theamericanconservative--2020-06-15--Why Kamala Harris Has the Inside Lane

Why Kamala Harris Has the Inside Lane

WASHINGTON—It ’ s summer in a presidential election year , which means it ’ s time for a proper veepstakes .
Whatever else may be lights out this season—Camden Yards , Coachella or much of the Carnival Cruise Line—we know at least one show will go on .
As Barack Obama said on the eve of the 2016 election , “ the sun will rise in the morning.
” And the presumptive Democratic nominee for president will need a running mate .
Vice presidential selections are in some ways the papal conclaves of secular politics .
The deliberations are done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sprinkling of leaks , of course ) , and the selection is not the choice of the laity or the polity but the upper echelon .
In Rome , the guiding force is the Holy Spirit .
In Washington , it ’ s the Electoral College .
For former Vice President Joe Biden , the choice just got a lot easier .
He has said , prudently , that he will wait until at least August to announce his pick .
But the supernova of outrage that has spilled out onto American streets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s room for maneuver .
He has already pledged to pick a woman .
But for Biden , failing to select an African-American woman is to risk forfeiting something his often staid campaign has at last picked up : enthusiasm .
Biden hopes to be swept into power as a statesman at the helm of a nation hungry for fresh reflection —a place in dire need of a reckoning with its racial sins following the slaying of Minnesota man George Floyd—even as it looks for the light at the end of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Biden ’ s camp is narrowing the contenders .
The top tier : California Senator Kamala Harris , Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and former National Security Advisor Susan Rice .
Lagging behind : Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar , Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms , Former Georgia Senate Minority Leader Stacey Abrams , Florida Representative Val Demmings and New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham .
As the first half of 2020 has made unmistakably clear , much can change in three months .
But his commitment to pick a woman , the fierce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Biden ’ s own perspective on his old job mean that only one prospective vice president meets the criteria for selection .
Consider first that Biden has emphasized the need for his lieutenant to be able to fill his shoes without hesitation .
As he said in Iowa during the Democratic primary , whoever he picks must “ be capable of immediately being a president because I ’ m an old guy.
” The importance of national security , both to the executive generally and to Biden personally , provides another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deeply about the issue—he played an outsized role in shaping the Obama administration ’ s foreign policy ( particularly when compared to previous Democratic Vice Presidents , like Al Gore or Walter Mondale ) .
He rivaled old Senate pals Hillary Clinton and John Kerry , Obama ’ s secretaries of state , in influence .
And before 2008 , he headed the Senate ’ s influential Foreign Relations Committee .
And given that his national security advisors from his days at the Naval Observatory , Antony Blinken and Jake Sullivan , are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powerful advisors , it ’ s clear he still cares about it .
This is bad news for Gov .
Lujan Grisham and gubernatorial runner-up Abrams , both state-level politicians with barren foreign policy credentials .
The Sarah Palin fiasco in 2008 , in which questions about foreign policy revealed to many her unsuitability for high office , also weighs heavily on the minds of Biden advisors keen not to repeat history .
It ’ s also true that Biden , having spent 36 years in the upper chamber , prefers Senators , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congresswoman Demmings , whose résumé includes time on the Subcommittee on Defense Intelligence and Warfighter Support , the Subcommittee on Intelligence Modernization and Readiness , Subcommittee on Crime , Terrorism , Homeland Security , and Investigations and—perhaps crucially , when combatting immigration hawk Donald Trump—the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security .
However , Demmings likely has another problem .
This is because Biden also favors figures who have run in national campaigns before , figures like himself in 2008 , for instance .
The enormous exposure , so the thinking goes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ —free vetting , in essence .
Demmings may have attracted attention as an impeachment manager , but that pales in comparison to the celebrity and political experience that comes from a serious attempt at the White House .
Moreover , that time working on impeachment could be plausibly portrayed by the Trump campaign as a distraction , a striking example of Congress frittering away time on partisan games when it could have been preparing America for the coming pandemic .
Susan Rice may pass the foreign policy test , but she ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Demmings .
A career foreign policy official , she has never faced election and her previous time in the national spotlight was far from positive .
Whatever one thinks of her actual conduct during the Benghazi affair , the political fallout cost her the job of secretary of state when Obama won a second term .
That she ’ s back in the news as a party in the “ ObamaGate ” imbroglio is also unhelpful .
Even though Biden is running , to some extent , as a restorationist ( painting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tradition ) , running with Rice may fuel perceptions of the campaign as a stale Obama-era remix , even as the Democratic Party—and , perhaps , the nation—has moved sharply left .
Since the dawn of the crisis this spring , Biden has said he thinks the country needs a presidency in the style of Franklin Delano Roosevelt .
But running with one of Barack Obama ’ s most controversial subordinates would signal to the left , as well as to disaffected independents who voted for Obama , but then gave Trump a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to deliver such a transformative administration .
Before May , Amy Klobuchar was probably the front-runner for this role .
But the tide of history has flown with rapid and unforgiving speed , and her chances are now essentially nil .
Not only is Sen. Klobuchar a longstanding member of the political establishment of the state at the center of America ’ s burning racial crisis—Minnesota—but she ’ s a former prosecutor with past cases flagged by activists .
For Biden , she ’ s gone from safest bet to largest liability .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is do no harm .
He will not pick her .
In all likelihood , this now narrows the field to two principal front-runners : Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris .
When Biden contemplated a run for the 2016 nomination , Warren was reputed to have been his first pick for VP—and given the bad feelings festering from the Bernie-Biden showdown , selecting her might help heal the wounds between the party ’ s moderate establishment and its radical ( and ever-louder ) counter-establishment .
It would also signal new bonhomie between Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after a more acrimonious relationship in the 2000s .
Somewhat ironically , Warren ’ s most salient feud is now with Bernie Sanders , the only candidate in 2020 more left-wing than her , and a target for charges of sexism .
Depending on the memories of Bernie supporters , this may depreciate the conciliatory value of the Warren selection , though likely only slightly .
Warren would still be a valuable deputy , a signal to the progressive wing that Biden means business about all that FDR stuff .
And that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choose her .
Wall Street has signaled ad infinitum its revulsion with Warren .
While Biden has ( by all accounts sincerely ) moved to the left over the last year , this is still the man who a year agotold a New York fundraiser he will refuse to “ demonize ” the rich as president and that “ nothing would fundamentally change.
” And besides , there is now a third , compelling criterion for Biden ’ s vice president .
With almost 60 percent of Americans holding a favorable view of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ branding powerful enough to rival Make America Great Again , and perhaps to overwhelm it .
The protests in America ’ s streets are effectively shock troops for the removal of Donald Trump .
Failing to capitalize on this energy and enthusiasm would be a rookie ’ s political mistake—and Biden , whatever else he may be , is no rookie .
Significantly for a business-friendly nominee , corporate America has also endorsed BLM without equivocation .
And of all the candidates for the deputy spot , Kamala Harris would be the best-positioned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Biden ’ s quiet base in the primary was arguably Hollywood—he ’ s a long-standing champion of the American motion picture industry , including aiding studios with their work in China .
As the primary campaign reached its apex , celebrities helped him seal the deal against Sanders .
But if Biden ’ s a made man in SoCal , Harris completes the circle by bringing in NorCal .
There and elsewhere , she ’ s a fundraising juggernaut .
Although the state ’ s electoral votes may not be in contention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ giants have been somewhat cool to Biden .
But Biden picked up $ 4 million earlier this month through the fundraising of Tom Steyer , the San Francisco hedge funder and Biden ’ s former presidential rival .
LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman and Laurene Powell Jobs are also reputedly helping Biden close his financial gap with Trump .
And the Los Angeles Timesreports that previously recalcitrant California donors have grown increasingly alarmed with the president and are finally ponying up .
An attendee at tech billionaire Sean Parker ’ s wedding in Big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a political level , the event was a spectacle , with then State Attorney General Kamala Harris and future Gov .
Gavin Newsom competing for donor attention .
Harris won , the story goes , presaging the arrangement with Newsom that Harris would go to Washington and Newsom would reign in Sacramento .
Harris would also get the first bite at the presidency .
Though a distant memory now , it ’ s significant that Obama included Harris , and not Biden , in the list of future party standard-bearers he offered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the immediate aftermath of Trump ’ s election .
To critics who complain that California , with its insane inequality , rampant homelessness , and politically correct culture , is a liability—the failed archetype of liberals ’ vision for America— the Democratic Party could counter as Newsom does : California is a successful nation-state , “ the fifth largest economy in the world , 40 million strong… as diverse a state as exists in this country.
” They think they ’ re sitting pretty .
And they probably are .
And in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so is Biden .

WASHINGTON—It’s summer in a presidential election year, which means it’s time for a proper veepstakes.
Whatever else may be lights out this season—Camden Yards, Coachella or much of the Carnival Cruise Line—we know at least one show will go on. As Barack Obama said on the eve of the 2016 election, “the sun will rise in the morning.” And the presumptive Democratic nominee for president will need a running mate.
Vice presidential selections are in some ways the papal conclaves of secular politics. The deliberations are done in secret (though with a generous sprinkling of leaks, of course), and the selection is not the choice of the laity or the polity but the upper echelon. In Rome, the guiding force is the Holy Spirit. In Washington, it’s the Electoral College.
For former Vice President Joe Biden, the choice just got a lot easier. He has said, prudently, that he will wait until at least August to announce his pick. But the supernova of outrage that has spilled out onto American streets in recent weeks has considerably narrowed Biden’s room for maneuver.
He has already pledged to pick a woman. But for Biden, failing to select an African-American woman is to risk forfeiting something his often staid campaign has at last picked up: enthusiasm. Biden hopes to be swept into power as a statesman at the helm of a nation hungry for fresh reflection —a place in dire need of a reckoning with its racial sins following the slaying of Minnesota man George Floyd—even as it looks for the light at the end of the pandemic tunnel.
♦♦♦
The Associated Press reports that Biden’s camp is narrowing the contenders. The top tier: California Senator Kamala Harris, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and former National Security Advisor Susan Rice. Lagging behind: Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, Former Georgia Senate Minority Leader Stacey Abrams, Florida Representative Val Demmings and New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham.
As the first half of 2020 has made unmistakably clear, much can change in three months. But his commitment to pick a woman, the fierce urgency of now to elevate an African-American, and Biden’s own perspective on his old job mean that only one prospective vice president meets the criteria for selection.
Consider first that Biden has emphasized the need for his lieutenant to be able to fill his shoes without hesitation. As he said in Iowa during the Democratic primary, whoever he picks must “be capable of immediately being a president because I’m an old guy.”
The importance of national security, both to the executive generally and to Biden personally, provides another clue. The former Vice President cares deeply about the issue—he played an outsized role in shaping the Obama administration’s foreign policy (particularly when compared to previous Democratic Vice Presidents, like Al Gore or Walter Mondale). He rivaled old Senate pals Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, Obama’s secretaries of state, in influence. And before 2008, he headed the Senate’s influential Foreign Relations Committee.
And given that his national security advisors from his days at the Naval Observatory, Antony Blinken and Jake Sullivan, are now arguably the campaign’s most powerful advisors, it’s clear he still cares about it. This is bad news for Gov. Lujan Grisham and gubernatorial runner-up Abrams, both state-level politicians with barren foreign policy credentials. The Sarah Palin fiasco in 2008, in which questions about foreign policy revealed to many her unsuitability for high office, also weighs heavily on the minds of Biden advisors keen not to repeat history.
It’s also true that Biden, having spent 36 years in the upper chamber, prefers Senators, although that alone should not rule out Congresswoman Demmings, whose résumé includes time on the Subcommittee on Defense Intelligence and Warfighter Support, the Subcommittee on Intelligence Modernization and Readiness, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations and—perhaps crucially, when combatting immigration hawk Donald Trump—the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security. However, Demmings likely has another problem.
This is because Biden also favors figures who have run in national campaigns before, figures like himself in 2008, for instance. The enormous exposure, so the thinking goes, reveals battle-readiness (or lack thereof)—free vetting, in essence. Demmings may have attracted attention as an impeachment manager, but that pales in comparison to the celebrity and political experience that comes from a serious attempt at the White House. Moreover, that time working on impeachment could be plausibly portrayed by the Trump campaign as a distraction, a striking example of Congress frittering away time on partisan games when it could have been preparing America for the coming pandemic.
Susan Rice may pass the foreign policy test, but she’s even more vulnerable to national scrutiny than Demmings. A career foreign policy official, she has never faced election and her previous time in the national spotlight was far from positive. Whatever one thinks of her actual conduct during the Benghazi affair, the political fallout cost her the job of secretary of state when Obama won a second term. That she’s back in the news as a party in the “ObamaGate” imbroglio is also unhelpful. Even though Biden is running, to some extent, as a restorationist (painting the 45th president as firmly outside the American tradition), running with Rice may fuel perceptions of the campaign as a stale Obama-era remix, even as the Democratic Party—and, perhaps, the nation—has moved sharply left.
Since the dawn of the crisis this spring, Biden has said he thinks the country needs a presidency in the style of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But running with one of Barack Obama’s most controversial subordinates would signal to the left, as well as to disaffected independents who voted for Obama, but then gave Trump a chance, that he’s unlikely to deliver such a transformative administration.
♦♦♦
Before May, Amy Klobuchar was probably the front-runner for this role. But the tide of history has flown with rapid and unforgiving speed, and her chances are now essentially nil. Not only is Sen. Klobuchar a longstanding member of the political establishment of the state at the center of America’s burning racial crisis—Minnesota—but she’s a former prosecutor with past cases flagged by activists. For Biden, she’s gone from safest bet to largest liability. The first rule of vice presidential selections is do no harm. He will not pick her.
In all likelihood, this now narrows the field to two principal front-runners: Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris. When Biden contemplated a run for the 2016 nomination, Warren was reputed to have been his first pick for VP—and given the bad feelings festering from the Bernie-Biden showdown, selecting her might help heal the wounds between the party’s moderate establishment and its radical (and ever-louder) counter-establishment. It would also signal new bonhomie between Warren and Biden on a personal level, after a more acrimonious relationship in the 2000s.
Somewhat ironically, Warren’s most salient feud is now with Bernie Sanders, the only candidate in 2020 more left-wing than her, and a target for charges of sexism. Depending on the memories of Bernie supporters, this may depreciate the conciliatory value of the Warren selection, though likely only slightly. Warren would still be a valuable deputy, a signal to the progressive wing that Biden means business about all that FDR stuff.
And that’s why he probably won’t choose her. Wall Street has signaled ad infinitum its revulsion with Warren. While Biden has (by all accounts sincerely) moved to the left over the last year, this is still the man who a year ago told a New York fundraiser he will refuse to “demonize” the rich as president and that “nothing would fundamentally change.”
And besides, there is now a third, compelling criterion for Biden’s vice president. With almost 60 percent of Americans holding a favorable view of the movement, Black Lives Matter is branding powerful enough to rival Make America Great Again, and perhaps to overwhelm it. The protests in America’s streets are effectively shock troops for the removal of Donald Trump.
Failing to capitalize on this energy and enthusiasm would be a rookie’s political mistake—and Biden, whatever else he may be, is no rookie. Significantly for a business-friendly nominee, corporate America has also endorsed BLM without equivocation. And of all the candidates for the deputy spot, Kamala Harris would be the best-positioned to convert this into winning political momentum.
Biden’s quiet base in the primary was arguably Hollywood—he’s a long-standing champion of the American motion picture industry, including aiding studios with their work in China. As the primary campaign reached its apex, celebrities helped him seal the deal against Sanders. But if Biden’s a made man in SoCal, Harris completes the circle by bringing in NorCal. There and elsewhere, she’s a fundraising juggernaut. Although the state’s electoral votes may not be in contention, its cash is—and San Francisco tech giants have been somewhat cool to Biden.
But Biden picked up $4 million earlier this month through the fundraising of Tom Steyer, the San Francisco hedge funder and Biden’s former presidential rival. LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman and Laurene Powell Jobs are also reputedly helping Biden close his financial gap with Trump. And the Los Angeles Times reports that previously recalcitrant California donors have grown increasingly alarmed with the president and are finally ponying up.
An attendee at tech billionaire Sean Parker’s wedding in Big Sur seven years ago told me that on a political level, the event was a spectacle, with then State Attorney General Kamala Harris and future Gov. Gavin Newsom competing for donor attention. Harris won, the story goes, presaging the arrangement with Newsom that Harris would go to Washington and Newsom would reign in Sacramento. Harris would also get the first bite at the presidency. Though a distant memory now, it’s significant that Obama included Harris, and not Biden, in the list of future party standard-bearers he offered the New Yorker’s David Remnick in the immediate aftermath of Trump’s election.
To critics who complain that California, with its insane inequality, rampant homelessness, and politically correct culture, is a liability—the failed archetype of liberals’ vision for America— the Democratic Party could counter as Newsom does: California is a successful nation-state, “the fifth largest economy in the world, 40 million strong… as diverse a state as exists in this country.” They think they’re sitting pretty. And they probably are. And in this campaign, at this moment, so is Biden.
Expect a Kamala Harris selection come August.


theamericanconservative--2020-06-15--I Warned About the COVID and Now I Feel Like a Fool

We do still need to worry about the coronavirus 's spread .
But how can we when the experts have completely forsaken our trust ?
Dr. Anthony Fauci ( L ) , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases speaks next to Response coordinator for White House Coronavirus Task Force Deborah Birx , during a meeting with US President Donald Trump and Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards D-LA in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington , DC on April 29 , 2020 .
( Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images ) Since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ described as a so-called “ COVID warrior , ” which makes some sense .
After all , I ’ ve defended the shutdowns of large gatherings .
I ’ ve insisted that it ’ s wise to temporarily close churches and postpone funerals and other ceremonies .
I ’ ve argued that extreme caution is necessary—that to do anything else would be to blatantly and selfishly ignore the scientific information at our disposal .
I ’ ve held the opinion that , although it has caused irrevocable harm to the economy and caused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owners who close up shop for fear of spreading contagion are in the right .
By no means am I a coronavirus denier—more than 100,000 and counting have died from the COVID .
But with conflicting reports about everything from wearing masks to the spread of the virus through surfaces coming out of the World Health Organization and the CDC almost weekly , my head is spinning .
Nothing seems to make sense anymore .
For fear of spreading the virus , health experts have consistently recommended shutting down and avoiding public spaces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pools , and public transportation .
They ’ ve also advocated for limiting large gatherings and closing anything that might draw crowds .
It ’ s advice that ’ s been repeated for months—to the point that those ignoring it have been reviled and accused of experimenting with “ human sacrifice.
” That ’ s because asymptomatic carriers of the virus , though they may feel all right themselves , can become mass spreaders of the deadly contagion , especially in large groups .
This is why Michigan residents protesting their state ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shame—they likely caused mass immiseration and sickness , right ?
Wrong .
Turns out , health officials didn ’ t really believe any of that .
Just last week , the WHO announced that it ’ s extremely rare for asymptomatic spreading of the coronavirus to occur .
If you feel fine , then you ’ re probably not a grave threat to anyone , especially if you ’ re wearing a mask and gloves .
Then the WHO backtracked on that statement , ultimately arriving at the completely unhelpful determination that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts simply don ’ t know to what extent the disease is transmitted by asymptomatic carriers—yet they still feel confident that the risks of the coronavirus shouldn ’ t impact our protesting of police brutality .
One rightly wonders how , within a span of weeks , we went from shaming people for being out in the streets to shaming those who won ’ t join the crowd .
What ’ s more , contact with infected animals and surfaces is unlikely to cause COVID-19 to spread , and chlorine kills the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also safe .
But of course , many schools , playgrounds , pools , and businesses were forced to close .
Livelihoods have been destroyed , children are paying a high price through a loss of time and key social-educational development , and mental health across the country is on the decline .
And now some journalists from prominent publications—the same ones that have been demanding oh-so-extreme caution—are performing breathtaking gymnastics in an effort to backtrack , explaining that there ’ s no evidence of outdoor coronavirus spread .
Now , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we have to worry about .
They may be right .
Maybe protesters really shouldn ’ t worry ( though they probably should ) .
But that doesn ’ t excuse what seems to be a disgusting hypocrisy that trampled on the livelihoods of more than 30 million Americans .
Understandably , many are outraged and have lost all faith in the experts .
Health advice can ’ t shift with politics—COVID-19 , cancer , and the flu don ’ t know party lines .
The virus is either unmanageable or manageable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with Trump aiming to restart his so-called “ MAGA rallies , ” we ’ ll inevitably have—and already have had—another round of tut-tutting from the media about how horribly irresponsible it is to gather in crowds .
But who can possibly blame those who shrug these warnings off ?
MAGA rallies very well could spread COVID-19 , but in the event they do , the George Floyd protests will be equally culpable .
Expert credibility has been lost .
Maybe we should , as many of my more classically liberal friends have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make their own choices , take their own risks , open their own businesses back up , hold their own protests against injustice .
Whatever the case , given the whiplash the public has experienced over these past few weeks , we certainly won ’ t be running to health experts as readily as before .
Certainly , social distancing practices have helped flatten the curve , but living your life based on the inconsistent messaging of the WHO and the CDC is a recipe for disaster .
If a second wave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individuals and community innovation that provides the solutions—not those who have done nothing to earn our trust .
Anthony DiMauro is a freelance writer based in New York City .
His work has appeared in The National Interest , Real Clear Media , and elsewhere .
You can follow him on Twitter @ AnthonyMDiMauro .

Since the pandemic began, I’ve been described as a so-called “COVID warrior,” which makes some sense. After all, I’ve defended the shutdowns of large gatherings. I’ve insisted that it’s wise to temporarily close churches and postpone funerals and other ceremonies. I’ve argued that extreme caution is necessary—that to do anything else would be to blatantly and selfishly ignore the scientific information at our disposal. I’ve held the opinion that, although it has caused irrevocable harm to the economy and caused millions of people to suffer, business owners who close up shop for fear of spreading contagion are in the right.
Now I feel like a fool.
By no means am I a coronavirus denier—more than 100,000 and counting have died from the COVID. But with conflicting reports about everything from wearing masks to the spread of the virus through surfaces coming out of the World Health Organization and the CDC almost weekly, my head is spinning. Nothing seems to make sense anymore.
For fear of spreading the virus, health experts have consistently recommended shutting down and avoiding public spaces, including schools, playgrounds, public pools, and public transportation. They’ve also advocated for limiting large gatherings and closing anything that might draw crowds. It’s advice that’s been repeated for months—to the point that those ignoring it have been reviled and accused of experimenting with “human sacrifice.”
That’s because asymptomatic carriers of the virus, though they may feel all right themselves, can become mass spreaders of the deadly contagion, especially in large groups. This is why Michigan residents protesting their state’s lockdown in Lansing were deserving of shame—they likely caused mass immiseration and sickness, right?
Wrong. Turns out, health officials didn’t really believe any of that.
Just last week, the WHO announced that it’s extremely rare for asymptomatic spreading of the coronavirus to occur. If you feel fine, then you’re probably not a grave threat to anyone, especially if you’re wearing a mask and gloves. Then the WHO backtracked on that statement, ultimately arriving at the completely unhelpful determination that “this is a major unknown.” Health experts simply don’t know to what extent the disease is transmitted by asymptomatic carriers—yet they still feel confident that the risks of the coronavirus shouldn’t impact our protesting of police brutality.
One rightly wonders how, within a span of weeks, we went from shaming people for being out in the streets to shaming those who won’t join the crowd.
What’s more, contact with infected animals and surfaces is unlikely to cause COVID-19 to spread, and chlorine kills the virus upon contact, so clean pools are also safe. But of course, many schools, playgrounds, pools, and businesses were forced to close.
Livelihoods have been destroyed, children are paying a high price through a loss of time and key social-educational development, and mental health across the country is on the decline.
And now some journalists from prominent publications—the same ones that have been demanding oh-so-extreme caution—are performing breathtaking gymnastics in an effort to backtrack, explaining that there’s no evidence of outdoor coronavirus spread. Now, it’s “prolonged indoor close contact” that we have to worry about.
They may be right. Maybe protesters really shouldn’t worry (though they probably should). But that doesn’t excuse what seems to be a disgusting hypocrisy that trampled on the livelihoods of more than 30 million Americans. Understandably, many are outraged and have lost all faith in the experts.
Health advice can’t shift with politics—COVID-19, cancer, and the flu don’t know party lines. The virus is either unmanageable or manageable. That’s it.
Now, with Trump aiming to restart his so-called “MAGA rallies,” we’ll inevitably have—and already have had—another round of tut-tutting from the media about how horribly irresponsible it is to gather in crowds. But who can possibly blame those who shrug these warnings off? MAGA rallies very well could spread COVID-19, but in the event they do, the George Floyd protests will be equally culpable. Expert credibility has been lost.
Maybe we should, as many of my more classically liberal friends have been saying all along, allow people to make their own choices, take their own risks, open their own businesses back up, hold their own protests against injustice.
Whatever the case, given the whiplash the public has experienced over these past few weeks, we certainly won’t be running to health experts as readily as before. Certainly, social distancing practices have helped flatten the curve, but living your life based on the inconsistent messaging of the WHO and the CDC is a recipe for disaster. If a second wave does appear, it will be cautious individuals and community innovation that provides the solutions—not those who have done nothing to earn our trust.
Anthony DiMauro is a freelance writer based in New York City. His work has appeared in The National Interest, Real Clear Media, and elsewhere. You can follow him on Twitter @AnthonyMDiMauro.


theamericanconservative--2020-06-16--Justice Gorsuch Just Opened Pandora’s Box

WASHINGTON , DC - APRIL 10 : U.S. Supreme Court Justice Judge Neil Gorsuch points as his wife Marie Louise Gorshuch looks on during a ceremony in the Rose Garden at the White House April 10 , 2017 in Washington , DC .
Earlier in the day Gorsuch , 49 , was sworn in as the 113th Associate Justice in a private ceremony at the Supreme Court .
( Photo by Eric Thayer/Getty Images ) Six months ago , when journalist Christopher Caldwell published a book asserting that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had grown into a “ rival @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , everyone laughed .
The New York Times review accused Caldwell of rehashing old segregationist arguments .
Singled out for particular ridicule was the sentence on the penultimate page of The Age of Entitlement where Caldwell advises conservatives that “ the only way back to the free country of their ideals was through the repeal of the civil rights laws.
” How could the fate of American freedom depend on something so radical , and so unlikely , as the repeal of the Civil Rights Act ?
No one is laughing now .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County , has decreed that the anti-discrimination protections afforded to women under Title VII of the CRA must be extended to gays , lesbians , and the transgendered , because all of these are discrimination “ on the basis of sex.
” This is not a narrow ruling that just means you can ’ t fire a person for being gay .
Extending civil rights law to protect a whole new category carries with it a host of ancillary protections .
Harassment is a form of workplace discrimination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subjected to a “ hostile work environment ” because of their membership in a protected class .
Under Bostock , an LGBT employee could allege a hostile work environment if a coworker expressed the wrong opinion about Prop 8 or said he believed a person ’ s sex is determined at birth .
Some employers are already justifying firing workers who won ’ t use someone ’ s preferred pronouns because discrimination law requires it .
Misgendering , they say , is harassment .
Diversity training is a multi-billion dollar industry because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give seminars on “ white fragility ” not because they are progressive but because it protects them from lawsuits .
They have a better chance of prevailing in an employment discrimination case if they can point to diversity training programs as evidence of their commitment to civil rights .
De facto hiring quotas are another inevitable consequence of civil rights law as it has been interpreted .
If a company doesn ’ t employ a minority roughly in proportion to its share of the population , someone from an underrepresented group can use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discriminated against them .
( Gallup estimates that 4.5 % of the population is gay . )
It is no use protesting that the text of Title VII doesn ’ t mandate any of this , or that the Bostock opinion limits itself to outlawing explicit policies against hiring LGBT workers .
The whole story of employment discrimination law , from 1964 to today , is an endless parade of new mandates not specified in the statute being hatched by human resources departments , adopted by companies eager to fend off lawsuits , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anti-discrimination law is kept vague for precisely this reason .
It gives the activists more room to get creative .
In the 1970s , the federal Justice Department begged the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to issue a specific rule on how closely a company ’ s workforce had to match broader community demographics to avoid a discrimination charge ( they suggested a cutoff of 80 percent ) .
The EEOC preferred to keep its rule vague .
Title VII doesn ’ t require performance evaluations , grievance procedures , written job descriptions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or diversity bonuses—yet all of these have been extrapolated from it .
More than 80,000 charges of discrimination are filed with the EEOC in an average year , and tens of thousands of those eventually become lawsuits or five- or six-figure settlements .
Employers have good reason to want to act defensively .
And of course the Bostock ruling won ’ t stay confined to employment law .
The majority opinion protests , disingenuously , that “ sex-segregated bathrooms , locker rooms , and dress codes ” are “ questions for future cases.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ prohibitions on sex discrimination ( Justice Alito ’ s dissent lists over 100 such statutes ) , and every one of those will have to be reconsidered in light of today ’ s ruling .
Gorsuch claims that yesterday ’ s ruling was grounded in judicial modesty .
It doesn ’ t matter that sodomy was illegal in 49 states when the Civil Rights Act was passed , he says .
If you can ’ t fire a woman for marrying a man , you can ’ t fire a man for doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of sex , simple as that .
Alito ’ s dissent accuses such rigid textualism of treating laws “ as if they were messages picked up by a powerful radio telescope from a distant and utterly unknown civilization.
” Both justices invoke Antonin Scalia to support their arguments .
Conservatives are split on the question of which justice is the real judicial activist , but both sides agree that in this case the solution is obvious : amend the law .
It would be a curious silver lining to this massive defeat for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be the rollback of the Civil Rights Act , which seemed so unthinkable when Caldwell ’ s book came out in January , a real political possibility .
Once conservatives start thinking about what changes would have to be made to civil rights law before the left ’ s grip on our country ’ s institutions can begin to be loosened , it won ’ t stop with clarifications to the definition of sex .

Six months ago, when journalist Christopher Caldwell published a book asserting that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had grown into a “rival constitution” that superseded the old Constitution, everyone laughed. The New York Times review accused Caldwell of rehashing old segregationist arguments. Singled out for particular ridicule was the sentence on the penultimate page of The Age of Entitlement where Caldwell advises conservatives that “the only way back to the free country of their ideals was through the repeal of the civil rights laws.” How could the fate of American freedom depend on something so radical, and so unlikely, as the repeal of the Civil Rights Act?
No one is laughing now.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, in his majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, has decreed that the anti-discrimination protections afforded to women under Title VII of the CRA must be extended to gays, lesbians, and the transgendered, because all of these are discrimination “on the basis of sex.”
This is not a narrow ruling that just means you can’t fire a person for being gay. Extending civil rights law to protect a whole new category carries with it a host of ancillary protections.
Harassment is a form of workplace discrimination. An employee can’t be subjected to a “hostile work environment” because of their membership in a protected class. Under Bostock, an LGBT employee could allege a hostile work environment if a coworker expressed the wrong opinion about Prop 8 or said he believed a person’s sex is determined at birth. Some employers are already justifying firing workers who won’t use someone’s preferred pronouns because discrimination law requires it. Misgendering, they say, is harassment.
Diversity training is a multi-billion dollar industry because of Title VII. Companies hire consultants to give seminars on “white fragility” not because they are progressive but because it protects them from lawsuits. They have a better chance of prevailing in an employment discrimination case if they can point to diversity training programs as evidence of their commitment to civil rights.
De facto hiring quotas are another inevitable consequence of civil rights law as it has been interpreted. If a company doesn’t employ a minority roughly in proportion to its share of the population, someone from an underrepresented group can use that disparity as evidence that the company discriminated against them. (Gallup estimates that 4.5% of the population is gay.)
It is no use protesting that the text of Title VII doesn’t mandate any of this, or that the Bostock opinion limits itself to outlawing explicit policies against hiring LGBT workers. The whole story of employment discrimination law, from 1964 to today, is an endless parade of new mandates not specified in the statute being hatched by human resources departments, adopted by companies eager to fend off lawsuits, and ultimately incorporated into case law.
Anti-discrimination law is kept vague for precisely this reason. It gives the activists more room to get creative. In the 1970s, the federal Justice Department begged the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to issue a specific rule on how closely a company’s workforce had to match broader community demographics to avoid a discrimination charge (they suggested a cutoff of 80 percent). The EEOC preferred to keep its rule vague.
Title VII doesn’t require performance evaluations, grievance procedures, written job descriptions, speech codes, minority hiring targets, or diversity bonuses—yet all of these have been extrapolated from it. More than 80,000 charges of discrimination are filed with the EEOC in an average year, and tens of thousands of those eventually become lawsuits or five- or six-figure settlements. Employers have good reason to want to act defensively.
And of course the Bostock ruling won’t stay confined to employment law. The majority opinion protests, disingenuously, that “sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes” are “questions for future cases.” But federal law is full of prohibitions on sex discrimination (Justice Alito’s dissent lists over 100 such statutes), and every one of those will have to be reconsidered in light of today’s ruling.
Gorsuch claims that yesterday’s ruling was grounded in judicial modesty. It doesn’t matter that sodomy was illegal in 49 states when the Civil Rights Act was passed, he says. If you can’t fire a woman for marrying a man, you can’t fire a man for doing the same without discriminating on the basis of sex, simple as that. Alito’s dissent accuses such rigid textualism of treating laws “as if they were messages picked up by a powerful radio telescope from a distant and utterly unknown civilization.” Both justices invoke Antonin Scalia to support their arguments.
Conservatives are split on the question of which justice is the real judicial activist, but both sides agree that in this case the solution is obvious: amend the law. It would be a curious silver lining to this massive defeat for conservatives if its ultimate effect were to be the rollback of the Civil Rights Act, which seemed so unthinkable when Caldwell’s book came out in January, a real political possibility. Once conservatives start thinking about what changes would have to be made to civil rights law before the left’s grip on our country’s institutions can begin to be loosened, it won’t stop with clarifications to the definition of sex.


theamericanconservative--2020-06-16--These Conservative Pastors Are Men of Action, and Soul

Meet Pastors Corey Brooks and Jasper Williams .
In the Middle Ages , they might have been called “ fools for Christ.
” The Sermon on the Mount assured that such men were storing up “ treasures in heaven , where moth and rust do not destroy , and where thieves do not break in and steal.
” Equal part pastors , diplomats , and prophets , they are men of action who have turned the conventional narrative about race and poverty on its head in order to strengthen black America .
Some might even call them saints .
Pastor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Beginnings Church on the South Side of Chicago .
The sanctuary sits at 6620 S. King Drive , just south of “ O-Block , ” known as the most dangerous neighborhood in Chicago .
It was the summer of 2011 , and Brooks was tasked with burying yet another victim of gang violence—the city averages over 2,000 shootings per year .
This time , Brooks had had enough .
As he surveyed the congregation , he decided to do something that many pastors do all the time , an altar call .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ people to bend a knee , he sensed that some were carrying illegal firearms in the sanctuary .
He pleaded with his congregation to lay down their weapons .
The room fell silent .
For a moment , he feared for his life .
But then , the silence was broken when a young man came forward and placed his gun on the altar .
After the memorial , he discovered several other guns left beneath the pews by men who had been too ashamed to stand up before the community , yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As he left the church , he looked down the street towards a motel whose presence weighed heavily upon the members of his congregation .
The Super Motel was an epicenter for sex trafficking , drug use , and prostitution .
For the past 18 months , he had led protests with over 100 people on Friday and Saturday evenings , calling on law enforcement to shut down the den of iniquity .
Eventually , Chicago police heeded his request , but the abandoned property still attracted illicit behavior even after its closing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another nudge on his heart similar to the one he felt at the funeral .
The situation required action , and he felt that God was knocking on the door .
He responded by taking to the rooftop of the motel in prayer and protest .
For the next 94 days , during a blisteringly cold Chicago winter , Brooks camped out and refused to come down until he raised $ 450,000 to purchase and demolish the structure .
His efforts attracted national attention , and he was successful in accomplishing his goal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now oversees both his church and a vibrant community center on the site of the old motel , Project H.O.O.D.
, whose mission is to empower community members with the “ tools necessary to become peacemakers , problem solvers , leaders , and entrepreneurs.
” Serving over 2,000 people , his team has helped to launch countless start-ups , provide job training for certified construction workers , start a violence prevention and conflict mediation program , offer financial coaching to thousands , and countless other programs from summer camps to providing a safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evenings .
O-Block is safer on account of his efforts , and he ’ s developed street cred with gang members who respect the investments he ’ s made in the community .
When asked what drives his seemingly endless ambition , Brooks responded with two things : “ I really believe in God and I really do believe that one day I ’ ll have to stand before him and give an account for my time on earth…And then secondly…I want people to see that you can be conservative , and you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be in the hood , and make these principles still work.
” Pastor Jasper Williams took the podium at Greater Grace Temple in Detroit and ignited a powder keg .
It was August of 2018 and the Queen of Soul , Aretha Franklin , was being laid to rest .
The marathon , eight-hour service was attended by an A-list of celebrities and politicians including Ariana Grande , Jennifer Hudson , Whoopi Goldberg , Stevie Wonder , Bill and Hillary Clinton , Eric Holder , Jesse Jackson , and Al Sharpton .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ store .
Williams was a longtime friend of the family , having eulogized Aretha ’ s father , Rev .
C. L. Franklin , a civil rights leader and organizer for Dr. Martin Luther King , Jr. A family tradition , Williams was invited back to pay his respects to Aretha , which he did with aplomb .
What they didn ’ t anticipate , however , was that he ’ d take the occasion—in front of a national audience—to issue a stirring wake up call to black America .
“ Black America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declared .
It was time for the community to “ come back home to God.
” Now Williams is an eloquent orator—and an even better singer—so he seasoned his fiery sermon with sweetness and fatherly affection to build support from his audience , at least up to the point when he revealed his core concerns .
There was a time , he said , when black Americans had their own booming economy .
Segregation was a grave injustice and positive evil , yet it forced the community to depend on each other .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , barber shops , banks , and hotels .
The community was thick .
While integration was the chief accomplishment of the civil rights movement , Williams lamented that it was accompanied by “ the loss of the black economy and the loss of the black man ’ s soul.
” Williams went on to lament that there are no fathers left in black homes and no men around “ to raise a black boy to be a black man.
” A revival of the family , specifically the home , said Williams @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community than any house that “ Big Government ” or “ Big Business ” wants to give them .
In one of his most celebrated and often repeated lines , he proclaimed , “ As the home goes , so goes the street .
As the street goes , so goes the neighborhood .
As the neighborhood goes , so goes the city .
As the city goes , so goes the county .
As the county goes , so goes the state .
As the state goes , so goes the nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goes the world.
” At the pinnacle of his sermon , Williams pushed the boundaries further by grabbing another third rail of American politics : black-on-black crime .
He lamented that nearly 6,000 black people are killed by each other every year , according to a study from the Tuskegee Institute .
“ Do black lives matter ?
” he asked .
“ No , black lives do not , will not , ought not , should not , must not matter until black people start respecting black lives.
” We can hear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today , he concluded , “ It ’ s time now that my race turns around and comes back to God.
” The backlash was fierce .
“ Aretha Franklin ’ s family slams pastor ’ s ‘ very , very distasteful ’ funeral eulogy ” read a headline at USA Today .
NBC wrote that he “ stirs controversy.
” NewsOne called his sermon “ a disgrace.
” And Essence said , “ Many were not happy with the eulogy.
” According to AP News , “ Williams was blasted on social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perpetuation of false science on race.
” Unflinching , Williams stood behind his remarks .
Were these the words of a madman or a prophet ?
Had Williams himself lost touch with the soul of black America ?
Outsiders might ponder these questions , but his actions tell a different story .
Known as “ a man with a heart for the people , ” and “ Son of Thunder ” for his service to the local black community and magnetic preaching , Williams and his son pastor a congregation of approximately 10,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When his flight got back from Detroit , Williams told me that he was heralded as a hero by his congregation .
If anyone is in touch with the needs of the black community , it ’ s Williams .
Born in Memphis , Tennessee , he attended Morehouse College in Atlanta on account of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. , who would later become a friend and even solicit his advice on how to become a more effective preacher .
For the past 70 years , Williams has been preaching and serving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 2014 , after the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson , Missouri , Williams said that “ I heard the voice of God : Something needed to be done…and… [ it ] needed to be done through the church.
” He considered protests and boycotts of white businesses , but after seeking the counsel of a close friend , he chose to call a meeting at the Commerce Club in Atlanta for civic leaders from every county in the metro area .
His goal was to “ turn black America around.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ conducting a listening tour during the next six months , he collected his data and met with Dr. Mary Langley at the Morehouse School of Medicine , who prepared a qualitative analysis of his findings .
The results showed that the three greatest needs in the African-American community were family , home , and parenting .
Over the past six years , he ’ s developed a parenting curriculum that ’ s widely taught in churches and schools in the Atlanta area through his non-profit organization , A.A.C.T.S .
( African-American Churches Transforming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also provides a wide range of services including welfare assistance programs , childcare , counseling , eldercare , and support for single-parent households .
If Williams emphasizes the reforms that can be made at the local level in African-American families , he also acknowledges the legacy of racism , and its impact on the black community .
In his autobiography , It Ain ’ t But One , when discussing the issue of black-on-black crime—the lightning rod that sparked most of the criticism for his eulogy of Aretha Franklin—Williams cites “ covert racism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” as the source of the problem .
He explains that “ the spirit of slavery still lingers ” today .
He notes that “ white slave owners pitted their slaves against each other as a way of keeping them from uniting in opposition to slave holders.
” This “ atmosphere of suspicion , ” he notes , “ was a system of divide and conquer , and its terrible effect can be seen in our culture to this day.
” Nevertheless , when looking for solutions to the grievances voiced by protest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most fruitful place to start is in the home .
What motivates Williams ?
Where does he get the courage to preach with such boldness as he did at Aretha ’ s funeral ?
“ All you got to do is drive through our community and see how destitute our community is , ” he said .
He described the ethos as “ lackadaisical , ” “ apathetic , ” “ nonchalant , ” and lamented that there ’ s “ no desire for true life.
” Their pain is evident , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 1980s , Williams found himself addicted to cocaine while simultaneously trying to pastor his church .
He hid his habit from the congregation , but his life began to spiral out of control .
After battling with the addiction for years , he finally checked himself into rehab .
He ’ s been clean ever since , and his testimony serves as a powerful example to those in his community struggling with the same issue .
The situation on the ground is intolerable .
“ That ’ s drive enough for me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a stigma in the black community against being conservative or Republican .
Presidential candidate Joe Biden , who later apologized for his comments , provided the case in point when he recently stated : “ If you have a problem figuring out whether you ’ re for me or Trump , then you ain ’ t black.
” Pastor Corey Brooks is all too familiar with this presumptuous mindset .
When he surprised his community by endorsing a Republican candidate , Bruce Rauner , for governor of Illinois in 2014 , the costs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imagined .
He received death threats and had to hire private security .
His family had to go into hiding , and his church was broken into and burgled .
Seventy-five percent of his 2,500-member congregation left ( taking their tithes with them ) , and unions were bussed into his neighborhood to protest day after day .
While he was taken aback by the reaction , he can personally relate to their feelings .
When he was a freshman in college , he recalled , a professor wrote a bunch of political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Each student had to identify where they stood .
He found the set of principles that most closely aligned with his values and waited for the professor to reveal the labels .
He “ almost fainted when he saw his views were conservative and Republican.
” His family had always been liberal and Democrat .
How could this be ?
Pastor Jasper Williams , on the other hand , resists labels altogether .
When I asked about his political affiliation during our video interview , he said that “ I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and prefers to call himself a “ theo-crat-con based on what God says about the issues.
” He elaborated on this point by explaining his frustration with how both parties treat African Americans : “ The Democrats take us for granted , and the Republicans don ’ t think enough of us to ask us.
” While Williams eschews partisanship , there ’ s no question that his views about the family and personal responsibility align more closely with beliefs conventionally held by conservatives than by liberals .
When I pressed Brooks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following principles : “ fiscal responsibility , ” “ less governmental involvement , ” “ family focused , ” “ entrepreneurship and free enterprise , ” and “ not need [ ing ] all these social programs…to succeed.
” Brooks notes that “ Blacks embody conservatism…we have conservative views and thoughts , but it doesn ’ t translate into our political party affiliation.
” For example , the church is a recognized source of authority in black neighborhoods , even for those who do not attend services regularly .
And the importance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ widely esteemed in their communities .
In short , black conservatism is a way of life more than an ideology .
As I spoke with Brooks , I was curious about his thoughts on the ideological shifts that have taken place on the Right since Trump ’ s election in 2016 .
Many have talked about a conservative realignment on issues like the Iraq war , immigration , and globalization .
Mitt Romney ’ s platform looked a lot different than Donald Trump ’ s .
The party of hedge fund managers became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many have claimed .
Did he identify with one brand of conservatism more than the other ?
Brooks told me that the “ workingman ’ s message is more appealing… [ but ] Trump himself makes it hard for the message to be received.
” Reflecting on the issue of globalization , he said that it became hard for families to take care of themselves when they lost the strong economic bases in their communities .
He also noted that “ a lot of African Americans do believe that… [ on account of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of jobs that young African Americans could have , they ’ re not available.
” He discussed the pervasive myth among American elites that “ nobody wants those jobs anyway.
” He rejects that notion emphatically , saying “ that ’ s not true , ” and personally knows many people who would do these types of jobs if they had the opportunity .
When I asked Williams about the shifts in conservatism , he was more measured .
While he agreed with Brooks ’ s analysis about the economic impact of immigration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ too harsh and hard on keeping people out , ” and that we should encourage immigration provided it ’ s done legally .
And he noted that , when it comes to healthcare , it seems like Republicans “ don ’ t have a plan.
” On foreign policy , however , he acknowledged that Trump may have been right to a degree : “ we have been too involved in other nations ’ business.
” Where did it all go wrong ?
Both pastors pointed to the period immediately following the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Luther King Jr. , Williams said , “ You can ’ t judge a man out of his times .
Martin Luther King contributed a lot to the aggrandizement of the African-American community .
No question about that .
But with us looking back , we have 20/20 vision.
” The civil rights movement accomplished many good things ; however , the loss of the black economy and black-owned business that followed had far reaching consequences .
Brooks points to liberal policy : “ Government got too involved…in our families , and they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there are “ underlying racial issues ” that disparately affect blacks , “ but even more so it ’ s about poverty.
” He complained that all of America ’ s largest cities have the same issues affecting African Americans , and they are all run by Democrats : “ High unemployment , ” “ high incarceration , ” “ lack of businesses , ” “ high single-parent households , ” and “ high abortion ” rates .
He was very excited to see Republicans pick up the criminal justice reform issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real important…we have a lot of people who were incarcerated for way too much time for non-violent offenses.
” He blames Clinton and Biden-era liberals for locking up a lot of men .
“ Hillary Clinton called them predators , ” he said .
Their policies “ led to them [ black men ] being locked up more than anybody.
” Williams had a slightly different take on the criminal justice issue .
“ If we change the culture of black America through parenting it would eliminate the justice system from being tilted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says .
Politics is downstream of culture .
Focus on the home and the politics will take care of itself .
When asked about the upcoming election , Brooks said that Joe Biden is popular “ only because of one person : Obama…He gets the black card because [ of ] Obama.
” Despite Biden ’ s success in the primaries with black voters , however , he thinks that he could lose the black vote the more that the incarceration issue is discussed on the campaign trail or at the debates .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ pulling the lever for Republicans .
While Brooks said that “ I wish they would go out and vote for Trump and conservative values , ” disenchantment with Biden over the crime issue is more likely to lead to them staying home , driving low voter turnout in black neighborhoods .
What about Kanye West ?
Perhaps the most influential black entertainer on the planet , and now , a Trump supporter .
Brooks said , “ I like Kayne , ” specifically , “ I appreciate his transformation .
I like what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he ’ s being vocal about it .
Speaking out about some of the ills of the music industry…I like that he ’ s talking about some conservative principles , especially as it relates to mass incarceration.
” Are Brooks ’ s views about Kayne widespread in his local community ?
Not so fast .
“ They think Kanye is crazy , but [ he ] gets a pass because he ’ s a major entertainer , and he has great wealth.
” If someone with Kayne ’ s status and cultural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rightward turn , Brooks and Williams face nearly insurmountable odds—at least as far as politics is concerned .
Thankfully for their communities , and the country , their message is bigger than politics .
What does the Gospel mean to you ?
The answer that both men gave surprised me .
Ask that question in other circles and you ’ re bound to get a lengthy explanation about different theories of the atonement .
For them , the answer was simple : action .
Pastor Brooks responded with enthusiasm : “ Living it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loving God but it ’ s also about loving your neighbor .
The Gospel has to be translated into action.
” Similarly , Pastor Williams noted , “ Seeing the need and then doing something to fulfill the need that you see.
” Regardless of their politics , this is what makes their ministries so powerful .
Both men possess seemingly boundless energy and unflinching courage .
They ’ ve set out to change the world family by family and block by block .
Their goal is to build a nationwide movement to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poverty by strengthening families , teaching job skills and entrepreneurship , and providing a place of refuge for those seeking to escape gang violence .
Conservatives like to retreat to seminars and conferences to debate ideology .
While Brooks and Williams could no doubt hold their own in such a setting , they ’ ve taken a different path .
Being men of action , they chose to spend their time building institutions that will continue to meet the spiritual , material , and intellectual needs of their communities long after they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to think in terms of election cycles , be it two years or four years .
Brooks and Williams take the long view .
What they ’ ve built will pay dividends for a century .
In light of the ephemerality of our politics , we could learn from their example .
This article was originally published in the July/August 2020 issue of The American Conservative .
John A. Burtka IV is the executive director and acting editor of The American Conservative .

Meet Pastors Corey Brooks and Jasper Williams. In the Middle Ages, they might have been called “fools for Christ.” The Sermon on the Mount assured that such men were storing up “treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.” Equal part pastors, diplomats, and prophets, they are men of action who have turned the conventional narrative about race and poverty on its head in order to strengthen black America. Some might even call them saints.
Pastor Corey Brooks stood at the altar of New Beginnings Church on the South Side of Chicago. The sanctuary sits at 6620 S. King Drive, just south of “O-Block,” known as the most dangerous neighborhood in Chicago. It was the summer of 2011, and Brooks was tasked with burying yet another victim of gang violence—the city averages over 2,000 shootings per year. This time, Brooks had had enough.
As he surveyed the congregation, he decided to do something that many pastors do all the time, an altar call. But this time, instead of asking people to bend a knee, he sensed that some were carrying illegal firearms in the sanctuary. He pleaded with his congregation to lay down their weapons. The room fell silent. For a moment, he feared for his life. But then, the silence was broken when a young man came forward and placed his gun on the altar. After the memorial, he discovered several other guns left beneath the pews by men who had been too ashamed to stand up before the community, yet clearly wanted to amend their lives.
As he left the church, he looked down the street towards a motel whose presence weighed heavily upon the members of his congregation. The Super Motel was an epicenter for sex trafficking, drug use, and prostitution. For the past 18 months, he had led protests with over 100 people on Friday and Saturday evenings, calling on law enforcement to shut down the den of iniquity. Eventually, Chicago police heeded his request, but the abandoned property still attracted illicit behavior even after its closing.
That’s when Brooks felt another nudge on his heart similar to the one he felt at the funeral. The situation required action, and he felt that God was knocking on the door. He responded by taking to the rooftop of the motel in prayer and protest. For the next 94 days, during a blisteringly cold Chicago winter, Brooks camped out and refused to come down until he raised $450,000 to purchase and demolish the structure. His efforts attracted national attention, and he was successful in accomplishing his goal.
Fast forward to 2020: Brooks now oversees both his church and a vibrant community center on the site of the old motel, Project H.O.O.D., whose mission is to empower community members with the “tools necessary to become peacemakers, problem solvers, leaders, and entrepreneurs.” Serving over 2,000 people, his team has helped to launch countless start-ups, provide job training for certified construction workers, start a violence prevention and conflict mediation program, offer financial coaching to thousands, and countless other programs from summer camps to providing a safe place for teens to gather on Friday evenings.
O-Block is safer on account of his efforts, and he’s developed street cred with gang members who respect the investments he’s made in the community. When asked what drives his seemingly endless ambition, Brooks responded with two things: “I really believe in God and I really do believe that one day I’ll have to stand before him and give an account for my time on earth…And then secondly…I want people to see that you can be conservative, and you can be black, and you can be in the hood, and make these principles still work.”
♦♦♦
Pastor Jasper Williams took the podium at Greater Grace Temple in Detroit and ignited a powder keg. It was August of 2018 and the Queen of Soul, Aretha Franklin, was being laid to rest. The marathon, eight-hour service was attended by an A-list of celebrities and politicians including Ariana Grande, Jennifer Hudson, Whoopi Goldberg, Stevie Wonder, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton. They did not know what Williams had in store.
Williams was a longtime friend of the family, having eulogized Aretha’s father, Rev. C. L. Franklin, a civil rights leader and organizer for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. A family tradition, Williams was invited back to pay his respects to Aretha, which he did with aplomb. What they didn’t anticipate, however, was that he’d take the occasion—in front of a national audience—to issue a stirring wake up call to black America.
“Black America has lost its soul,” he declared. It was time for the community to “come back home to God.” Now Williams is an eloquent orator—and an even better singer—so he seasoned his fiery sermon with sweetness and fatherly affection to build support from his audience, at least up to the point when he revealed his core concerns.
There was a time, he said, when black Americans had their own booming economy. Segregation was a grave injustice and positive evil, yet it forced the community to depend on each other. Black Americans owned their own grocery stores, barber shops, banks, and hotels. The community was thick. While integration was the chief accomplishment of the civil rights movement, Williams lamented that it was accompanied by “the loss of the black economy and the loss of the black man’s soul.”
Williams went on to lament that there are no fathers left in black homes and no men around “to raise a black boy to be a black man.” A revival of the family, specifically the home, said Williams, would mean more to the black community than any house that “Big Government” or “Big Business” wants to give them. In one of his most celebrated and often repeated lines, he proclaimed, “As the home goes, so goes the street. As the street goes, so goes the neighborhood. As the neighborhood goes, so goes the city. As the city goes, so goes the county. As the county goes, so goes the state. As the state goes, so goes the nation. As the nation goes, so goes the world.”
At the pinnacle of his sermon, Williams pushed the boundaries further by grabbing another third rail of American politics: black-on-black crime. He lamented that nearly 6,000 black people are killed by each other every year, according to a study from the Tuskegee Institute. “Do black lives matter?” he asked. “No, black lives do not, will not, ought not, should not, must not matter until black people start respecting black lives.” We can hear Aretha’s voice speaking to us today, he concluded, “It’s time now that my race turns around and comes back to God.”
The backlash was fierce. “Aretha Franklin’s family slams pastor’s ‘very, very distasteful’ funeral eulogy” read a headline at USA Today. NBC wrote that he “stirs controversy.” NewsOne called his sermon “a disgrace.” And Essence said, “Many were not happy with the eulogy.” According to AP News, “Williams was blasted on social media for misogyny, bigotry and the perpetuation of false science on race.” Unflinching, Williams stood behind his remarks.
Were these the words of a madman or a prophet? Had Williams himself lost touch with the soul of black America? Outsiders might ponder these questions, but his actions tell a different story. Known as “a man with a heart for the people,” and “Son of Thunder” for his service to the local black community and magnetic preaching, Williams and his son pastor a congregation of approximately 10,000 people at two locations in Atlanta. When his flight got back from Detroit, Williams told me that he was heralded as a hero by his congregation.
If anyone is in touch with the needs of the black community, it’s Williams. Born in Memphis, Tennessee, he attended Morehouse College in Atlanta on account of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who would later become a friend and even solicit his advice on how to become a more effective preacher. For the past 70 years, Williams has been preaching and serving his community week in and week out.
In 2014, after the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Williams said that “I heard the voice of God: Something needed to be done…and…[it] needed to be done through the church.” He considered protests and boycotts of white businesses, but after seeking the counsel of a close friend, he chose to call a meeting at the Commerce Club in Atlanta for civic leaders from every county in the metro area.
His goal was to “turn black America around.” After hearing from community leaders and conducting a listening tour during the next six months, he collected his data and met with Dr. Mary Langley at the Morehouse School of Medicine, who prepared a qualitative analysis of his findings. The results showed that the three greatest needs in the African-American community were family, home, and parenting.
Over the past six years, he’s developed a parenting curriculum that’s widely taught in churches and schools in the Atlanta area through his non-profit organization, A.A.C.T.S. (African-American Churches Transforming Society). Furthermore, his church also provides a wide range of services including welfare assistance programs, childcare, counseling, eldercare, and support for single-parent households.
If Williams emphasizes the reforms that can be made at the local level in African-American families, he also acknowledges the legacy of racism, and its impact on the black community. In his autobiography, It Ain’t But One, when discussing the issue of black-on-black crime—the lightning rod that sparked most of the criticism for his eulogy of Aretha Franklin—Williams cites “covert racism,” more than “overt racism” as the source of the problem. He explains that “the spirit of slavery still lingers” today. He notes that “white slave owners pitted their slaves against each other as a way of keeping them from uniting in opposition to slave holders.” This “atmosphere of suspicion,” he notes, “was a system of divide and conquer, and its terrible effect can be seen in our culture to this day.” Nevertheless, when looking for solutions to the grievances voiced by protest movements today, he believes that the most fruitful place to start is in the home.
What motivates Williams? Where does he get the courage to preach with such boldness as he did at Aretha’s funeral? “All you got to do is drive through our community and see how destitute our community is,” he said. He described the ethos as “lackadaisical,” “apathetic,” “nonchalant,” and lamented that there’s “no desire for true life.” Their pain is evident, and Williams understands it first hand. In the 1980s, Williams found himself addicted to cocaine while simultaneously trying to pastor his church. He hid his habit from the congregation, but his life began to spiral out of control. After battling with the addiction for years, he finally checked himself into rehab. He’s been clean ever since, and his testimony serves as a powerful example to those in his community struggling with the same issue. The situation on the ground is intolerable. “That’s drive enough for me,” he concluded.
♦♦♦
There is a stigma in the black community against being conservative or Republican. Presidential candidate Joe Biden, who later apologized for his comments, provided the case in point when he recently stated: “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”
Pastor Corey Brooks is all too familiar with this presumptuous mindset. When he surprised his community by endorsing a Republican candidate, Bruce Rauner, for governor of Illinois in 2014, the costs were beyond anything he could have ever imagined. He received death threats and had to hire private security. His family had to go into hiding, and his church was broken into and burgled. Seventy-five percent of his 2,500-member congregation left (taking their tithes with them), and unions were bussed into his neighborhood to protest day after day.
While he was taken aback by the reaction, he can personally relate to their feelings. When he was a freshman in college, he recalled, a professor wrote a bunch of political positions on the board without any labels. Each student had to identify where they stood. He found the set of principles that most closely aligned with his values and waited for the professor to reveal the labels. He “almost fainted when he saw his views were conservative and Republican.” His family had always been liberal and Democrat. How could this be?
Pastor Jasper Williams, on the other hand, resists labels altogether. When I asked about his political affiliation during our video interview, he said that “I’m not a Democrat or a Republican,” and prefers to call himself a “theo-crat-con based on what God says about the issues.” He elaborated on this point by explaining his frustration with how both parties treat African Americans: “The Democrats take us for granted, and the Republicans don’t think enough of us to ask us.” While Williams eschews partisanship, there’s no question that his views about the family and personal responsibility align more closely with beliefs conventionally held by conservatives than by liberals.
When I pressed Brooks to define conservatism, he gave the following principles: “fiscal responsibility,” “less governmental involvement,” “family focused,” “entrepreneurship and free enterprise,” and “not need[ing] all these social programs…to succeed.” Brooks notes that “Blacks embody conservatism…we have conservative views and thoughts, but it doesn’t translate into our political party affiliation.” For example, the church is a recognized source of authority in black neighborhoods, even for those who do not attend services regularly. And the importance of family, and intergenerational bonds, is widely esteemed in their communities. In short, black conservatism is a way of life more than an ideology.
As I spoke with Brooks, I was curious about his thoughts on the ideological shifts that have taken place on the Right since Trump’s election in 2016. Many have talked about a conservative realignment on issues like the Iraq war, immigration, and globalization. Mitt Romney’s platform looked a lot different than Donald Trump’s. The party of hedge fund managers became the Republican Workers Party, or so many have claimed. Did he identify with one brand of conservatism more than the other?
Brooks told me that the “workingman’s message is more appealing…[but] Trump himself makes it hard for the message to be received.” Reflecting on the issue of globalization, he said that it became hard for families to take care of themselves when they lost the strong economic bases in their communities. He also noted that “a lot of African Americans do believe that…[on account of] being so loose with immigration…a lot of jobs that young African Americans could have, they’re not available.” He discussed the pervasive myth among American elites that “nobody wants those jobs anyway.” He rejects that notion emphatically, saying “that’s not true,” and personally knows many people who would do these types of jobs if they had the opportunity.
When I asked Williams about the shifts in conservatism, he was more measured. While he agreed with Brooks’s analysis about the economic impact of immigration, he thought that the GOP was “too harsh and hard on keeping people out,” and that we should encourage immigration provided it’s done legally. And he noted that, when it comes to healthcare, it seems like Republicans “don’t have a plan.” On foreign policy, however, he acknowledged that Trump may have been right to a degree: “we have been too involved in other nations’ business.”
Where did it all go wrong? Both pastors pointed to the period immediately following the civil rights era. Speaking of Martin Luther King Jr., Williams said, “You can’t judge a man out of his times. Martin Luther King contributed a lot to the aggrandizement of the African-American community. No question about that. But with us looking back, we have 20/20 vision.” The civil rights movement accomplished many good things; however, the loss of the black economy and black-owned business that followed had far reaching consequences.
Brooks points to liberal policy: “Government got too involved…in our families, and they started to fall apart.” He acknowledged that there are “underlying racial issues” that disparately affect blacks, “but even more so it’s about poverty.” He complained that all of America’s largest cities have the same issues affecting African Americans, and they are all run by Democrats: “High unemployment,” “high incarceration,” “lack of businesses,” “high single-parent households,” and “high abortion” rates.
He was very excited to see Republicans pick up the criminal justice reform issue, saying that it’s “real important…we have a lot of people who were incarcerated for way too much time for non-violent offenses.” He blames Clinton and Biden-era liberals for locking up a lot of men. “Hillary Clinton called them predators,” he said. Their policies “led to them [black men] being locked up more than anybody.” Williams had a slightly different take on the criminal justice issue. “If we change the culture of black America through parenting it would eliminate the justice system from being tilted the way it is,” he says. Politics is downstream of culture. Focus on the home and the politics will take care of itself.
When asked about the upcoming election, Brooks said that Joe Biden is popular “only because of one person: Obama…He gets the black card because [of] Obama.” Despite Biden’s success in the primaries with black voters, however, he thinks that he could lose the black vote the more that the incarceration issue is discussed on the campaign trail or at the debates. But don’t count on them pulling the lever for Republicans. While Brooks said that “I wish they would go out and vote for Trump and conservative values,” disenchantment with Biden over the crime issue is more likely to lead to them staying home, driving low voter turnout in black neighborhoods.
What about Kanye West? Perhaps the most influential black entertainer on the planet, and now, a Trump supporter. Brooks said, “I like Kayne,” specifically, “I appreciate his transformation. I like what he’s trying to do, that he’s being vocal about it. Speaking out about some of the ills of the music industry…I like that he’s talking about some conservative principles, especially as it relates to mass incarceration.” Are Brooks’s views about Kayne widespread in his local community? Not so fast. “They think Kanye is crazy, but [he] gets a pass because he’s a major entertainer, and he has great wealth.”
If someone with Kayne’s status and cultural capital is nevertheless written off for his rightward turn, Brooks and Williams face nearly insurmountable odds—at least as far as politics is concerned. Thankfully for their communities, and the country, their message is bigger than politics.
♦♦♦
What does the Gospel mean to you? The answer that both men gave surprised me. Ask that question in other circles and you’re bound to get a lengthy explanation about different theories of the atonement. For them, the answer was simple: action.
Pastor Brooks responded with enthusiasm: “Living it out in the flesh…It’s about loving God but it’s also about loving your neighbor. The Gospel has to be translated into action.” Similarly, Pastor Williams noted, “Seeing the need and then doing something to fulfill the need that you see.”
Regardless of their politics, this is what makes their ministries so powerful. Both men possess seemingly boundless energy and unflinching courage. They’ve set out to change the world family by family and block by block. Their goal is to build a nationwide movement to provide resources for black communities to fight poverty by strengthening families, teaching job skills and entrepreneurship, and providing a place of refuge for those seeking to escape gang violence.
Conservatives like to retreat to seminars and conferences to debate ideology. While Brooks and Williams could no doubt hold their own in such a setting, they’ve taken a different path. Being men of action, they chose to spend their time building institutions that will continue to meet the spiritual, material, and intellectual needs of their communities long after they’re gone.
Those in politics like to think in terms of election cycles, be it two years or four years. Brooks and Williams take the long view. What they’ve built will pay dividends for a century. In light of the ephemerality of our politics, we could learn from their example.
This article was originally published in the July/August 2020 issue of The American Conservative.
John A. Burtka IV is the executive director and acting editor of The American Conservative.


theamericanconservative--2020-06-16--These Black Conservative Pastors Are Men of Action, and Soul


theamericanconservative--2020-06-17--The Killing of George Floyd is America’s Dreyfus Affair

Culture war is often derided as an American innovation , but as with so many things , the French got there first .
From 1897 to 1899 , France was torn apart by the arrest and trial of Alfred Dreyfus , a Jewish staff officer who was wrongly accused of spying for the Germans .
Now a minor historical footnote , the Dreyfus Affair was once an all-consuming controversy that divided a country and captivated politicians , journalists , and intellectuals across Europe .
Historical analogies can be crude and imprecise , but there are some irresistible parallels between Dreyfus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ followed the killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer .
The United States finds itself in the position of France , a declining power that still has immense cultural sway .
Our domestic culture war has gone global , inspiring protests as far afield as Dublin , Berlin , and Mexico City , just as foreign observers once obsessed over the spectacle of France at war with itself .
But the most striking parallel is the depth and intensity of the cultural animosities on both sides , who are not fighting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visions .
In The Proud Tower , Barbara Tuchman writes that Dreyfus , never a particularly notable personality to begin with , became an “ abstraction ” to his supporters and detractors .
She summarized the stakes of the Affair thusly : It is hard to think of a more apt comparison to the current moment .
The language of existential conflict was mainstreamed on the American right by the 2016 election .
A now-infamous essay , “ The Flight 93 Election , ” compared voting for Donald Trump to a desperate attempt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 9/11 terrorists .
On the left , the incremental liberalism of the Obama administration has given way to something more radical , a thoroughgoing critique of American institutions and history that suggests—and sometimes says outright—that revolutionary change is the only path forward .
From health care , where plans for universal coverage have supplanted the modest reformism of Obamacare , to the American War for Independence , which has been reimagined by The New York Times as a struggle to preserve slavery , the trend is unmistakable .
The killing of George Floyd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relief .
On the left , the slogan du jour is “ Defund the Police , ” a call to action that would have been dismissed as crankish or absurd just a few years ago ( indeed , a common complaint prior to Floyd ’ s death was that minority communities suffer from a toxic combination of intermittent , state-sanctioned brutality and under-policing ) .
But abolishing police departments isn ’ t a platform—it ’ s a provocation .
There could be no peace between the France of the Counter-Revolution and the France @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no reconciling conservatives who still revere America ’ s history and institutions and a newly ascendant left that questions their very legitimacy .
The liberalism of yesteryear , which emphasized fealty to the country ’ s ideals while pressing the urgency of reform , seems antiquated and obsolete .
In 1897 , the Affair was fueled by the popular press , creating a feverish environment that anticipated our own obsession with social media .
The claims and counter-claims of the Dreyfusards and their opponents were amplified until the institutional legitimacy of the French @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Dreyfus by refusing to admit error , was on trial .
“ It was the press which created the Affair and made truce impossible , ” writes Tuchman .
From reactionary monarchists to revolutionary anarchists , every fringe political faction had its own public bullhorn .
This journalistic free-for-all has since been replaced by the insanity-inducing algorithms of Twitter , Facebook , and Instagram .
Outrageous video clips and inflammatory quotes , often edited or ripped out of context , are circulated online in the same manner that Frenchmen once passed around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ final parallel between the Dreyfus Affair and our current moment that is particularly frightening .
“ Give me combat ” was the battle cry of a prominent Dreyfusard , a sentiment surely felt by many quarantine-weary Americans , who have been primed for confrontation by a toxic combination of social media , unevenly distributed prosperity , and a certain disenchantment with bloodless late-period liberalism .
A Frenchman of La Belle Epoque , another era characterized by inequality and ideological upheaval , would have understood our predicament .
But that glamorous and uneasy period @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killing fields of Flanders .
In 1914 , the French Army marched to war in its traditional red trousers , confident that Plan 17 , a mad dash into the teeth of German fortifications in Alsace-Lorraine , would carry the day .
The terrible slaughter that followed was far more consequential than any of the petty disputes of the pre-war era .
Dreyfus was a harbinger of an impending catastrophe .
It is hard to escape the feeling that our own culture war is merely a prelude to something far more destructive .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives and works in Eger , Hungary .

Culture war is often derided as an American innovation, but as with so many things, the French got there first. From 1897 to 1899, France was torn apart by the arrest and trial of Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish staff officer who was wrongly accused of spying for the Germans. Now a minor historical footnote, the Dreyfus Affair was once an all-consuming controversy that divided a country and captivated politicians, journalists, and intellectuals across Europe.
Historical analogies can be crude and imprecise, but there are some irresistible parallels between Dreyfus’s ordeal and the eruptions that followed the killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. The United States finds itself in the position of France, a declining power that still has immense cultural sway. Our domestic culture war has gone global, inspiring protests as far afield as Dublin, Berlin, and Mexico City, just as foreign observers once obsessed over the spectacle of France at war with itself.
But the most striking parallel is the depth and intensity of the cultural animosities on both sides, who are not fighting over policy proposals but profoundly different political visions. In The Proud Tower, Barbara Tuchman writes that Dreyfus, never a particularly notable personality to begin with, became an “abstraction” to his supporters and detractors. She summarized the stakes of the Affair thusly:
Each side fought for an idea, its idea of France: one the France of Counter-Revolution, the other the France of 1789, one for its last chance to arrest progressive social tendencies and restore the old values; the other to cleanse the honor of the Republic and preserve it from the clutches of reaction.
It is hard to think of a more apt comparison to the current moment. The language of existential conflict was mainstreamed on the American right by the 2016 election. A now-infamous essay, “The Flight 93 Election,” compared voting for Donald Trump to a desperate attempt to retake a hijacked plane from the 9/11 terrorists. On the left, the incremental liberalism of the Obama administration has given way to something more radical, a thoroughgoing critique of American institutions and history that suggests—and sometimes says outright—that revolutionary change is the only path forward. From health care, where plans for universal coverage have supplanted the modest reformism of Obamacare, to the American War for Independence, which has been reimagined by The New York Times as a struggle to preserve slavery, the trend is unmistakable.
The killing of George Floyd has thrown this existential conflict into stark relief. On the left, the slogan du jour is “Defund the Police,” a call to action that would have been dismissed as crankish or absurd just a few years ago (indeed, a common complaint prior to Floyd’s death was that minority communities suffer from a toxic combination of intermittent, state-sanctioned brutality and under-policing). But abolishing police departments isn’t a platform—it’s a provocation. There could be no peace between the France of the Counter-Revolution and the France of 1789, just as there is no reconciling conservatives who still revere America’s history and institutions and a newly ascendant left that questions their very legitimacy. The liberalism of yesteryear, which emphasized fealty to the country’s ideals while pressing the urgency of reform, seems antiquated and obsolete.
In 1897, the Affair was fueled by the popular press, creating a feverish environment that anticipated our own obsession with social media. The claims and counter-claims of the Dreyfusards and their opponents were amplified until the institutional legitimacy of the French army, which compounded its wrongful conviction of Dreyfus by refusing to admit error, was on trial.
“It was the press which created the Affair and made truce impossible,” writes Tuchman. From reactionary monarchists to revolutionary anarchists, every fringe political faction had its own public bullhorn. This journalistic free-for-all has since been replaced by the insanity-inducing algorithms of Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. Outrageous video clips and inflammatory quotes, often edited or ripped out of context, are circulated online in the same manner that Frenchmen once passed around broadsheets and editorials.
There is one final parallel between the Dreyfus Affair and our current moment that is particularly frightening. “Give me combat” was the battle cry of a prominent Dreyfusard, a sentiment surely felt by many quarantine-weary Americans, who have been primed for confrontation by a toxic combination of social media, unevenly distributed prosperity, and a certain disenchantment with bloodless late-period liberalism. A Frenchman of La Belle Epoque, another era characterized by inequality and ideological upheaval, would have understood our predicament.
But that glamorous and uneasy period eventually came to an end on the killing fields of Flanders. In 1914, the French Army marched to war in its traditional red trousers, confident that Plan 17, a mad dash into the teeth of German fortifications in Alsace-Lorraine, would carry the day. The terrible slaughter that followed was far more consequential than any of the petty disputes of the pre-war era. Dreyfus was a harbinger of an impending catastrophe. It is hard to escape the feeling that our own culture war is merely a prelude to something far more destructive.
Will Collins is an English teacher who lives and works in Eger, Hungary.