theamericanconservative--2020-05-25--Forget All the -isms and Just Legislate Common Sense

It was just about midnight , on the night before my wife and I moved back to New Hampshire after our brief stint in rural Michigan .
I was saying goodbye to our porch , where I ’ d spent the better part of eight months smoking endless bowls of cavendish and drinking endless cups of gin .
It was my home office , my library , my living room , my parlor , and ( once or twice on a warm afternoon ) my bedroom .
Suddenly , a roar broke the silence of our sleepy little neighborhood .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ looked and sounded as though it had been stolen off the set of Mad Max .
Its purple underglow could be seen from space , and its muffler roared like a lion that ’ s just caught his wife in flagrante delicto with the cat that played Mufasa in the 2019 reboot .
The guy ’ s speakers really were turned up to 11 , though I couldn ’ t tell what kind of music he was playing , because the bass registered at about a six on the Richter Scale .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wheels .
Governor Whitmer declared a state of emergency for about eight minutes , though she attributed the damage to a spike in the novel coronavirus and has since taken the opportunity to extend the state ’ s shelter-in-place orders for another two months .
Once the vehicle had passed out of range , another ear-shattering noise split the night .
It was my neighbor ’ s newborn son , who ’ d been woken from his sound sleep .
His dad is the minister of the local Presbyterian church ; no doubt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assumed the Rapture was upon us and wasn ’ t quite sure that three months was enough time to get on Jesus ’ s good side .
It took half an hour for his mother to get him back to sleep—half an hour during which the Reverend Mister and his four older children must have laid awake , folding their pillows over their heads like hot dog buns .
And sure : that ’ s not a new experience for any household with a baby in its number .
But sleep is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ newborn .
And they don ’ t have a minute to spare .
All things considered , parents are usually happy to lose sleep for that little bundle of vomit and feces they bring into the world .
Older siblings are even known to muster a noble tolerance for its odd smells and sounds .
But I imagine there were some cranky faces around the Rev ’ s breakfast table the next morning .
What exhausted mother or father , brother or sister , can help but resent the idiot bachelor who tools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past eleven ?
They do it on purpose , too , you know .
Here ’ s the chorus from “ I Love My Country , ” the latest hit by Florida-Georgia Line : I ’ m old enough to remember when country music was about busting your ass to put food on the table , drinking a cold beer at the end of a hard day ’ s work , and loving your mama .
Now it ’ s about the joys of noise pollution .
Now tell me : what civilized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to be a public nuisance above a young family ’ s right to a good night ’ s sleep ?
Is that why the Founders threw off the British crown ?
Is that why we fought the Nazis and the Reds and the Jihadis ?
For the freedom to wake up sleeping babies ?
A lot has been made about the rise of “ illiberalism ” lately , and I don ’ t want to pile more empty words onto that nothingburger .
When folks began seriously talking about Marco Rubio leading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party , I tuned out .
( As it happens , Mr. Rubio was just tapped to lead the Senate Intelligence Committee .
I look forward to reading his new essay “ Common Good Waterboarding ” in the next issue of First Things . )
Having said that , I think there ’ s more than enough room in this country for a kind of non-liberalism , a politics that basically throws out the whole post-Enlightenment paradigm .
It doesn ’ t argue against it ; it simply ignores it .
As in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into one of two categories : good or bad—or , if you prefer , just or unjust .
I know that ’ s not possible anymore .
Pandora ’ s Box has been opened ; all the nasty little bat-winged -isms have been unleashed upon the world , and they ’ re not going back in .
America is doomed to spend the rest of her life making distinctions between capitalism and “ common-good capitalism , ” socialism and “ democratic socialism , ” conservatism and “ national conservatism.
” But just pretend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was about making just laws , not keeping newspaper columnists in business .
How great would that be ?
Since it must have an –ism , let ’ s call this philosophy “ sensibilism , ” because its only philosophical basis would be common sense—that is , sense that is common to human beings , but not to journalists or congressmen or political theorists .
Under the sensibilist regime , laws would not be judged by magazine editors or Twitter mobs , but by ordinary men reading the newspaper with a cup of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That law seems sensible enough , ” it stands .
If they say , “ That law doesn ’ t make much sense , ” then it is struck down .
The Chronicles of Narnia is more or less a sustained meditation on sensibilism .
C. S. Lewis tells of how the Pevensie children “ made good laws and kept the peace and saved good trees from being unnecessarily cut down , and liberated young dwarfs and young satyrs from being sent to school , and generally stopped busybodies and interferers and encouraged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let live.
” That doesn ’ t sound too bad , does it ?
The words “ centrist ” and “ moderate ” immediately drums up visions of men wearing suits without ties and reading The Wall Street Journal .
This centrist doesn ’ t especially want the government getting itself mixed up in social or economic issues .
And yet it ’ s not libertarianism so much as indifferentism .
Its slogan isn ’ t “ Give me liberty or give me death ” so much as “ I really can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why moderate Republicans and Democrats never get elected .
Somehow blending red and blue doesn ’ t create a majestic purple , but a kind of sickly beige .
When the least of three evils is Lincoln Chafee , evil starts to look pretty good .
John Kasich isn ’ t a “ compromise candidate , ” except in the sense that a Pomeranian is a compromise between a cat and a dog : mean like a cat , stupid like a dog .
And yet I think sensibilism has the potential to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democratic and Republican parties .
There ’ s a whole slew of commonsense laws we can all agree upon .
For instance , nobody likes the pop music that ’ s piped into some sidewalks .
Nobody likes television in bars unless there ’ s a game on .
( Really , most people don ’ t even like it then .
That ’ s why we have sports bars . )
When you take your wife and kids out to eat , you don ’ t want to have to shout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Petty ’ s “ Free Falling , ” which has been playing on loop in every American restaurant since 1989 .
So why not put an end to it ?
We could ban it outright , or charge a putative tax , or require an expensive license .
We could pass a law saying that only 50 percent of bars may have televisions , and only 50 percent of restaurants may play music , and dole out permissions by lottery .
I ’ m sure publicans would notice how much more business they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ throw away their speakers altogether .
Or take architecture .
Study after study shows that the public unanimously prefers traditional architecture : Georgian or Victorian or what have you .
Absolutely nobody likes Modernist or Brutalist designs—those great slabs of concrete and glass that litter every city from Boston to Hong Kong .
So why not create nationwide ordinances saying all new buildings must be aesthetically pleasing ?
Why not set up a fund to create attractive facades for ugly ones ?
Senator Josh Hawley ’ s “ Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ model of sensibilist legislation .
Every Easter , we ’ re treated to a flood of articles and tweets and Facebook posts saying how nice it was to give up social media for Lent .
Yet then everyone goes right back to spending two hours before bed flicking through photos of their aunt ’ s parakeet and their college roommate ’ s trip to Cancun .
That ’ s how addiction works .
If an alcoholic decides to celebrate 40 days of sobriety with a little drink ( “ Just one , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have it under control !
” ) he ’ ll be under the table in an hour .
Mr. Hawley ’ s bill would therefore require these apps to alert users as to how long they ’ ve been using their platforms every 30 minutes .
It would ban the infinite scroll : the endless generation of content that ensures you can never really finish “ catching up ” on your Instagram feed .
And it would ban autoplay on videos , which is just annoying .
That seems sensible , doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fully devulgarized , I think we ’ ll find that most of our old squabbles were meaningless .
All of our hatred and anxiety is born of a deep , festering discontent with the world around us .
The American people fight , not like two armies in a civil war , but like a husband and wife who can ’ t agree on whose turn it is to wash the dishes .
We find things to squabble about because we ’ re angry , only we ’ re not quite sure what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The truth is that the modern world is practically designed to make us anxious .
Put Mr. Rogers on a New York subway and watch how quickly he becomes Attilla the Hun .
“ Life is too short to be ugly.
” This is the motto of sensibilism .
We have 80 years on this planet if we ’ re lucky ; it doesn ’ t make sense to spend them drowning in loud cars , bad music , ugly buildings , mean tweets , and a never-ending deluge of selfies .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ peoples—whatever their class , race , or creed—have equal access to beauty .
It will implement a full redistribution of peace and quiet .
And then it will leave you alone .

It was just about midnight, on the night before my wife and I moved back to New Hampshire after our brief stint in rural Michigan. I was saying goodbye to our porch, where I’d spent the better part of eight months smoking endless bowls of cavendish and drinking endless cups of gin. It was my home office, my library, my living room, my parlor, and (once or twice on a warm afternoon) my bedroom.
Suddenly, a roar broke the silence of our sleepy little neighborhood. Down the street came a vehicle that looked and sounded as though it had been stolen off the set of Mad Max. Its purple underglow could be seen from space, and its muffler roared like a lion that’s just caught his wife in flagrante delicto with the cat that played Mufasa in the 2019 reboot.
The guy’s speakers really were turned up to 11, though I couldn’t tell what kind of music he was playing, because the bass registered at about a six on the Richter Scale. The vibrations tore up the pavement beneath its wheels. Governor Whitmer declared a state of emergency for about eight minutes, though she attributed the damage to a spike in the novel coronavirus and has since taken the opportunity to extend the state’s shelter-in-place orders for another two months.
Once the vehicle had passed out of range, another ear-shattering noise split the night. It was my neighbor’s newborn son, who’d been woken from his sound sleep. His dad is the minister of the local Presbyterian church; no doubt the boy had (quite reasonably) assumed the Rapture was upon us and wasn’t quite sure that three months was enough time to get on Jesus’s good side.
It took half an hour for his mother to get him back to sleep—half an hour during which the Reverend Mister and his four older children must have laid awake, folding their pillows over their heads like hot dog buns. And sure: that’s not a new experience for any household with a baby in its number. But sleep is a precious commodity for the family of a newborn. And they don’t have a minute to spare.
All things considered, parents are usually happy to lose sleep for that little bundle of vomit and feces they bring into the world. Older siblings are even known to muster a noble tolerance for its odd smells and sounds. But I imagine there were some cranky faces around the Rev’s breakfast table the next morning. What exhausted mother or father, brother or sister, can help but resent the idiot bachelor who tools around in his post-apocalyptic cannibalmobile at half past eleven?
They do it on purpose, too, you know. Here’s the chorus from “I Love My Country,” the latest hit by Florida-Georgia Line:
Up loud and proud, rollin’ into town
Hangin’ out the window, like a Bluetick hound.
Ain’t sorry. Ain’t nothin’ to be sorry about.
I love my country, and I love my country up loud.
I’m old enough to remember when country music was about busting your ass to put food on the table, drinking a cold beer at the end of a hard day’s work, and loving your mama. Now it’s about the joys of noise pollution.
Now tell me: what civilized society places a selfish moron’s right to be a public nuisance above a young family’s right to a good night’s sleep? Is that why the Founders threw off the British crown? Is that why we fought the Nazis and the Reds and the Jihadis? For the freedom to wake up sleeping babies?
♦♦♦
A lot has been made about the rise of “illiberalism” lately, and I don’t want to pile more empty words onto that nothingburger. When folks began seriously talking about Marco Rubio leading a Catholic integralist faction in the Republican Party, I tuned out. (As it happens, Mr. Rubio was just tapped to lead the Senate Intelligence Committee. I look forward to reading his new essay “Common Good Waterboarding” in the next issue of First Things.)
Having said that, I think there’s more than enough room in this country for a kind of non-liberalism, a politics that basically throws out the whole post-Enlightenment paradigm. It doesn’t argue against it; it simply ignores it. As in the Middle Ages, laws would fall into one of two categories: good or bad—or, if you prefer, just or unjust.
I know that’s not possible anymore. Pandora’s Box has been opened; all the nasty little bat-winged -isms have been unleashed upon the world, and they’re not going back in. America is doomed to spend the rest of her life making distinctions between capitalism and “common-good capitalism,” socialism and “democratic socialism,” conservatism and “national conservatism.”
But just pretend for just a moment that our politics was about making just laws, not keeping newspaper columnists in business. How great would that be?
Since it must have an –ism, let’s call this philosophy “sensibilism,” because its only philosophical basis would be common sense—that is, sense that is common to human beings, but not to journalists or congressmen or political theorists. Under the sensibilist regime, laws would not be judged by magazine editors or Twitter mobs, but by ordinary men reading the newspaper with a cup of coffee. If they say, “That law seems sensible enough,” it stands. If they say, “That law doesn’t make much sense,” then it is struck down.
The Chronicles of Narnia is more or less a sustained meditation on sensibilism. C. S. Lewis tells of how the Pevensie children “made good laws and kept the peace and saved good trees from being unnecessarily cut down, and liberated young dwarfs and young satyrs from being sent to school, and generally stopped busybodies and interferers and encouraged ordinary people who wanted to live and let live.” That doesn’t sound too bad, does it?
♦♦♦
The words “centrist” and “moderate” immediately drums up visions of men wearing suits without ties and reading The Wall Street Journal. This centrist doesn’t especially want the government getting itself mixed up in social or economic issues. And yet it’s not libertarianism so much as indifferentism. Its slogan isn’t “Give me liberty or give me death” so much as “I really can’t be bothered.”
That’s why moderate Republicans and Democrats never get elected. Somehow blending red and blue doesn’t create a majestic purple, but a kind of sickly beige. When the least of three evils is Lincoln Chafee, evil starts to look pretty good. John Kasich isn’t a “compromise candidate,” except in the sense that a Pomeranian is a compromise between a cat and a dog: mean like a cat, stupid like a dog.
And yet I think sensibilism has the potential to unify normal, well-adjusted adults in both the Democratic and Republican parties. There’s a whole slew of commonsense laws we can all agree upon.
For instance, nobody likes the pop music that’s piped into some sidewalks. Nobody likes television in bars unless there’s a game on. (Really, most people don’t even like it then. That’s why we have sports bars.) When you take your wife and kids out to eat, you don’t want to have to shout so you can be heard over Tom Petty’s “Free Falling,” which has been playing on loop in every American restaurant since 1989. So why not put an end to it? We could ban it outright, or charge a putative tax, or require an expensive license. We could pass a law saying that only 50 percent of bars may have televisions, and only 50 percent of restaurants may play music, and dole out permissions by lottery. I’m sure publicans would notice how much more business they do when it’s quiet and throw away their speakers altogether.
Or take architecture. Study after study shows that the public unanimously prefers traditional architecture: Georgian or Victorian or what have you. Absolutely nobody likes Modernist or Brutalist designs—those great slabs of concrete and glass that litter every city from Boston to Hong Kong. So why not create nationwide ordinances saying all new buildings must be aesthetically pleasing? Why not set up a fund to create attractive facades for ugly ones?
Senator Josh Hawley’s “Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology (SMART) Act” is a model of sensibilist legislation. Every Easter, we’re treated to a flood of articles and tweets and Facebook posts saying how nice it was to give up social media for Lent. Yet then everyone goes right back to spending two hours before bed flicking through photos of their aunt’s parakeet and their college roommate’s trip to Cancun. That’s how addiction works. If an alcoholic decides to celebrate 40 days of sobriety with a little drink (“Just one,” he says, “now that I have it under control!”) he’ll be under the table in an hour.
Mr. Hawley’s bill would therefore require these apps to alert users as to how long they’ve been using their platforms every 30 minutes. It would ban the infinite scroll: the endless generation of content that ensures you can never really finish “catching up” on your Instagram feed. And it would ban autoplay on videos, which is just annoying. That seems sensible, doesn’t it?
Once America has been fully devulgarized, I think we’ll find that most of our old squabbles were meaningless. All of our hatred and anxiety is born of a deep, festering discontent with the world around us. The American people fight, not like two armies in a civil war, but like a husband and wife who can’t agree on whose turn it is to wash the dishes. We find things to squabble about because we’re angry, only we’re not quite sure what it is we’re angry about.
The truth is that the modern world is practically designed to make us anxious. Put Mr. Rogers on a New York subway and watch how quickly he becomes Attilla the Hun.
“Life is too short to be ugly.” This is the motto of sensibilism. We have 80 years on this planet if we’re lucky; it doesn’t make sense to spend them drowning in loud cars, bad music, ugly buildings, mean tweets, and a never-ending deluge of selfies.
The sensibilist regime will guarantee that all peoples—whatever their class, race, or creed—have equal access to beauty. It will implement a full redistribution of peace and quiet. And then it will leave you alone.
Michael Warren Davis is the editor-in-chief of Crisis Magazine. He is the author of The Reactionary Mind (Regnery, 2021).


theamericanconservative--2020-05-25--Remember When Liberals Despised the National Security State?

Character Joe Turner ( played by Robert Redford ) pointing gun at rogue CIA Middle East director Leonard Atwood ( played by Addison Powell ) in a scene from the film 'Three Days Of The Condor ' , 1975 .
( Photo by Paramount/Getty Images ) In April 1975 , former director of national intelligence Richard Helms , then the U.S. ambassador to Iran , left a hearing room where he had been grilled for three hours about CIA misdeeds then coming to light in the wake of the Watergate scandal .
Seeing CBS reporter Daniel Schorr waiting outside , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breathtaking venom .
“ Killer Schorr !
Killer Schorr !
” he shouted at the newsman , who had just aired a story alleging CIA assassination attempts against various foreign leaders .
At a subsequent news conference , he responded to a Schorr question by saying , “ I don ’ t like the lies you ’ ve been putting on the air.
” At the time of Helms ’ outburst , Dan Schorr was known by serious viewers of television news as a man of undisguised liberalism , an identity that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an on-air commentator for CNN and NPR .
But even as early as 1964 , during the Lyndon Johnson-Barry Goldwater presidential campaign , he ’ d revealed his political bias by reporting falsely from Germany that Goldwater planned to kick off his fall campaign in , of all places , Bavaria , “ center of Germany ’ s right wing ” and “ Hitler ’ s one-time stomping ground.
” He said Goldwater had given an interview to the magazine Der Spiegel “ appealing to right-wing elements in Germany.
” There were even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right wings are joining up.
” It was all bogus .
Goldwater had no plans to campaign in Germany and in fact had not mentioned Germany in any way suggested by Schorr .
The Der Spiegel interview was a reprint that had originally been published elsewhere and didn ’ t appeal to German political sensibilities at all .
It should have been a firing offense , but Schorr survived it .
Hence , in 1975 , he was in Washington covering national security matters and filling the CBS airwaves with abundant scoops laying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of two congressional investigations and another promulgated by the Gerald Ford administration .
Schorr ’ s relentless reporting on these matters reflected a fundamental reality of American politics in those times .
If you worked within the national security establishment and involved yourself in abuses of power , you would do well to beware the forces of American liberalism , for they would assuredly come after you .
Liberalism was , in those days , the watchdog of American politics , rooting out abuses of power at the CIA , the FBI , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agencies .
Conservatives back then tended to defend those agencies or at least warn ominously against undermining their ability to do their jobs .
Liberals seemed more motivated by the age-old warning—often embraced by conservatives in other contexts—that power corrupts and that especially those holding stealthy power needed to be watched closely and reined in .
Thinking back on those days , one wonders about today ’ s liberal establishment .
How could it be so blasé about what are clear abuses of power by law enforcement and intelligence officials in the now-infamous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be so aggressive in defending those actions even as their abusive nature becomes increasingly clear ?
Where are the Dan Schorrs of today ?
And it wasn ’ t just liberals in journalism and the political arena who raised warnings about corruption in the national security state .
Consider the popular culture of that time .
Even as the Cold War lingered as a specter of danger to America and the West , the liberal moviemakers of Hollywood often ignored all that in preference of their favorite boogeymen—bad guys at the upper levels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same year that “ Killer Schorr ” was bedeviling Richard Helms , director Sydney Pollack brought out Three Days of the Condor , starring Robert Redford and Faye Dunaway .
It tells the story of Joe Turner ( Redford ) , a studious CIA researcher who works at a clandestine New York front organization .
He returns to his office from a lunch carryout errand one day to find all his colleagues slaughtered .
Seeking help from CIA officials , he soon discovers that his agency handlers are complicit in ongoing efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intense and suspenseful cat-and-mouse drama , we learn that the CIA ’ s deputy director of operations for the Middle East had grown agitated when he ’ d learned that a Turner research report had provided links to a rogue operation bent on seizing Middle Eastern oil fields .
Fearing its disclosure , he had privately ordered Turner ’ s New York section to be killed off .
It ’ s a slick and engaging romp of a movie , but think about its message—even amidst the dangers of Cold War diplomacy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Power corrupts .
Beware the unaccountable official with cloak and dagger .
And consider how Joe Turner manages to expose the CIA corruption and finally extract himself from danger .
He gives the story to The New York Times , that cathedral of journalistic liberalism .
That may have been a clever move back in 1975 , but it wouldn ’ t work today .
The Times is now hermetically aligned with the national security establishment .
The leaks it publishes all come from that establishment and are usually self-protective in nature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to expose wayward corruption .
Later , after the Cold War had ended , liberal moviemakers continued to focus on treachery in the national security labyrinth .
In the 1986 thriller F/X , the bad guys are Justice Department officials maneuvering in a dark underworld of intrigue and corruption .
In The Pelican Brief ( 1993 ) , the villain is an oil tycoon willing to assassinate Supreme Court justices who could thwart his drilling plans , which he gets away with for a considerable time in part because he ’ d wormed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president and his chief of staff .
When Tom Cruise , as Ethan Hunt in Mission : Impossible ( 1996 ) , seeks to extricate himself from a frame-up , he discovers that his tormenter is his boss , the head of the fabled Mission Impossible Force , who had faked his own death in furtherance of his dastardly aims .
More recently , in the post-9/11 era , a 2013 British-American movie called Closed Circuit begins with a bombing that appears to be a product of Islamist fundamentalism .
But as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the evildoers are—you guessed it—officials of MI5 .
And don ’ t forget Oliver Stone ’ s JFK ( 1991 ) , which suggests roundly that the man behind the John Kennedy assassination was his own vice president , Lyndon Johnson—despite the total lack of any evidence of Johnson complicity .
Although Stone ’ s biopic is entertaining and often authentic in its rendition of events , it nonetheless rises to ridiculous and disturbing heights in pressing the popular culture obsession with what might be called “ the enemy within.
” How do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of American liberalism ?
Perhaps it can be attributed in part to the fact that most liberals were civil libertarians , fearful of threats to individualism from any quarter , even from elements of big government ( other government agencies didn ’ t seem to bother them much ) .
That was , after all , the post-Vietnam era , when antiwar activists embraced a kind of liberal isolationism that began with the proposition that America was a rogue nation likely to spread pain and suffering whenever it ventured out into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this view ) , it followed that those who wanted to take America into the world were particularly susceptible to villainy .
Taken to extremes , this was not a healthy attitude , for it undermined confidence in American institutions .
But in a general sense , it served to remind people of a fundamental reality of any civic structure—that governmental power needs to be curtailed and monitored lest it be abused .
And this is particularly true in the area of national security , shrouded in secrecy as it is .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ more revelations trickling out regularly about the origins of this mysterious Russia probe and an initiative on the part of the outgoing administration to spy on the people of the incoming administration .
You don ’ t have to be Sean Hannity to ask the question : what in the world was going on here ?
And yet the presumed paragons of the liberal establishment media—The New York Times , The Washington Post , CNN , MSNBC , various web outlets—simply refused to accept that there might be a story there .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the only investigation worth pursuing centered on Russian collusion and likely treason at the highest levels of the Donald Trump entourage .
That ’ s getting harder and harder to sustain as new revelations raise new questions and as more pieces of the puzzle come together .
It now appears likely that the mystery will be unraveled in the end .
But the mystery of today ’ s liberal media will linger on .
Daniel Schorr of CBS wasn ’ t an unblemished reporter , as his egregious report on Goldwater attests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when it was under his nose , and he never aligned himself with unaccountable power cloaked in secrecy .
He also never lost sight of an immutable fact of political life : power corrupts .
Robert W. Merry , longtime Washington , D.C. , journalist and publishing executive , is the author most recently of President McKinley : Architect of the American Century ( Simon & Schuster ) .

In April 1975, former director of national intelligence Richard Helms, then the U.S. ambassador to Iran, left a hearing room where he had been grilled for three hours about CIA misdeeds then coming to light in the wake of the Watergate scandal. Seeing CBS reporter Daniel Schorr waiting outside, the normally controlled spymaster lashed out with breathtaking venom.
“Killer Schorr! Killer Schorr!” he shouted at the newsman, who had just aired a story alleging CIA assassination attempts against various foreign leaders. At a subsequent news conference, he responded to a Schorr question by saying, “I don’t like the lies you’ve been putting on the air.”
At the time of Helms’ outburst, Dan Schorr was known by serious viewers of television news as a man of undisguised liberalism, an identity that would become more pronounced when he later became an on-air commentator for CNN and NPR. But even as early as 1964, during the Lyndon Johnson-Barry Goldwater presidential campaign, he’d revealed his political bias by reporting falsely from Germany that Goldwater planned to kick off his fall campaign in, of all places, Bavaria, “center of Germany’s right wing” and “Hitler’s one-time stomping ground.” He said Goldwater had given an interview to the magazine Der Spiegel “appealing to right-wing elements in Germany.” There were even signs “that the American and German right wings are joining up.”
It was all bogus. Goldwater had no plans to campaign in Germany and in fact had not mentioned Germany in any way suggested by Schorr. The Der Spiegel interview was a reprint that had originally been published elsewhere and didn’t appeal to German political sensibilities at all. It should have been a firing offense, but Schorr survived it. Hence, in 1975, he was in Washington covering national security matters and filling the CBS airwaves with abundant scoops laying bare security agency abuses then tumbling out of two congressional investigations and another promulgated by the Gerald Ford administration.
Schorr’s relentless reporting on these matters reflected a fundamental reality of American politics in those times. If you worked within the national security establishment and involved yourself in abuses of power, you would do well to beware the forces of American liberalism, for they would assuredly come after you. Liberalism was, in those days, the watchdog of American politics, rooting out abuses of power at the CIA, the FBI, and other law enforcement and national security agencies.
Conservatives back then tended to defend those agencies or at least warn ominously against undermining their ability to do their jobs. Liberals seemed more motivated by the age-old warning—often embraced by conservatives in other contexts—that power corrupts and that especially those holding stealthy power needed to be watched closely and reined in.
Thinking back on those days, one wonders about today’s liberal establishment. How could it be so blasé about what are clear abuses of power by law enforcement and intelligence officials in the now-infamous Russian collusion probe? How could it be so aggressive in defending those actions even as their abusive nature becomes increasingly clear? Where are the Dan Schorrs of today?
And it wasn’t just liberals in journalism and the political arena who raised warnings about corruption in the national security state. Consider the popular culture of that time. Even as the Cold War lingered as a specter of danger to America and the West, the liberal moviemakers of Hollywood often ignored all that in preference of their favorite boogeymen—bad guys at the upper levels of government agencies.
In 1975, the same year that “Killer Schorr” was bedeviling Richard Helms, director Sydney Pollack brought out Three Days of the Condor, starring Robert Redford and Faye Dunaway. It tells the story of Joe Turner (Redford), a studious CIA researcher who works at a clandestine New York front organization. He returns to his office from a lunch carryout errand one day to find all his colleagues slaughtered. Seeking help from CIA officials, he soon discovers that his agency handlers are complicit in ongoing efforts to get him killed. After an intense and suspenseful cat-and-mouse drama, we learn that the CIA’s deputy director of operations for the Middle East had grown agitated when he’d learned that a Turner research report had provided links to a rogue operation bent on seizing Middle Eastern oil fields. Fearing its disclosure, he had privately ordered Turner’s New York section to be killed off.
It’s a slick and engaging romp of a movie, but think about its message—even amidst the dangers of Cold War diplomacy, the real threat resided in the CIA. Power corrupts. Beware the unaccountable official with cloak and dagger.
And consider how Joe Turner manages to expose the CIA corruption and finally extract himself from danger. He gives the story to The New York Times, that cathedral of journalistic liberalism. That may have been a clever move back in 1975, but it wouldn’t work today. The Times is now hermetically aligned with the national security establishment. The leaks it publishes all come from that establishment and are usually self-protective in nature, rather than from those who wish to expose wayward corruption.
Later, after the Cold War had ended, liberal moviemakers continued to focus on treachery in the national security labyrinth. In the 1986 thriller F/X, the bad guys are Justice Department officials maneuvering in a dark underworld of intrigue and corruption. In The Pelican Brief (1993), the villain is an oil tycoon willing to assassinate Supreme Court justices who could thwart his drilling plans, which he gets away with for a considerable time in part because he’d wormed his way into the inner circle of the president and his chief of staff. When Tom Cruise, as Ethan Hunt in Mission: Impossible (1996), seeks to extricate himself from a frame-up, he discovers that his tormenter is his boss, the head of the fabled Mission Impossible Force, who had faked his own death in furtherance of his dastardly aims.
More recently, in the post-9/11 era, a 2013 British-American movie called Closed Circuit begins with a bombing that appears to be a product of Islamist fundamentalism. But as the drama unfolds, it turns out the evildoers are—you guessed it—officials of MI5.
And don’t forget Oliver Stone’s JFK (1991), which suggests roundly that the man behind the John Kennedy assassination was his own vice president, Lyndon Johnson—despite the total lack of any evidence of Johnson complicity. Although Stone’s biopic is entertaining and often authentic in its rendition of events, it nonetheless rises to ridiculous and disturbing heights in pressing the popular culture obsession with what might be called “the enemy within.”
How do we account for this obsession on the part of American liberalism? Perhaps it can be attributed in part to the fact that most liberals were civil libertarians, fearful of threats to individualism from any quarter, even from elements of big government (other government agencies didn’t seem to bother them much). That was, after all, the post-Vietnam era, when antiwar activists embraced a kind of liberal isolationism that began with the proposition that America was a rogue nation likely to spread pain and suffering whenever it ventured out into the world. That being the case (in this view), it followed that those who wanted to take America into the world were particularly susceptible to villainy.
Taken to extremes, this was not a healthy attitude, for it undermined confidence in American institutions. But in a general sense, it served to remind people of a fundamental reality of any civic structure—that governmental power needs to be curtailed and monitored lest it be abused. And this is particularly true in the area of national security, shrouded in secrecy as it is.
And yet here we are, with more revelations trickling out regularly about the origins of this mysterious Russia probe and an initiative on the part of the outgoing administration to spy on the people of the incoming administration. You don’t have to be Sean Hannity to ask the question: what in the world was going on here? And yet the presumed paragons of the liberal establishment media—The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, various web outlets—simply refused to accept that there might be a story there. They joined the national security establishment in declaring that the only investigation worth pursuing centered on Russian collusion and likely treason at the highest levels of the Donald Trump entourage.
That’s getting harder and harder to sustain as new revelations raise new questions and as more pieces of the puzzle come together. It now appears likely that the mystery will be unraveled in the end.
But the mystery of today’s liberal media will linger on. Daniel Schorr of CBS wasn’t an unblemished reporter, as his egregious report on Goldwater attests. But he could smell a story when it was under his nose, and he never aligned himself with unaccountable power cloaked in secrecy. He also never lost sight of an immutable fact of political life: power corrupts.
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is the author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century (Simon & Schuster).


theamericanconservative--2020-05-26--The Conservative Case for the U.S. Postal Service

Many Republicans from rural districts used to reject privatization .
We should be wary of their shift toward it now .
“ The Postal Service problem is one of the most perplexing ones we have , ” President Gerald R. Ford stated in 1976 .
While he approved of the taxpayer-supported Post Office Department ’ s recent conversion into the self-funding United States Postal Service , Ford did not think it would be wise to go still further and embrace the privatization of mail delivery .
Businesses would only enter those “ markets where the Postal Service makes money , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be at risk without revenues from these profitable markets to subsidize mail delivery in rural areas .
The potential problems Ford outlined , however , pale next to the freefall in mail volume—and consequently revenues—that the COVID-19 economic shutdown has created .
After more than 200 years , the Postal Service ’ s continued existence as the provider of universal service is uncertain , with the postmaster general warning that an infusion of government cash is necessary to keep the system functioning .
For some on the right—notably libertarians—the current crisis presents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the postal system .
“ Congress should privatize the USPS to give it the flexibility it needs to deal with all the new challenges , ” opines Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute .
But many constitutional conservatives like Representative Glenn Grothman ( R-Wis. ) stress that the Founding Fathers explicitly empowered Congress “ to establish post offices and post roads.
” “ I think it ’ s important for everybody to realize what ’ s in the Constitution , ” he said in 2018 , “ and also for everybody to realize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and what the federal government is forbidden to do.
” Conservative opponents of privatization recognize that not only is the Postal Service enshrined in the Constitution , this government agency supports national security , sustains local communities , assists small businesses , and fosters national unity .
The conservative justification for maintaining the Postal Service does not register with former Representative Darrell Issa ( R-Calif. ) , who once served as chairman of the committee that oversees its operations .
He has insisted that the Constitution provides no obstacle to privatization .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Issa argues , “ and there is no Constitutional mandate to have a post office.
” In fact , he claims that under the Constitution , “ we have the ability to eliminate the Post Office , spin it off as a completely private entity.
” The Trump administration may be heading in this direction .
President Donald Trump has an ongoing feud with Amazon founder Jeff Bezos that includes clashing over the Postal Service ’ s deal to deliver packages for the online behemoth .
According to numerous reports , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Postal Service with the federal financial aid that would allow it to weather our current public health emergency .
This stand will likely encourage some Republican members of Congress to remain on the sidelines and watch as the Postal Service descends into crisis .
Mark Meadows , Trump ’ s newly appointed chief of staff , appears to have changed his position on the Postal Service .
In 2018 , he still represented a largely rural North Carolina district in the House of Representatives , and pushed back against the Trump administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the need to maintain “ accessible and affordable mail service.
” More recently , however , a congressional vote on legislation designed to improve the Postal Service ’ s fiscal condition revealed that Meadows has moved away from his previous support for the agency .
The Postal Service is financially burdened by a mandate to pre-fund its retiree ’ s healthcare benefits decades in advance—a requirement that does not apply to any other branch of government ( or private corporation ) .
This directive had placed the Postal Service in a precarious financial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down due to COVID-19 , so this February the House overwhelmingly passed legislation that repeals the pre-funding requirement in a 309-106 vote .
Meadows notably numbered among those Republicans who voted against the measure , and the Senate has failed to act on the legislation .
For decades , a sizable contingent of congressional Republicans who represent rural states and districts could be depended on to reject postal reforms that threatened their constituents ’ mail delivery .
Back in 1967 , Senator Frank Carlson ( R-Kans . )
acknowledged the deep affection his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ postal system .
“ There ’ s such a feeling of warmth between the local postmaster and the people , ” he observed .
When Trent Lott ( R-Miss . )
served in the House in the late 1970s , he stressed that “ the Postal Service goes into rural areas and provides a lot of services that the people probably would not [ otherwise ] receive.
” The noted Chicago School economist Milton Friedman reached the same economic conclusion , stating that “ local delivery subsidizes mail for remote areas.
” Yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress have long provided the Postal Service may be weakening .
Although the Pew Research Center reports that rural Americans are 12 percent less likely to have broadband internet than those living in cities , Mississippi ’ s Republican delegation in the House turned its back on the position Lott once insisted upon when they all voted against eliminating the pre-funding requirement this past February .
A precarious Postal Service has national security implications .
Although too rarely acknowledged , as a core component of our nation ’ s infrastructure , the Postal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Its extensive network of processing centers and post offices give its employees the unique ability to rapidly deliver physical items to every address in the country .
The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human Services have developed plans that can harness this capability in the event of a catastrophic biological incident .
When a vaccine for COVID-19 becomes available , it may arrive at Americans ’ doors via postal letter carriers accompanied by law enforcement or military personnel .
Many postal workers themselves have prior military service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the agency ’ s workforce .
Republican support for maintaining the Postal Service as a government service rests on fundamental conservative principles .
Rural Americans have a deep bond with the nation ’ s postal system .
It was the introduction of Rural Free Delivery , more than a century ago , that ended the often painful isolation of farm life , and the local post office remains the heart of thousands of small towns across the nation .
“ Where we go to see each other is in the post office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ That ’ s the gathering place .
There isn ’ t a community center of any other sort in a lot of these towns.
” Conservative thinkers from Edmund Burke forward have emphasized the human need for community , a reality that is becoming even more apparent as society employs physical separation to reduce the spread of coronavirus .
“ The quest for community will not be denied , ” sociologist Robert Nisbet observed , “ for it springs from some of the powerful needs of human nature—needs for a clear sense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and continuity.
” In 2005 , when the conservative leader Paul M. Weyrich contemplated the movement ’ s future priorities , he stressed the importance of community life , and specifically public spaces “ where we do not control who we might meet.
” Post offices provide such a space , and because the Postal Service is a government agency they operate in thousands of communities that private businesses would dismiss as unprofitable .
Weyrich believed that “ society withers ” when citizens from all walks of life cease to cross paths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are to be citizens of a republic , ” he contended , “ and not mere consumers in an administered state , we need to both have and want contact with our fellow-citizens.
” Traditional conservatism has long upheld rural life , and so has the Postal Service .
Rural America is currently suffering : the President ’ s National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty found that over 25 percent of rural residents are living in poverty .
This is not the agrarian ideal that historians Allan C. Carlson and Victor Davis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the New York Times pointed to dire conditions in the countryside when it proclaimed : “ Drug Crisis Ravages Rural America and Fills Its Jails.
” By serving all corners of the United States equally , the Postal Service extends a lifeline to those rural communities that are struggling .
As Main Street businesses have closed , the economic importance of local post offices has risen .
Even as indicators of social wellbeing deteriorate in rural America , the principle of uniform postage rates continues to help local entrepreneurs compete with larger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to major transportation hubs .
Whether they are located in small towns or big cities , the Postal Service provides small business owners with an essential connection to clients , vendors , and potential customers .
G. K. Chesterton believed that small-scale enterprises play an essential role in promoting democracy and protecting individual freedom .
He thought it was “ vital to create the experience of small property , the psychology of small property , the sort of man who is a small proprietor.
” Small businesses generally rely more on physical mail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counterparts .
Operating with slimmer profit margins and less bargaining power , small businesses depend on uniform postage rates and universal service to help level the playing field with their larger competitors .
The Postal Service manages to remain rooted in local communities while acting as a conduit to a broader national community .
“ For a nation to endure , ” Patrick J. Buchanan observes , “ its people must form a moral and a social community and share higher values than economic interests.
” The postal system is a government service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ profit .
Instead , the Postal Service has acted as a unifying force and a symbol of nationhood for over two centuries .
“ The Post Office Department , ” writes historian Wayne E. Fuller , “ stretching out its long arms and bringing the tidings of the national government into every hamlet and mountain fastness , could bind the nation , West to East , and South to North , in one perpetual union.
” Privatization would privilege profits over nationhood , sacrificing national unity in order to channel increased earnings to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Issa asserted that constitutionalism has nothing to do with the Postal Service ’ s status as an arm of government , he further dismissed this institution as a mere artifact of “ tradition.
” Such a perspective directly challenges the values of traditional conservatism .
Russell Kirk located conservatism not in any particular set of policymaking preferences , but rather in a commitment to respect “ a people ’ s historic continuity of experience.
” The Postal Service stands as a national symbol of historical continuity .
Over more than two centuries , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of communicating with one another and conducting business through this essential network , enshrining the Postal Service as a prominent representative of our nation ’ s heritage .
Despite wars , depressions , natural disasters , and now in our current crisis , “ neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds , ” delivering our daily mail .
Christopher W. Shaw is the author of Money , Power , and the People : The American Struggle to Make Banking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Post Office .

“The Postal Service problem is one of the most perplexing ones we have,” President Gerald R. Ford stated in 1976.
While he approved of the taxpayer-supported Post Office Department’s recent conversion into the self-funding United States Postal Service, Ford did not think it would be wise to go still further and embrace the privatization of mail delivery. Businesses would only enter those “markets where the Postal Service makes money,” he explained, and universal service would be at risk without revenues from these profitable markets to subsidize mail delivery in rural areas.
The potential problems Ford outlined, however, pale next to the freefall in mail volume—and consequently revenues—that the COVID-19 economic shutdown has created. After more than 200 years, the Postal Service’s continued existence as the provider of universal service is uncertain, with the postmaster general warning that an infusion of government cash is necessary to keep the system functioning.
For some on the right—notably libertarians—the current crisis presents a long awaited opportunity to finally privatize the postal system. “Congress should privatize the USPS to give it the flexibility it needs to deal with all the new challenges,” opines Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute. But many constitutional conservatives like Representative Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.) stress that the Founding Fathers explicitly empowered Congress “to establish post offices and post roads.”
“I think it’s important for everybody to realize what’s in the Constitution,” he said in 2018, “and also for everybody to realize what’s not in the Constitution, and what the federal government is forbidden to do.” Conservative opponents of privatization recognize that not only is the Postal Service enshrined in the Constitution, this government agency supports national security, sustains local communities, assists small businesses, and fosters national unity.
The conservative justification for maintaining the Postal Service does not register with former Representative Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who once served as chairman of the committee that oversees its operations. He has insisted that the Constitution provides no obstacle to privatization. “We no longer establish post roads,” Issa argues, “and there is no Constitutional mandate to have a post office.” In fact, he claims that under the Constitution, “we have the ability to eliminate the Post Office, spin it off as a completely private entity.”
The Trump administration may be heading in this direction. President Donald Trump has an ongoing feud with Amazon founder Jeff Bezos that includes clashing over the Postal Service’s deal to deliver packages for the online behemoth. According to numerous reports, Trump has impeded congressional efforts to provide the Postal Service with the federal financial aid that would allow it to weather our current public health emergency. This stand will likely encourage some Republican members of Congress to remain on the sidelines and watch as the Postal Service descends into crisis.
Mark Meadows, Trump’s newly appointed chief of staff, appears to have changed his position on the Postal Service. In 2018, he still represented a largely rural North Carolina district in the House of Representatives, and pushed back against the Trump administration when it promoted privatization, arguing for the need to maintain “accessible and affordable mail service.”
More recently, however, a congressional vote on legislation designed to improve the Postal Service’s fiscal condition revealed that Meadows has moved away from his previous support for the agency. The Postal Service is financially burdened by a mandate to pre-fund its retiree’s healthcare benefits decades in advance—a requirement that does not apply to any other branch of government (or private corporation). This directive had placed the Postal Service in a precarious financial position even before the economy was shut down due to COVID-19, so this February the House overwhelmingly passed legislation that repeals the pre-funding requirement in a 309-106 vote. Meadows notably numbered among those Republicans who voted against the measure, and the Senate has failed to act on the legislation.
For decades, a sizable contingent of congressional Republicans who represent rural states and districts could be depended on to reject postal reforms that threatened their constituents’ mail delivery. Back in 1967, Senator Frank Carlson (R-Kans.) acknowledged the deep affection his constituents felt for the nation’s postal system. “There’s such a feeling of warmth between the local postmaster and the people,” he observed. When Trent Lott (R-Miss.) served in the House in the late 1970s, he stressed that “the Postal Service goes into rural areas and provides a lot of services that the people probably would not [otherwise] receive.”
The noted Chicago School economist Milton Friedman reached the same economic conclusion, stating that “local delivery subsidizes mail for remote areas.” Yet the political backing rural Republican members of Congress have long provided the Postal Service may be weakening. Although the Pew Research Center reports that rural Americans are 12 percent less likely to have broadband internet than those living in cities, Mississippi’s Republican delegation in the House turned its back on the position Lott once insisted upon when they all voted against eliminating the pre-funding requirement this past February.
A precarious Postal Service has national security implications. Although too rarely acknowledged, as a core component of our nation’s infrastructure, the Postal Service plays an important national security role. Its extensive network of processing centers and post offices give its employees the unique ability to rapidly deliver physical items to every address in the country. The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human Services have developed plans that can harness this capability in the event of a catastrophic biological incident. When a vaccine for COVID-19 becomes available, it may arrive at Americans’ doors via postal letter carriers accompanied by law enforcement or military personnel. Many postal workers themselves have prior military service, with veterans constituting nearly 15 percent of the agency’s workforce.
Republican support for maintaining the Postal Service as a government service rests on fundamental conservative principles. Rural Americans have a deep bond with the nation’s postal system. It was the introduction of Rural Free Delivery, more than a century ago, that ended the often painful isolation of farm life, and the local post office remains the heart of thousands of small towns across the nation.
“Where we go to see each other is in the post office,” one Idaho resident explains. “That’s the gathering place. There isn’t a community center of any other sort in a lot of these towns.” Conservative thinkers from Edmund Burke forward have emphasized the human need for community, a reality that is becoming even more apparent as society employs physical separation to reduce the spread of coronavirus. “The quest for community will not be denied,” sociologist Robert Nisbet observed, “for it springs from some of the powerful needs of human nature—needs for a clear sense of cultural purpose, membership, status, and continuity.”
In 2005, when the conservative leader Paul M. Weyrich contemplated the movement’s future priorities, he stressed the importance of community life, and specifically public spaces “where we do not control who we might meet.” Post offices provide such a space, and because the Postal Service is a government agency they operate in thousands of communities that private businesses would dismiss as unprofitable. Weyrich believed that “society withers” when citizens from all walks of life cease to cross paths on a regular basis. “If we are to be citizens of a republic,” he contended, “and not mere consumers in an administered state, we need to both have and want contact with our fellow-citizens.”
Traditional conservatism has long upheld rural life, and so has the Postal Service. Rural America is currently suffering: the President’s National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty found that over 25 percent of rural residents are living in poverty. This is not the agrarian ideal that historians Allan C. Carlson and Victor Davis Hanson have evoked. A recent headline in the New York Times pointed to dire conditions in the countryside when it proclaimed: “Drug Crisis Ravages Rural America and Fills Its Jails.” By serving all corners of the United States equally, the Postal Service extends a lifeline to those rural communities that are struggling. As Main Street businesses have closed, the economic importance of local post offices has risen. Even as indicators of social wellbeing deteriorate in rural America, the principle of uniform postage rates continues to help local entrepreneurs compete with larger businesses and competitors that enjoy easier access to major transportation hubs.
Whether they are located in small towns or big cities, the Postal Service provides small business owners with an essential connection to clients, vendors, and potential customers. G. K. Chesterton believed that small-scale enterprises play an essential role in promoting democracy and protecting individual freedom. He thought it was “vital to create the experience of small property, the psychology of small property, the sort of man who is a small proprietor.” Small businesses generally rely more on physical mail and retail shipping options than their larger counterparts. Operating with slimmer profit margins and less bargaining power, small businesses depend on uniform postage rates and universal service to help level the playing field with their larger competitors.
The Postal Service manages to remain rooted in local communities while acting as a conduit to a broader national community. “For a nation to endure,” Patrick J. Buchanan observes, “its people must form a moral and a social community and share higher values than economic interests.” The postal system is a government service that does not exist to make a profit. Instead, the Postal Service has acted as a unifying force and a symbol of nationhood for over two centuries. “The Post Office Department,” writes historian Wayne E. Fuller, “stretching out its long arms and bringing the tidings of the national government into every hamlet and mountain fastness, could bind the nation, West to East, and South to North, in one perpetual union.” Privatization would privilege profits over nationhood, sacrificing national unity in order to channel increased earnings to a handful of businesses.
When Darrell Issa asserted that constitutionalism has nothing to do with the Postal Service’s status as an arm of government, he further dismissed this institution as a mere artifact of “tradition.” Such a perspective directly challenges the values of traditional conservatism. Russell Kirk located conservatism not in any particular set of policymaking preferences, but rather in a commitment to respect “a people’s historic continuity of experience.” The Postal Service stands as a national symbol of historical continuity. Over more than two centuries, generations of Americans have shared the experience of communicating with one another and conducting business through this essential network, enshrining the Postal Service as a prominent representative of our nation’s heritage. Despite wars, depressions, natural disasters, and now in our current crisis, “neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds,” delivering our daily mail.
Christopher W. Shaw is the author of Money, Power, and the People: The American Struggle to Make Banking Democratic, and Preserving the People’s Post Office.


theamericanconservative--2020-05-26--New York City’s New Collective Suicide Pact

Gotham always goes too far , as in the '70s and '80s .
The latest decline is self-induced , not the pandemic .
Activists from `` Rise and Resist '' and `` Indivisible Brooklyn '' carry body bags symbolizing the victims who so far have died due to complications of the COVID-19 virus to Trump International Hotel and Tower in New York City .
( Photo by Gabriele Holtermann/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images ) Every state has now begun lifting coronavirus restrictions .
New York City alone remains locked down from the bloom of spring waiting for Judgment Day .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ like .
No wrinkles around my eyes the first time I saw her , and she wasn ’ t just a bubble tea shop then .
When people could roam the streets of New York City without harassment for failing to tie a talisman of a mask across their face , I used to walk regularly past the old San Remo Cafe in Greenwich Village .
In the day regulars included giants like James Agee , Tennessee Williams , James Baldwin , Miles Davis , Allen Ginsberg , Jack Kerouac , Jackson Pollock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lived nearby , having come to the neighborhood to meet Woody Guthrie .
The property was most recently a bubble tea shop for Asian tourists .
Do history a favor and skip the tea ; just down Bleecker Street is Fiore ’ s Pizza , named after a New York firefighter killed on 9/11 .
It ’ s hard not to remember those sharp blue September days when we took care of each other before we became so afraid .
Heat can forge , or it can melt .
Men who ran into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heroes then instead of people who , however necessary , stock shelves .
The cafe can ’ t be there anymore , nor the Asian tourists , and neither can I because a good idea to implement social measures to slow the virus in line with our capacity to deal with it morphed into fear-driven shelter in place aiming at zero-death .
Arbitrary standards have been set for the whole of the place , some eight million people spread over a vast landscape .
Available hospital beds to reopen the city must be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at 29 percent .
The number of hospitalizations misses the market by two-thirds of a person per day , so to go out for milk now we have to look like Billy the Kid , a bandanna as pointless a defense against dumb ideas as it is against a microscopic virus .
But there is little of the virus in Manhattan , including near the cafe .
Most of the deaths are clustered in the Bronx and distant Brooklyn , separated from the old San Remo by walls of class and money .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ The city always goes too far—too many handouts , too much poverty displaced by too much wealth , too much public housing instead of jobs , a broad lockdown where surgery is needed .
Everybody knows the city periodically has to be culled back like weeds out of control .
The 1970s and early 80s saw the place turn into Beirut , with hard lines to navigate .
There is okay during the day , up there never , over near the park only if you had some street smarts .
The Bronx @ @ @ @ @ @ @ giving up and turning vigilante .
We did it again not too long later , with stop and frisk .
Then back down to where a year ago or so the mayor ordered the police to stop arresting people for what he defined as minor crimes in the subway and then declared the subways safe ( again ) while minor crimes enmassed into just crime .
Each stumble cuts through life here and the city walks around with the scars .
The deal you made with New York was that you put up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pieces actually acted out ( free methadone to replace cheap heroin , what could go wrong when a “ clinic ” replaces a grocery store in a neighborhood ) in return for the old San Remo Cafe you could not get in South Bend or Allentown .
You ’ re welcome , but the city is like a sunset , you don ’ t expect it to admire you back for watching .
Then it all went to hell in 2020 .
Those same political thinkers said they needed to put the city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus .
The solution hit hardest on the poor .
They ’ ll need to become poorer to save them .
The public school system , which in another social experiment gone too far had been largely turned into a massive outbox for free meals , free daycare , free birth control , and free medical care , just gave up education as a function completely and closed .
The one single only solitary thing that has any chance of helping a poor kid do better than his parents—education—was shut down .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ long ago .
They also had the comfort of closing their private schools earlier to protect themselves ( their schools being used primarily for education not as charity distribution centers ; a mega-irony was that the schools still being part of the last social experiment meant they had to stay open longer until alternate food distribution could be worked out ) and will exercise the option of reopening their private schools sooner .
A good friend taught public high school in the deranged South Bronx under “ Teach for America , ” another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you stuck enough privileged kids in front of enough poor kids something decent might come of it .
My friend eventually quit , realizing how much time he spent in his classroom on things not related to teaching science .
Charter schools , less grades , more Chromebooks , more African history , free college , lockdowns , quarantines , masks , call Bill Gates , let ’ s try it .
The conclusion—you can ’ t fix the schools in the South Bronx until you fix the South Bronx—isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reminds me of my nation-building days in Iraq , when any dumb idea could find a sponsor , only the people in NYC care even less about the results .
It ’ s about a good idea that doesn ’ t accomplish much .
One imagines the Amazon frontline worker thinking about all this the way he thought about the flyover honoring him about the same way he thought about people thanking him for his service after Afghanistan .
New York , however , mostly seems content with this mashup of pseudo-socialism inside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforced by near-fascist decree to enact the social experiments while the cops keep the rich and poor safely apart .
Extreme forms of mitigation can have diminishing returns , but only in real life .
A virus will crush an already broken society faster and more efficiently than a working one .
What is happening here is a culmination not an event .
And we are most certainly not all in this together .
At first glance it seems the rich areas are held hostage in lockdown now to the poor .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 40 percent empty .
They have other homes , suburban panic rooms from which to see how long this time it will take NYC to surface again .
You can track their flight by the drop off in garbage collected in certain neighborhoods .
Two of Manhattan ’ s wealthiest areas have had zero COVID deaths while fatalities in public housing outrank all others .
Heat can forge , or it can melt .
New York ’ s mayor is a knucklehead , a jaboni who imagines himself a Caucasian blend of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really likes him , but the people who vote ( by mail , from their second homes ) generally endorse his policies even as they wish for someone a bit more elegant .
They like the idea of feeling good , and so love the idea of a handful of “ lower-income ” apartments ( separate entrances , ‘ natch ) mandated into billion-dollar residential towers .
They tolerate human trolls in the subway system because it adds “ grit ” to their city while they take Uber .
Quaint shops needed for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not customers .
The rich mandated a city without public toilets ( customers only ! )
and then seem surprised everything smells like urine .
Of course no one talks much about how the good ideas never seem to improve the lives of those they are aimed at .
Despite the lockdown , plenty of people keep getting sick and dying in New York .
The South Bronx is still poor .
Despite the economic coma NYC still has a higher virus death toll per million than any other state in America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the nation ’ s most restrictive gun laws yet tolerates the deaths which persist .
Most of those who die are in the same category as the virus deaths , poor and of color and from another part of town .
It will take years to sort out where the Venn diagram circles overlap among social distancing , natural processes like herd immunity , and just plain exaggeration , but it is clear today COVID is not the most dangerous thing here .
This is again a dismal city , by choice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad ideas and delusional political experiments that laid in wait for a new trigger event , COVID for now .
Same as 9/11 ended civil liberties and the 2008 recession deepened inequality .
Nobody found solutions .
Rather than think things through this time we seem to prefer to die stupid .
Hard to imagine the poets at the old San Remo Cafe wishing away a lovely spring to hurry it up until November .
But that ’ s where we are now .
Peter Van Buren , a 24-year State Department veteran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Every state has now begun lifting coronavirus restrictions. New York City alone remains locked down from the bloom of spring waiting for Judgment Day. Here’s what it’s like.
No wrinkles around my eyes the first time I saw her, and she wasn’t just a bubble tea shop then. When people could roam the streets of New York City without harassment for failing to tie a talisman of a mask across their face, I used to walk regularly past the old San Remo Cafe in Greenwich Village. In the day regulars included giants like James Agee, Tennessee Williams, James Baldwin, Miles Davis, Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac, Jackson Pollock, and William Styron. Bob Dylan lived nearby, having come to the neighborhood to meet Woody Guthrie.
The property was most recently a bubble tea shop for Asian tourists. Do history a favor and skip the tea; just down Bleecker Street is Fiore’s Pizza, named after a New York firefighter killed on 9/11. It’s hard not to remember those sharp blue September days when we took care of each other before we became so afraid. Heat can forge, or it can melt. Men who ran into a fire were New York’s heroes then instead of people who, however necessary, stock shelves.
The cafe can’t be there anymore, nor the Asian tourists, and neither can I because a good idea to implement social measures to slow the virus in line with our capacity to deal with it morphed into fear-driven shelter in place aiming at zero-death. Arbitrary standards have been set for the whole of the place, some eight million people spread over a vast landscape. Available hospital beds to reopen the city must be 30 percent; it’s now at 29 percent. The number of hospitalizations misses the market by two-thirds of a person per day, so to go out for milk now we have to look like Billy the Kid, a bandanna as pointless a defense against dumb ideas as it is against a microscopic virus.
But there is little of the virus in Manhattan, including near the cafe. Most of the deaths are clustered in the Bronx and distant Brooklyn, separated from the old San Remo by walls of class and money.
It’s an old story. The city always goes too far—too many handouts, too much poverty displaced by too much wealth, too much public housing instead of jobs, a broad lockdown where surgery is needed. Everybody knows the city periodically has to be culled back like weeds out of control.
The 1970s and early 80s saw the place turn into Beirut, with hard lines to navigate. There is okay during the day, up there never, over near the park only if you had some street smarts. The Bronx burned, the cops windshield wipered between giving up and turning vigilante. We did it again not too long later, with stop and frisk. Then back down to where a year ago or so the mayor ordered the police to stop arresting people for what he defined as minor crimes in the subway and then declared the subways safe (again) while minor crimes enmassed into just crime. Each stumble cuts through life here and the city walks around with the scars.
The deal you made with New York was that you put up with stuff like that, liberal think pieces actually acted out (free methadone to replace cheap heroin, what could go wrong when a “clinic” replaces a grocery store in a neighborhood) in return for the old San Remo Cafe you could not get in South Bend or Allentown. You’re welcome, but the city is like a sunset, you don’t expect it to admire you back for watching.
Then it all went to hell in 2020. Those same political thinkers said they needed to put the city into a medically-induced economic coma to top the virus. The solution hit hardest on the poor. They’ll need to become poorer to save them.
The public school system, which in another social experiment gone too far had been largely turned into a massive outbox for free meals, free daycare, free birth control, and free medical care, just gave up education as a function completely and closed. The one single only solitary thing that has any chance of helping a poor kid do better than his parents—education—was shut down.
The rich abandoned the public school system long ago. They also had the comfort of closing their private schools earlier to protect themselves (their schools being used primarily for education not as charity distribution centers; a mega-irony was that the schools still being part of the last social experiment meant they had to stay open longer until alternate food distribution could be worked out) and will exercise the option of reopening their private schools sooner.
A good friend taught public high school in the deranged South Bronx under “Teach for America,” another sociology project, based on the hope if you stuck enough privileged kids in front of enough poor kids something decent might come of it. My friend eventually quit, realizing how much time he spent in his classroom on things not related to teaching science. Charter schools, less grades, more Chromebooks, more African history, free college, lockdowns, quarantines, masks, call Bill Gates, let’s try it.
The conclusion—you can’t fix the schools in the South Bronx until you fix the South Bronx—isn’t anyone’s current project. It reminds me of my nation-building days in Iraq, when any dumb idea could find a sponsor, only the people in NYC care even less about the results. It’s about a good idea that doesn’t accomplish much. One imagines the Amazon frontline worker thinking about all this the way he thought about the flyover honoring him about the same way he thought about people thanking him for his service after Afghanistan.
New York, however, mostly seems content with this mashup of pseudo-socialism inside the greatest concentration of capitalism ever known enforced by near-fascist decree to enact the social experiments while the cops keep the rich and poor safely apart. Extreme forms of mitigation can have diminishing returns, but only in real life. A virus will crush an already broken society faster and more efficiently than a working one. What is happening here is a culmination not an event.
And we are most certainly not all in this together. At first glance it seems the rich areas are held hostage in lockdown now to the poor. But across the city the richest areas are about 40 percent empty. They have other homes, suburban panic rooms from which to see how long this time it will take NYC to surface again. You can track their flight by the drop off in garbage collected in certain neighborhoods. Two of Manhattan’s wealthiest areas have had zero COVID deaths while fatalities in public housing outrank all others.
Heat can forge, or it can melt. New York’s mayor is a knucklehead, a jaboni who imagines himself a Caucasian blend of Cesar Chavez and Dr. King. Nobody really likes him, but the people who vote (by mail, from their second homes) generally endorse his policies even as they wish for someone a bit more elegant. They like the idea of feeling good, and so love the idea of a handful of “lower-income” apartments (separate entrances, ‘natch) mandated into billion-dollar residential towers. They tolerate human trolls in the subway system because it adds “grit” to their city while they take Uber. Quaint shops needed for Instagram are kept alive via tax breaks, not customers. The rich mandated a city without public toilets (customers only!) and then seem surprised everything smells like urine.
Of course no one talks much about how the good ideas never seem to improve the lives of those they are aimed at. Despite the lockdown, plenty of people keep getting sick and dying in New York. The South Bronx is still poor. Despite the economic coma NYC still has a higher virus death toll per million than any other state in America. New York City also has some of the nation’s most restrictive gun laws yet tolerates the deaths which persist. Most of those who die are in the same category as the virus deaths, poor and of color and from another part of town.
It will take years to sort out where the Venn diagram circles overlap among social distancing, natural processes like herd immunity, and just plain exaggeration, but it is clear today COVID is not the most dangerous thing here.
This is again a dismal city, by choice really, ravaged by a virus of bad ideas and delusional political experiments that laid in wait for a new trigger event, COVID for now. Same as 9/11 ended civil liberties and the 2008 recession deepened inequality. Nobody found solutions. Rather than think things through this time we seem to prefer to die stupid. Hard to imagine the poets at the old San Remo Cafe wishing away a lovely spring to hurry it up until November. But that’s where we are now.
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--2020-05-27--Heading For Our Very First Zoom Election

One of the major candidates seems comfortable chatting virtually from his basement , while the other misses the `` meatspace '' of big rallies .
Screenshot of Biden campaign virtual town hall with front line workers .
Axios , the buzzy beltway blat , has given us a new meme for the upcoming election : “ Zoom Moms.
” As Axios put it , since the early days of the coronavirus crisis , “ the share of Americans using video calls has swelled from less than half to around two-thirds.
” Moreover , according to Axios pollster Chris Jackson , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prominent of these videoconferencing brands , Zoom , are women : “ It ’ s middle- and upper-income women .
Mothers particularly have a higher rate .
It ’ s women under the age of 55.
” These are , Axios concludes , “ 2020 ’ s newest swing voters.
” One might be inclined to be wary of too-pat , too-user-friendly distillations of the Zeitgeist .
That is , beware of marketers and memesters looking to summarize an election in one pithy phrase , in the way that the “ angry white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 1994 elections , or “ soccer moms , ” the 1996 elections , or “ security moms , ” the 2004 elections .
Yet undeniably , Zoom-type technology is reshaping American life .
According to Zoom itself , the total number of daily meeting participants has soared from 10 million in December to 300 million in April .
( We might note that total participants is not the same as unique individuals , as participants can participate multiple times . )
But another metric , reported by The Guardian , shows the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ downloads for its software has , uh , zoomed , from 56,000 a day in January to 2.13 million a day in March .
And of course , many other companies are also operating in the videoconferencing space , including such behemoths as Facebook , Google , and Microsoft .
In fact , the history of American elections can be told as the story of sequential media technologies affecting the outcomes .
For instance , the 1800 presidential election was said to be a battle of partisan newspapers , as scribbling supporters of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lobbed sharp-penned “ news ” stories at each other .
By 1860 , the cutting-edge medium was the telegraph , which enabled reports to fly fast across the country .
Two years earlier , Abraham Lincoln ’ s strong performance in his senatorial debates with Stephen A. Douglas had quickly become nationwide news , turning Lincoln into a hero to abolitionist Republicans .
Actually , the Railsplitter lost that 1858 senatorial contest , and yet two years later , of course , he won the presidency .
In 1932 , radio was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he of sonorous yet intimate tones , used it well .
For that and other reasons , FDR won the ’ 32 election in a landslide ; he went on to use radio to become a trusted friend to tens of millions , speaking warmly in his nationally broadcast “ fireside chats.
” Then , in 1960 , John F. Kennedy blew everyone away with his performance on television , especially in his debates with Richard Nixon .
Not everyone actually liked JFK , but thereafter , anyone with national political ambitions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
By this reckoning , even Ronald Reagan , the Great Communicator , can be regarded , in television terms , as just another master of Kennedy ’ s favorite medium .
The next technological hinge came in 1988 ; this was a power-shift within TV , from broadcast to cable .
This author , who worked for George H.W .
Bush ’ s campaign , well remembers CNN playing a lead role in ’ 88 news , precisely because the channel led the news .
That is , if CNN got its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it could run it at , say , 11 a.m. , and then again at noon , and every hour thereafter , while the broadcasters couldn ’ t touch it till 6:30 or 7 p.m. ( Meanwhile , the newspapers , of course , had to wait till the next morning , and the weekly magazines till the next week . )
In other words , CNN came to own popping political stories , and so presidential campaigns began organizing themselves around the breaking-news-oriented cabler , leaving broadcasters and newspapers looking slow and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came the Internet .
The Net was a big thing in 2004 ; the top social network , Friendster , proved its value as a hub for activists and small donors .
Four years later , Barack Obama unleashed the full power of the Internet , first on Hillary Clinton , then on John McCain .
The big revelation of 2016 , of course , was the power of Twitter .
To this day , Donald Trump uses his tweets as a megaphone and , just as often , as a hammer .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and much interested , instead , in 280-character blasts .
And if even half of his 80.2 million followers are real people , as opposed to bots or other fakes , he ’ s reaching an enormous audience with each tweet , dwarfing any other single medium .
Yet it should be noted that these technologies haven ’ t necessarily displaced each other ; instead , they have layered on each other .
Thus today we have newspapers and radio and TV and the Net .
And now : Zoom .
In some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be the perfect technology for the lockdown era , since they combine the smart interactivity of the Internet with the visual impact of TV—and each individual can be a star , maybe .
Not surprisingly , new aesthetics-minded subcultures have emerged alongside this new medium , such as the Twitter site @ ratemyskyperoom , which offers witty , sometime catty , verdicts on the optics of people ’ s personal “ studios.
” Indeed , it ’ s only a matter of time before someone figures out how to do a Zoom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be full of implications for earlier news formats .
Yet in the meantime , we can espy a distinct socioeconomic , as well as demographic , tilt to videoconferencing .
As the Axios article noted , Zoom ’ s core user base is “ middle- and upper-income women.
” After all , it ’ s middle- and upper income people , of both genders , who are likely to be working from home , at a keyboard—and for them , Zoom is easy .
By contrast , others , typically working with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , seem to find Zoom less congenial .
To be sure , the comfortable and the affluent , especially women , haven ’ t needed Zoom to help them decide they mostly don ’ t like Donald Trump , even as much of the working class long ago decided that it was with Trump , Zoom or no Zoom .
Indeed , an interesting look at the Trump political culture came from a May 21 story in Politico , as reporter Tim Alberta visited “ Trump Tailgaters ” in small-town Michigan .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ space and movement ; the frictionless ease of the virtual is less important to them .
And the lockdown issue , of course , is a flashpoint , separating those who yearn to live free , outdoors , from those who prefer to stay safe , indoors .
This contrast in worldviews—the virtual vs. the analog , one might say—is accentuated by Zoom and reflected , as well , in political styles .
For his part , Joe Biden seems happy enough in his Delaware basement , staying in touch , cyberspatially , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the polls .
In the meantime , Trump , sensing his underdog-ness , can ’ t wait to get back to big rallies , dishing red meat in what ’ s waggishly known as “ meatspace.
” It ’ s possible , of course , that the Zoom Factor in the 2020 election will be remembered as just a coincident factor in the outcome , as opposed to a causative factor .
That is , if Biden wins , maybe it ’ s because he was popular with Zoom types even before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , then maybe Zoom will be regarded as just one more filigree on centrist liberalism—that is , a new status ornament for Democrats , not an indicator of any large political shift that Trump had to worry about .
Yet still , Zoom is big enough that it is likely to affect elections .
Beyond whatever happens in the November presidential balloting , Zoom ’ s influence will likely be felt in down-ballot contests .
Moreover , the vast majority of states still have their primary elections to come ; it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Democratic primaries in affluent suburbs are becoming Zoom-based battles .
Yes , in 2020 , the conventional wisdom is converging on the idea that candidates must learn to use Zoom—or face the dire fate of being Zoomed .
And sometimes , conventional wisdom is proven to be correct .

Axios, the buzzy beltway blat, has given us a new meme for the upcoming election: “Zoom Moms.” As Axios put it, since the early days of the coronavirus crisis, “the share of Americans using video calls has swelled from less than half to around two-thirds.”
Moreover, according to Axios pollster Chris Jackson, the majority of those using the most prominent of these videoconferencing brands, Zoom, are women: “It’s middle- and upper-income women. Mothers particularly have a higher rate. It’s women under the age of 55.” These are, Axios concludes, “2020’s newest swing voters.”
One might be inclined to be wary of too-pat, too-user-friendly distillations of the Zeitgeist. That is, beware of marketers and memesters looking to summarize an election in one pithy phrase, in the way that the “angry white man” was said to have shaped the 1994 elections, or “soccer moms,” the 1996 elections, or “security moms,” the 2004 elections.
Yet undeniably, Zoom-type technology is reshaping American life. According to Zoom itself, the total number of daily meeting participants has soared from 10 million in December to 300 million in April. (We might note that total participants is not the same as unique individuals, as participants can participate multiple times.)
But another metric, reported by The Guardian, shows the boom of Zoom; the number of downloads for its software has, uh, zoomed, from 56,000 a day in January to 2.13 million a day in March. And of course, many other companies are also operating in the videoconferencing space, including such behemoths as Facebook, Google, and Microsoft.
In fact, the history of American elections can be told as the story of sequential media technologies affecting the outcomes. For instance, the 1800 presidential election was said to be a battle of partisan newspapers, as scribbling supporters of incumbent John Adams and challenger Thomas Jefferson lobbed sharp-penned “news” stories at each other.
By 1860, the cutting-edge medium was the telegraph, which enabled reports to fly fast across the country. Two years earlier, Abraham Lincoln’s strong performance in his senatorial debates with Stephen A. Douglas had quickly become nationwide news, turning Lincoln into a hero to abolitionist Republicans. Actually, the Railsplitter lost that 1858 senatorial contest, and yet two years later, of course, he won the presidency.
In 1932, radio was a major force, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, he of sonorous yet intimate tones, used it well. For that and other reasons, FDR won the ’32 election in a landslide; he went on to use radio to become a trusted friend to tens of millions, speaking warmly in his nationally broadcast “fireside chats.”
Then, in 1960, John F. Kennedy blew everyone away with his performance on television, especially in his debates with Richard Nixon. Not everyone actually liked JFK, but thereafter, anyone with national political ambitions knew that TV mastery was a must. By this reckoning, even Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator, can be regarded, in television terms, as just another master of Kennedy’s favorite medium.
The next technological hinge came in 1988; this was a power-shift within TV, from broadcast to cable. This author, who worked for George H.W. Bush’s campaign, well remembers CNN playing a lead role in ’88 news, precisely because the channel led the news. That is, if CNN got its hands on a hot political story, it could run it at, say, 11 a.m., and then again at noon, and every hour thereafter, while the broadcasters couldn’t touch it till 6:30 or 7 p.m. (Meanwhile, the newspapers, of course, had to wait till the next morning, and the weekly magazines till the next week.)
In other words, CNN came to own popping political stories, and so presidential campaigns began organizing themselves around the breaking-news-oriented cabler, leaving broadcasters and newspapers looking slow and stale.
Then, of course, came the Internet. The Net was a big thing in 2004; the top social network, Friendster, proved its value as a hub for activists and small donors. Four years later, Barack Obama unleashed the full power of the Internet, first on Hillary Clinton, then on John McCain.
The big revelation of 2016, of course, was the power of Twitter. To this day, Donald Trump uses his tweets as a megaphone and, just as often, as a hammer. He seems little interested in scripted speeches and much interested, instead, in 280-character blasts. And if even half of his 80.2 million followers are real people, as opposed to bots or other fakes, he’s reaching an enormous audience with each tweet, dwarfing any other single medium.
Yet it should be noted that these technologies haven’t necessarily displaced each other; instead, they have layered on each other. Thus today we have newspapers and radio and TV and the Net.
And now: Zoom. In some ways, Zoom and its cognates seem to be the perfect technology for the lockdown era, since they combine the smart interactivity of the Internet with the visual impact of TV—and each individual can be a star, maybe.
Not surprisingly, new aesthetics-minded subcultures have emerged alongside this new medium, such as the Twitter site @ratemyskyperoom, which offers witty, sometime catty, verdicts on the optics of people’s personal “studios.”
Indeed, it’s only a matter of time before someone figures out how to do a Zoom news show, and that inevitable development will be full of implications for earlier news formats.
Yet in the meantime, we can espy a distinct socioeconomic, as well as demographic, tilt to videoconferencing. As the Axios article noted, Zoom’s core user base is “middle- and upper-income women.” After all, it’s middle- and upper income people, of both genders, who are likely to be working from home, at a keyboard—and for them, Zoom is easy. By contrast, others, typically working with their hands, outside of the home, seem to find Zoom less congenial.
To be sure, the comfortable and the affluent, especially women, haven’t needed Zoom to help them decide they mostly don’t like Donald Trump, even as much of the working class long ago decided that it was with Trump, Zoom or no Zoom.
Indeed, an interesting look at the Trump political culture came from a May 21 story in Politico, as reporter Tim Alberta visited “Trump Tailgaters” in small-town Michigan. The takeaway: Trump supporters prize their physical space and movement; the frictionless ease of the virtual is less important to them. And the lockdown issue, of course, is a flashpoint, separating those who yearn to live free, outdoors, from those who prefer to stay safe, indoors.
This contrast in worldviews—the virtual vs. the analog, one might say—is accentuated by Zoom and reflected, as well, in political styles. For his part, Joe Biden seems happy enough in his Delaware basement, staying in touch, cyberspatially, with his supporters, while doing fine in the polls. In the meantime, Trump, sensing his underdog-ness, can’t wait to get back to big rallies, dishing red meat in what’s waggishly known as “meatspace.”
It’s possible, of course, that the Zoom Factor in the 2020 election will be remembered as just a coincident factor in the outcome, as opposed to a causative factor. That is, if Biden wins, maybe it’s because he was popular with Zoom types even before the pandemic. And if Trump wins, then maybe Zoom will be regarded as just one more filigree on centrist liberalism—that is, a new status ornament for Democrats, not an indicator of any large political shift that Trump had to worry about.
Yet still, Zoom is big enough that it is likely to affect elections. Beyond whatever happens in the November presidential balloting, Zoom’s influence will likely be felt in down-ballot contests. Moreover, the vast majority of states still have their primary elections to come; it’s easy to see, for instance, that Democratic primaries in affluent suburbs are becoming Zoom-based battles.
Yes, in 2020, the conventional wisdom is converging on the idea that candidates must learn to use Zoom—or face the dire fate of being Zoomed. And sometimes, conventional wisdom is proven to be correct.