. Like Bill Clinton, Biden won major elected office before thirty. Unlike the imperious Obama and the enigmatic Trump, Biden is a gladhander in the old style, and back in the day a notorious windbag in a windbag’s valhalla, the United States Senate. The true politician is less Caesar than Freud, dissecting and psychoanalyzing the contradictions of the human condition, a friendly ear to his most lonesome constituents.
The New York Review of Books dubbed Biden the nation’s “designated mourner,” and I think that’s right. Those who missed Biden’s potency in the Democratic primaries this year were usually not the reporters and pundits on the ground. Biden’s style, of bravado, of exaggeration, of long-winded, stumbling anecdote, is a ghastly fit for TikTok culture. But on the trail, and among those who actually vote, those older, richer and less online, Biden’s still golden, even in his golden years.
Biden has an easy, egalitarian manner about him. “All men are created equal,” Biden is fond of quoting. “You know the thing.” As New York Magazine’s Olivia Nuzzi reported: “He calls every male-presenting human he encounters ‘man.’ I watched him call a baby ‘man.’ As in, Hey! Howareya, man?!”
That’s actually the biggest disadvantage for Biden during America’s quixotic quarantine. He’s a grass player and he’s playing on clay.
As an aside: Biden’s all-American, aviators visage would seem to have quietly, if perfectly translated to consistent acclaim in Hollywood. As ex-studio honcho Sherry Lansing, who hosted a confab for the career pol in Bel Fair, noted to the Mercury News: “When he shook their hands, he had something personal to say to them whether he knew them or not. … There’s nothing that can replace face-to-face human contact.”
Trump is doing well, with by many measures the highest approval rating of his presidency. To see Trump triumph, yet again, is to the president’s many critics the latest in a series of cosmic jokes. Nothing matters.
But I wouldn’t count out Joe Biden. The PredictIt price for Biden to win the White House is now at 40 cents, below Trump’s at 51 cents. I don’t trade, but I always find interesting the assessments of those who put their money where their mouths are.
But that price is too low. By fall, the Corona crisis will have receded– but so, too, will have the economy. If Biden’s an aged, uncritical figurehead, he could preside over a monstrous restoration in Washington. You can still hate Donald Trump and love Barack Obama, but this time came from that time.
To his leftist critics, Biden is pollyannish: irrepressibly retro, dangerously accommodationist of the Republican Right. “As much as I dislike Trump and think what a bad job he’s doing, there’s a danger now that attacking him can backfire on you if you get too far out there. I don’t think the public wants to hear criticism of Trump right now,” an outside advisor to Biden told Politico‘s Ryan Lizza last week, in an excerpt that went negatively viral. But what if that outside advisor is right? Biden offers a more palatable alternative than Hillary Clinton did four years ago. Just ask Bernie Sanders, who’s actually on track to perform worse, when it’s all said and done, in 2020 than he did in 2016.
Biden’s reported vice presidential shortlist is savvy, not somnolent: Whitmer, Nevada Senator Catherine Cortez Mastro, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar. Former Governor Mitt Romney in the 2012 campaign pursued, until he didn’t, a strategy of consistent, but unspecific opposition to Barack Obama, amidst a shaky economy. Figures such as former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Ohio Sen. Rob Portman were the prospective choices. But the now-Utah senator panicked and changed course as the summer months wore on, convinced by ideologues like William Kristol to go big or go home, and to select either Sen. Marco Rubio or Rep. Paul Ryan. Among other factors, Rubio’s vetters were spooked, and the baton was passed to Ryan, creating a ticket that was soundly defeated and rightly mocked as neoconservative— and market fundamentalist. For Biden, the lesson should be clear enough: It might not take all that much.
Time will tell if Joe Biden is, indeed, the hallow man. But President Trump still has reason to fear defeat by stealth attack.