theamericanconservative--2020-01-24--How Washington Is Ramming REAL ID Down Our Throats

For years both conservative and liberal states resisted it .
But now it 's here and the punishments for non-compliance begin .
Paulette Renault-Caragianes is disappointed that the local DMV induced her to renew her license early , only to find out it will be outdated by the Real ID in 2020 .
( Photo by Craig F. Walker/The Boston Globe via Getty Images ) Being a patriotic citizen and a former Boy Scout , I recently answered the summons to my local Motor Vehicle Administration ( MVA ) office to deliver a stash of documents to comply with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Maryland claimed to be unsure who I was though they never hesitate to cash my property tax payments .
Nor did my local government doubt my authenticity when they sent me a ticket from a red light camera from an intersection where the yellow light was quicker than a cat ’ s somersault .
Even though I was aware of REAL ID perils , I showed up at a local MVA .
at the appointed time .
The MVA clerk quickly discovered that , while my driver ’ s license and passport @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the IRS Form 1099s I provided her identified me as “ Jim ” —a well-known ploy by terrorist groups .
Luckily , I brought a heap of documents and found a few 1099s with “ James.
” Otherwise , I might still be in Identity Purgatory .
Actually , I probably would have ignored the summons except that Maryland is revoking thousands—if not tens of thousands —of driver ’ s licenses of people who fail to obey the MVA ’ s latest document demands , notwithstanding the MVA employees ’ crime wave .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ controversial since its 2005 enactment in the wake of the 9/11 attacks , and fiercely opposed by both conservatives and liberals .
Twenty-five states passed resolutions objecting to the law or signaling that they would not comply .
The Electronic Frontier Foundation declared in 2007 , “ A federal law that aims to conscript the states into creating a national ID system… is precisely the kind of scheme that the framers expected that federalism would guard against.
” But the Department of Homeland Security has compelled submission by announcing that the Transportation Security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have either a REAL ID Act-approved driver ’ s license or a passport .
The Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that the “ ‘ constitutional right to travel from one State to another ’ is firmly embedded in our jurisprudence.
” But REAL ID Act policies have routinely scorned both the Bill of Rights and Supreme Court rulings .
Most Americans do not possess passports , so federally-approved state driver ’ s licenses are becoming de facto internal passports .
Almost a hundred million Americans do not have REAL ID-compliant identification , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In Minnesota , 11 percent of drivers still have licenses that will be rejected at TSA checkpoints starting on October 1 .
States and individuals are chaotically scrambling to meet the law ’ s shifting demands .
Twitter is echoing with howls of people who spend hours at motor vehicle administration offices only to have their paperwork rejected because of picayune quibbles .
But the REAL ID law poses perils far beyond the airport entrance .
Maryland began issuing REAL ID driver ’ s licenses in 2009 .
In 2017 , the Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its REAL ID licenses were invalid unless Maryland snared more documents for each driver .
More than half a million drivers remain at risk for losing their licenses .
TheWashington Post reported in August that 8,000 Maryland licenses have been suspended .
Three months earlier , MVA announced that 66,300 people were at risk of having their driver ’ s license or identification cards revoked for failure to comply with MVA demands .
As Maryland ramps up enforcement , the number of suspended licenses is probably far higher now but MVA spokespersons failed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the latest number .
Maryland police are seizing the license of any driver who they stop whose only offense was failure to hustle to show Maryland bureaucrats their birth certificate , passport , utility bills , Social Security card , or other proof of their identity .
Since the 2005 enactment of the REAL ID Act , the federal government has helped bankroll the license plate scanner networks that permit tracking any driver on the roads in many parts of the nation .
If Maryland decides to target people who received cancellation notices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scanners deployed in police cars and elsewhere in the state that compile almost half a billion scans of driver ’ s per year .
If the order is given to use the scanners , a thousand people a day could be stripped of their licenses and potentially arrested .
MVA spokespersons failed to respond to inquiries about whether license plate scanners may be used for enforcing REAL ID compliance demands .
The REAL ID Act specifies a “ mandatory facial image capture ” for every applicant for a driver ’ s license which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a transferable format.
” As Techdirt recently reported , “ Federal investigators have turned state Department of Motor Vehicles databases into the bedrock of an unprecedented surveillance infrastructure.
” The FBI is regularly tapping into databases with more than 600 million facial photos .
But citizens have nothing to fear because , as the FBI ’ s Kimberly Del Greco recently testified to Congress , facial recognition technology is critical ‘ ‘ to preserve our nation ’ s freedoms , ensure our liberties are protected , and preserve our security.
’ ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s example to appease apprehensions on potential abuses of facial recognition regimes .
National ID cards will do far more to control than to protect Americans .
The REAL ID Act could enable the feds to demand far more information in the future .
If Maryland or other states have the prerogative to cancel driver ’ s licenses because of federal demands for people to show up with their passports or birth certificates , there is nothing to prevent future cancellations of licenses for people who balk at providing DNA samples or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department just proposed to begin collecting DNA from anyone ( including U.S. citizens ) detained at the U.S. border—an estimated 740,000 people a year .
If another major terrorist attack occurred within the U.S. , politicians would likely again stampede to grant any demands made by the FBI , DHS , and other federal agencies .
The biggest folly would be to presume that data roundups spurred by REAL ID and other federal policies will somehow keep Americans safe .
Centralizing personal data in vast databases increases the profits and risks of identity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testify .
Federal prosecutors snared a guilty plea in August involving a scheme involving two MVA employees who got kickbacks to create fraudulent licenses for illegal aliens .
In 2015 , a former long-term MVA employee was sentenced to prison after she was caught issuing fraudulent driver ’ s licenses bearing the photos of her co-conspirators and “ the names of real people , including victims who were citizens of Colombia and Puerto Rico , ” according to the U.S. Justice Department .
In 2012 , a former MVA employee pled guilty to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ driver ’ s licenses for illegal aliens .
In 2011 , a former MVA senior document examiner was sentenced to two years in prison for conspiring to produce and transfer fraudulent driver ’ s licenses .
Also in 2011 , two former MVA employees were sentenced to prison for their role in unlawfully producing and transferring Maryland driver ’ s licenses , primarily to illegal aliens .
In 2009 , a former MVA employee pleaded guilty to taking payments for illegally producing and transferring Maryland driver ’ s licenses .
Also in 2009 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a scheme creating fraudulent licenses which included “ inventing false driver ’ s license information from other states.
” In 2008 , a former MVA employee was sentenced to two years in prison for his “ conspiracy to produce and transfer over 100 unlawfully produced [ MVA ] identification documents .
In 2007 , an MVA employee pled guilty for her role inselling over fake driver ’ s licenses .
( To be fair , most MVA employees have never been indicted by federal grand juries . )
Massive databases of personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candor of the FBI or the competence of the TSA ( which misses up to 80 percent of the weapons and mock bombs testers take through checkpoints ) .
TSA agents are so lunkheaded that they routinely hassle people with driver ’ s licenses from the District of Columbia—as if that was a foreign country .
There is no reason to presume that the REAL ID regime will not produce the same type of identity thefts that have long afflicted over federal personal data systems .
REAL ID compliance debacles later this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bureaucrats and politicians claim they could never have anticipated .
The biggest REAL ID fraud is that Americans will be more secure after the feds again decimated their privacy .
James Bovard is the author of Lost Rights , Attention Deficit Democracy , and Public Policy Hooligan .
He is also a USA Today columnist .
Follow him on Twitter @ JimBovard .

Being a patriotic citizen and a former Boy Scout, I recently answered the summons to my local Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) office to deliver a stash of documents to comply with the federal REAL ID Act.
The state of Maryland claimed to be unsure who I was though they never hesitate to cash my property tax payments. Nor did my local government doubt my authenticity when they sent me a ticket from a red light camera from an intersection where the yellow light was quicker than a cat’s somersault.
Even though I was aware of REAL ID perils, I showed up at a local MVA. at the appointed time. The MVA clerk quickly discovered that, while my driver’s license and passport identify me as “James,” the IRS Form 1099s I provided her identified me as “Jim”—a well-known ploy by terrorist groups. Luckily, I brought a heap of documents and found a few 1099s with “James.” Otherwise, I might still be in Identity Purgatory.
Actually, I probably would have ignored the summons except that Maryland is revoking thousands—if not tens of thousands —of driver’s licenses of people who fail to obey the MVA’s latest document demands, notwithstanding the MVA employees’ crime wave.
The REAL ID Act has been intensely controversial since its 2005 enactment in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and fiercely opposed by both conservatives and liberals. Twenty-five states passed resolutions objecting to the law or signaling that they would not comply. The Electronic Frontier Foundation declared in 2007, “A federal law that aims to conscript the states into creating a national ID system… is precisely the kind of scheme that the framers expected that federalism would guard against.”
But the Department of Homeland Security has compelled submission by announcing that the Transportation Security Agency will prohibit Americans from flying unless they have either a REAL ID Act-approved driver’s license or a passport. The Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that the “‘constitutional right to travel from one State to another’ is firmly embedded in our jurisprudence.” But REAL ID Act policies have routinely scorned both the Bill of Rights and Supreme Court rulings.
Most Americans do not possess passports, so federally-approved state driver’s licenses are becoming de facto internal passports. Almost a hundred million Americans do not have REAL ID-compliant identification, according to the U.S. Travel Association. In Minnesota, 11 percent of drivers still have licenses that will be rejected at TSA checkpoints starting on October 1. States and individuals are chaotically scrambling to meet the law’s shifting demands. Twitter is echoing with howls of people who spend hours at motor vehicle administration offices only to have their paperwork rejected because of picayune quibbles.
But the REAL ID law poses perils far beyond the airport entrance. Maryland began issuing REAL ID driver’s licenses in 2009. In 2017, the Department of Homeland Security notified the state that its REAL ID licenses were invalid unless Maryland snared more documents for each driver. More than half a million drivers remain at risk for losing their licenses.
The Washington Post reported in August that 8,000 Maryland licenses have been suspended. Three months earlier, MVA announced that 66,300 people were at risk of having their driver’s license or identification cards revoked for failure to comply with MVA demands. As Maryland ramps up enforcement, the number of suspended licenses is probably far higher now but MVA spokespersons failed to respond to repeated press inquiries seeking the latest number. Maryland police are seizing the license of any driver who they stop whose only offense was failure to hustle to show Maryland bureaucrats their birth certificate, passport, utility bills, Social Security card, or other proof of their identity.
Since the 2005 enactment of the REAL ID Act, the federal government has helped bankroll the license plate scanner networks that permit tracking any driver on the roads in many parts of the nation. If Maryland decides to target people who received cancellation notices, there are almost 500 license plate scanners deployed in police cars and elsewhere in the state that compile almost half a billion scans of driver’s per year. If the order is given to use the scanners, a thousand people a day could be stripped of their licenses and potentially arrested. MVA spokespersons failed to respond to inquiries about whether license plate scanners may be used for enforcing REAL ID compliance demands.
The REAL ID Act specifies a “mandatory facial image capture” for every applicant for a driver’s license which must be “retained in electronic storage in a transferable format.” As Techdirt recently reported, “Federal investigators have turned state Department of Motor Vehicles databases into the bedrock of an unprecedented surveillance infrastructure.” The FBI is regularly tapping into databases with more than 600 million facial photos. But citizens have nothing to fear because, as the FBI’s Kimberly Del Greco recently testified to Congress, facial recognition technology is critical ‘‘to preserve our nation’s freedoms, ensure our liberties are protected, and preserve our security.’’ Ms. Del Greco did not invoke China’s example to appease apprehensions on potential abuses of facial recognition regimes.
National ID cards will do far more to control than to protect Americans. The REAL ID Act could enable the feds to demand far more information in the future. If Maryland or other states have the prerogative to cancel driver’s licenses because of federal demands for people to show up with their passports or birth certificates, there is nothing to prevent future cancellations of licenses for people who balk at providing DNA samples or submitting to retina scans. The Justice Department just proposed to begin collecting DNA from anyone (including U.S. citizens) detained at the U.S. border—an estimated 740,000 people a year. If another major terrorist attack occurred within the U.S., politicians would likely again stampede to grant any demands made by the FBI, DHS, and other federal agencies.
The biggest folly would be to presume that data roundups spurred by REAL ID and other federal policies will somehow keep Americans safe. Centralizing personal data in vast databases increases the profits and risks of identity theft —as plenty of MVA employees can testify. Federal prosecutors snared a guilty plea in August involving a scheme involving two MVA employees who got kickbacks to create fraudulent licenses for illegal aliens. In 2015, a former long-term MVA employee was sentenced to prison after she was caught issuing fraudulent driver’s licenses bearing the photos of her co-conspirators and “the names of real people, including victims who were citizens of Colombia and Puerto Rico,” according to the U.S. Justice Department.
In 2012, a former MVA employee pled guilty to conspiring to fraudulently produce and sell Maryland driver’s licenses for illegal aliens. In 2011, a former MVA senior document examiner was sentenced to two years in prison for conspiring to produce and transfer fraudulent driver’s licenses. Also in 2011, two former MVA employees were sentenced to prison for their role in unlawfully producing and transferring Maryland driver’s licenses, primarily to illegal aliens.
In 2009, a former MVA employee pleaded guilty to taking payments for illegally producing and transferring Maryland driver’s licenses. Also in 2009, a former MVA employee pled guilty to a scheme creating fraudulent licenses which included “inventing false driver’s license information from other states.” In 2008, a former MVA employee was sentenced to two years in prison for his “conspiracy to produce and transfer over 100 unlawfully produced [MVA] identification documents. In 2007, an MVA employee pled guilty for her role in selling over fake driver’s licenses. (To be fair, most MVA employees have never been indicted by federal grand juries.)
Massive databases of personal data will do nothing to boost the candor of the FBI or the competence of the TSA (which misses up to 80 percent of the weapons and mock bombs testers take through checkpoints). TSA agents are so lunkheaded that they routinely hassle people with driver’s licenses from the District of Columbia—as if that was a foreign country.
There is no reason to presume that the REAL ID regime will not produce the same type of identity thefts that have long afflicted over federal personal data systems. REAL ID compliance debacles later this year will be followed by security breaches that bureaucrats and politicians claim they could never have anticipated. The biggest REAL ID fraud is that Americans will be more secure after the feds again decimated their privacy.
James Bovard is the author of Lost Rights, Attention Deficit Democracy, and Public Policy Hooligan. He is also a USA Today columnist. Follow him on Twitter @JimBovard.


theamericanconservative--2020-01-24--Governors Lose in the Year of the Democratic Senator

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren ( L ) , former Vice President Joe Biden ( C ) and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders participate of the seventh Democratic primary debate in Des Moines , Iowa on January 14 , 2020 .
( Photo by ROBYN BECK/AFP via Getty Images ) Remember the 2016 Republican presidential primary ?
Given the towering levels of self-medication required to get me through a 27-person CNN debate , I certainly don ’ t .
But those in the know inform me that one of the major issues early on was whether to nominate a senator or a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cream of the Tea Party class , freshmen with innovative ideas unafraid to stray from what had been the GOP party line .
But the governors had an advantage of their own : executive knowhow , a proven record of having run something larger than an office in the Russell building .
A senator or a governor ?
In the end , Republicans went with neither .
They opted instead for a bottled water tycoon who seemed to have the best of both : Trump was a good talker with a fresh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company .
Still , everyone knew the business empire was just so much gimcrack .
The real reason Trump won was the senatorial one : he could gab .
Even better , he could win rhetorical battles in a culture war that conservatives suspected their party ’ s establishment of having deserted long ago .
That was 2016—four years ago , or 5.7 billion years in Internet time .
Yet fast-forward to today and the Democrats are facing a similar dilemma—except unlike the Republicans , they seem to have answered their “ senator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even began .
Of the six presidential candidates onstage at last week ’ s debate , four either are or have served as senators .
In contrast , there wasn ’ t a single governor on the dais .
Pete Buttigieg has some executive experience , though running a college town is hardly the same thing as governing a state .
Joe Biden served as vice president , an executive office of a sort , though that only calls to mind the judgment of the glorious Texan John “ Cactus Jack ” Garner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vice presidency , Garner said , is “ not worth a warm bucket of piss.
” Vice presidents cut ribbons with unnecessarily large pairs of scissors ; governors run states .
And except for maybe a stint in the Cabinet , there is no better on-the-job training for a future president .
So why is the Democratic field so bereft of gubernatorial talent ?
Part of the problem is that many of the governors on the Democratic bench haven ’ t been there very long .
Prior to 2018 , the nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overwhelmingly controlled by Republicans , as the Tea Party wave crashed on the heads of hundreds of statewide Democrats .
Then two years ago , voters did an about-face : the 2018 midterms saw Democrats gain seven governorships , including in deep-red Kansas .
Add Kentucky to their column in 2019 , when Andy Beshear defeated then-governor Matt Bevin , and the Democratic gubernatorial count currently stands at 24 to Republicans ’ 26 , an oft-overlooked seismic shift .
Still , a third of those Democratic seats have been blue for only a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re a self-styled messiah from Illinois , that isn ’ t long enough a wait before mounting a presidential run .
The most seasoned Democratic governors tend to come from the bluest states , and therein lies another problem : America ’ s liberal executives are a controversial bunch .
They tend to be either too left-wing for the country as a whole or punching bags for their wrathful constituents ( or both ) .
Gavin Newsom of California is such an advocate of untrammeled government that even the LA Times thinks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Rhode Island is the least popular governor in the country .
Dannel Malloy left a smoldering crater where the state of Connecticut used to be and his successor Ned Lamont isn ’ t any better .
Andrew Cuomo is a lightning rod even by New York standards .
There ’ s also the matter of the ongoing blue state reckoning , as the tax-the-middle-class-and-spend-on-the-public-sector model starts to tear at the seams .
That isn ’ t to say Republicans can ’ t foul up states too—there ’ s a reason Kansans turned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats much more so are staring at a crisis of governance .
Of the top five states that people are moving out of , according to data compiled by United Van Lines , four are reliably blue and three are in the Northeast .
Expand the count to six , adding Massachusetts , and you include the homes of three of America ’ s most iconic cities—Chicago , New York , and Boston—an indictment given how many people are flocking to urban areas .
Illinois is ever the basket case , a teetering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corruption .
Connecticut , meanwhile , seems trapped in a death spiral , raising taxes only to drive more people away and take in even less revenue than expected ; rinse , repeat .
Governors running for president are all about touting chirpy successes , and right now there aren ’ t a lot of those coming out of New England or the West Coast .
Still , Bill Clinton , a governor , won his party ’ s nomination in 1992 , and his home state of Arkansas had plenty of problems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just local issues holding Democratic governors back , and that something is Bill Clinton himself , or at least what he ’ s come to represent .
The brand of politics he inaugurated—or perhaps inherited from JFK and refined—is fundamentally more concerned with emotive imagery than policy success .
Clinton hugged a voter at a debate and felt our pain ; his successor George W. Bush declared himself a “ compassionate conservative.
” Today sentimental style still reigns , only the operative emotion has changed .
It ’ s anger that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the extent that they can be juxtaposed with whoever is the enemy du jour on the other side .
And anger needs communicating , a specialty of senators .
The result of such emotional politics is that the Democratic presidential field still has two wings , but they look different than they might have 30 years ago .
The idealist wing has moved left , currently manned by democratic socialist Bernie Sanders and pathological liar Elizabeth Warren , neither of whom have much governing experience but both of whom come across as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The realist wing , meanwhile , held down by Joe Biden and Amy Klobuchar , still touts its problem-solving acumen , though it ’ s mostly legislative rather than executive .
The only ( former ) governor in the race , Deval Patrick , who touts his “ practical experience ” in Massachusetts , barely registers in the polls .
Governor Jay Inslee of Washington briefly joined the pack , only to resort to pathetic stunts to try to get noticed before dropping out .
It ’ s tempting , then , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But it ’ s probably more accurate to say that Trump has won , that his anger-over-accomplishment , sizzle-over- ( burnt ) -steak ethos has infiltrated the Democratic Party too .
I don ’ t intend any of this as an attack on senators-turned-presidents ; I voted for Rand Paul in the 2016 primary and appreciate the role legislators can play in affecting intellectual and policy change .
But we should remember that presidents ultimately have to govern .
They have to run sprawling clusters of bureaucracy and manage millions of public servants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the administrative state is left to its own devices , anathema in a republic such as ours .
It would be grand to have a president whose main talent was governing rather than talking , who might even shut up and leave us alone and go do his job for a while .
That isn ’ t likely to be Deval Patrick , though a certain Massachusetts predecessor of his does come to mind .

Remember the 2016 Republican presidential primary? Given the towering levels of self-medication required to get me through a 27-person CNN debate, I certainly don’t. But those in the know inform me that one of the major issues early on was whether to nominate a senator or a governor. The senators that year were the cream of the Tea Party class, freshmen with innovative ideas unafraid to stray from what had been the GOP party line. But the governors had an advantage of their own: executive knowhow, a proven record of having run something larger than an office in the Russell building.
A senator or a governor? In the end, Republicans went with neither. They opted instead for a bottled water tycoon who seemed to have the best of both: Trump was a good talker with a fresh outlook who also had experience running a company. Still, everyone knew the business empire was just so much gimcrack. The real reason Trump won was the senatorial one: he could gab. Even better, he could win rhetorical battles in a culture war that conservatives suspected their party’s establishment of having deserted long ago.
That was 2016—four years ago, or 5.7 billion years in Internet time. Yet fast-forward to today and the Democrats are facing a similar dilemma—except unlike the Republicans, they seem to have answered their “senator or governor” question before the primary even began. Of the six presidential candidates onstage at last week’s debate, four either are or have served as senators. In contrast, there wasn’t a single governor on the dais. Pete Buttigieg has some executive experience, though running a college town is hardly the same thing as governing a state. Joe Biden served as vice president, an executive office of a sort, though that only calls to mind the judgment of the glorious Texan John “Cactus Jack” Garner, FDR’s first veep: the vice presidency, Garner said, is “not worth a warm bucket of piss.”
Vice presidents cut ribbons with unnecessarily large pairs of scissors; governors run states. And except for maybe a stint in the Cabinet, there is no better on-the-job training for a future president. So why is the Democratic field so bereft of gubernatorial talent?
Part of the problem is that many of the governors on the Democratic bench haven’t been there very long. Prior to 2018, the nation’s governor’s mansions were overwhelmingly controlled by Republicans, as the Tea Party wave crashed on the heads of hundreds of statewide Democrats. Then two years ago, voters did an about-face: the 2018 midterms saw Democrats gain seven governorships, including in deep-red Kansas. Add Kentucky to their column in 2019, when Andy Beshear defeated then-governor Matt Bevin, and the Democratic gubernatorial count currently stands at 24 to Republicans’ 26, an oft-overlooked seismic shift. Still, a third of those Democratic seats have been blue for only a year or less, and unless you’re a self-styled messiah from Illinois, that isn’t long enough a wait before mounting a presidential run.
The most seasoned Democratic governors tend to come from the bluest states, and therein lies another problem: America’s liberal executives are a controversial bunch. They tend to be either too left-wing for the country as a whole or punching bags for their wrathful constituents (or both). Gavin Newsom of California is such an advocate of untrammeled government that even the LA Times thinks he goes too far. Gina Raimondo of Rhode Island is the least popular governor in the country. Dannel Malloy left a smoldering crater where the state of Connecticut used to be and his successor Ned Lamont isn’t any better. Andrew Cuomo is a lightning rod even by New York standards.
There’s also the matter of the ongoing blue state reckoning, as the tax-the-middle-class-and-spend-on-the-public-sector model starts to tear at the seams. That isn’t to say Republicans can’t foul up states too—there’s a reason Kansans turned their back on the GOP in 2018—but Democrats much more so are staring at a crisis of governance. Of the top five states that people are moving out of, according to data compiled by United Van Lines, four are reliably blue and three are in the Northeast. Expand the count to six, adding Massachusetts, and you include the homes of three of America’s most iconic cities—Chicago, New York, and Boston—an indictment given how many people are flocking to urban areas. Illinois is ever the basket case, a teetering Tower of Babel to fiscal promiscuity and corruption. Connecticut, meanwhile, seems trapped in a death spiral, raising taxes only to drive more people away and take in even less revenue than expected; rinse, repeat.
Governors running for president are all about touting chirpy successes, and right now there aren’t a lot of those coming out of New England or the West Coast. Still, Bill Clinton, a governor, won his party’s nomination in 1992, and his home state of Arkansas had plenty of problems. There’s something bigger than just local issues holding Democratic governors back, and that something is Bill Clinton himself, or at least what he’s come to represent. The brand of politics he inaugurated—or perhaps inherited from JFK and refined—is fundamentally more concerned with emotive imagery than policy success. Clinton hugged a voter at a debate and felt our pain; his successor George W. Bush declared himself a “compassionate conservative.” Today sentimental style still reigns, only the operative emotion has changed. It’s anger that’s au courant now, with ideas important to the extent that they can be juxtaposed with whoever is the enemy du jour on the other side. And anger needs communicating, a specialty of senators.
The result of such emotional politics is that the Democratic presidential field still has two wings, but they look different than they might have 30 years ago. The idealist wing has moved left, currently manned by democratic socialist Bernie Sanders and pathological liar Elizabeth Warren, neither of whom have much governing experience but both of whom come across as furious and good contrasts to Trump. The realist wing, meanwhile, held down by Joe Biden and Amy Klobuchar, still touts its problem-solving acumen, though it’s mostly legislative rather than executive. The only (former) governor in the race, Deval Patrick, who touts his “practical experience” in Massachusetts, barely registers in the polls. Governor Jay Inslee of Washington briefly joined the pack, only to resort to pathetic stunts to try to get noticed before dropping out.
It’s tempting, then, to say that the senators have won. But it’s probably more accurate to say that Trump has won, that his anger-over-accomplishment, sizzle-over-(burnt)-steak ethos has infiltrated the Democratic Party too. I don’t intend any of this as an attack on senators-turned-presidents; I voted for Rand Paul in the 2016 primary and appreciate the role legislators can play in affecting intellectual and policy change. But we should remember that presidents ultimately have to govern. They have to run sprawling clusters of bureaucracy and manage millions of public servants. If they can’t, the administrative state is left to its own devices, anathema in a republic such as ours.
It would be grand to have a president whose main talent was governing rather than talking, who might even shut up and leave us alone and go do his job for a while. That isn’t likely to be Deval Patrick, though a certain Massachusetts predecessor of his does come to mind.


theamericanconservative--2020-01-24--Impeachment Super Bowl: Trump 2, Dems 0

Impeachment Super Bowl: Trump 2, Dems 0

Walking into the Senate Ohio Clock corridor onto the Senate floor the seven House Managers , Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler , Representatives Zoe Lofgren ( D-CA ) , Val Demings ( D-FL ) , Jason Crow ( D-CO ) , and Sylvia Garcia ( D-TX ) , arrive to read the Articles of Impeachment on the floor on Wednesday January 15 , 2020 .
( Photo by Melina Mara/The Washington Post via Getty Images ) It ’ s fitting that the retirement of veteran New York Giants quarterback Eli Manning came amid the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There is a case to be made for the younger Manning brother to be enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame in five years , but if I had a vote , I would vote no .
Similarly , one need not be Pontius Pilate to appreciate the case against Trump .
If I were in the Senate , I ’ d still vote against it , especially as presented by House Democrats .
Embedded in this impeachment inquiry are hawkish assumptions about the absolute necessity of engaging in proxy wars with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ borders that I can not endorse regardless of Moscow ’ s election interference and other misdeeds .
“ The U.S. aids Ukraine and its people so they can fight Russia over there and we don ’ t have to fight them here , ” insists Representative Adam Schiff , a California Democrat who is among the impeachment managers .
This is a bad parody of neoconservatism circa 2003 , during the peak of George W. Bush ’ s messianic aspirations toward the Middle East .
It could have been cribbed from Trump apologist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican who remains the least chastened of any important lawmaker of our experiences in Iraq and beyond .
It is now aimed , however opportunistically , against a Russia that is substantially weaker than the Soviet Union during the Cold War yet remains nuclear-armed and dangerous .
Anti-Trump prosecutors also repeatedly make assertions that American foreign policy is set by unelected bureaucrats and professionals apart from the elected branches of government , including the president to whom they are constitutionally subordinate .
Representative Syvia Garcia , D-Texas , is simply the latest to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not “ consistent with official U.S. policy.
” Finally , there is an attempt to conflate Russian hacking and theft of emails with other efforts to swing public opinion , as Washington Post stories about Wikileaks emails or Fox News reporting on Hunter Biden and Burisma are all equally part of a foreign campaign to “ influence the election ” alongside Russia ’ s cybersecurity violations .
Repeated claims that any reference to Ukrainian efforts to influence U.S. public opinion in 2016 requires a denial of the far more extensive and systematic Russian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are simply untrue .
To be sure , all foreign influence in our elections should be deterred .
Hacking and stealing emails can not be tolerated .
But we must be proportionate in our responses and precise in what we are talking about when we discuss these matters .
Elevating unfulfilled requests to the Ukranian government to the level of Russian electoral meddling in 2016 may be necessary to undermine arguments that Trump ’ s conduct should be judged by the voters , but it does more to obscure than to clarify .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguable attempted usurpation of Congress ’ legitimate appropriations powers under the Constitution .
More broadly , there is a case to be made that Trump routinely behaves in a way that suggests an unwillingness or inability to separate public and personal interests in a way that fundamentally speaks to his fitness for the office he holds .
It is nevertheless difficult to take seriously people who think the GAO ’ s serious but debatable legal opinion on the legality of Trump ’ s Ukraine aid delay is more binding and significant than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powers to Congress .
It is admittedly more common among Never Trump Republicans than Democrats to simultaneously assert that the president does not have the power to delay the disbursement of lethal aid to a client state but does have the power to unilaterally bomb Iran .
Legislators who defend Trump from impeachment but want to rein in presidential war powers even when a Republican is in office—think Mike Lee , Rand Paul and Florida Representative Matt Gaetz—are all too rare .
Still , impeachment on this matter to some extent relies on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ innocent victim here .
But it would be easier to credit Democratic concerns about his fitness for office if they had been scouring the landscape for charges to justify impeachment since before his inaugural .
It is difficult to avoid a couple of conclusions .
Eli Manning will make it to Canton because he beat Tom Brady .
Donald Trump is being impeached because he beat Hillary Clinton .
W. James Antle III is the editor of The American Conservative .

It’s fitting that the retirement of veteran New York Giants quarterback Eli Manning came amid the Senate trial of President Donald Trump. There is a case to be made for the younger Manning brother to be enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame in five years, but if I had a vote, I would vote no.
Similarly, one need not be Pontius Pilate to appreciate the case against Trump. If I were in the Senate, I’d still vote against it, especially as presented by House Democrats.
Embedded in this impeachment inquiry are hawkish assumptions about the absolute necessity of engaging in proxy wars with Russia far from the United States’ borders that I cannot endorse regardless of Moscow’s election interference and other misdeeds. “The U.S. aids Ukraine and its people so they can fight Russia over there and we don’t have to fight them here,” insists Representative Adam Schiff, a California Democrat who is among the impeachment managers.
This is a bad parody of neoconservatism circa 2003, during the peak of George W. Bush’s messianic aspirations toward the Middle East. It could have been cribbed from Trump apologist Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who remains the least chastened of any important lawmaker of our experiences in Iraq and beyond. It is now aimed, however opportunistically, against a Russia that is substantially weaker than the Soviet Union during the Cold War yet remains nuclear-armed and dangerous.
Anti-Trump prosecutors also repeatedly make assertions that American foreign policy is set by unelected bureaucrats and professionals apart from the elected branches of government, including the president to whom they are constitutionally subordinate. Representative Syvia Garcia, D-Texas, is simply the latest to announce that Trump’s actions are not “consistent with official U.S. policy.”
Finally, there is an attempt to conflate Russian hacking and theft of emails with other efforts to swing public opinion, as Washington Post stories about Wikileaks emails or Fox News reporting on Hunter Biden and Burisma are all equally part of a foreign campaign to “influence the election” alongside Russia’s cybersecurity violations. Repeated claims that any reference to Ukrainian efforts to influence U.S. public opinion in 2016 requires a denial of the far more extensive and systematic Russian interference or a recitation of Kremlin propaganda are simply untrue.
To be sure, all foreign influence in our elections should be deterred. Hacking and stealing emails cannot be tolerated. But we must be proportionate in our responses and precise in what we are talking about when we discuss these matters. Elevating unfulfilled requests to the Ukranian government to the level of Russian electoral meddling in 2016 may be necessary to undermine arguments that Trump’s conduct should be judged by the voters, but it does more to obscure than to clarify.
The strongest arguments against Trump concern his arguable attempted usurpation of Congress’ legitimate appropriations powers under the Constitution. More broadly, there is a case to be made that Trump routinely behaves in a way that suggests an unwillingness or inability to separate public and personal interests in a way that fundamentally speaks to his fitness for the office he holds. It is nevertheless difficult to take seriously people who think the GAO’s serious but debatable legal opinion on the legality of Trump’s Ukraine aid delay is more binding and significant than the unambiguous Article I delegation of constitutional war powers to Congress.
It is admittedly more common among Never Trump Republicans than Democrats to simultaneously assert that the president does not have the power to delay the disbursement of lethal aid to a client state but does have the power to unilaterally bomb Iran. Legislators who defend Trump from impeachment but want to rein in presidential war powers even when a Republican is in office—think Mike Lee, Rand Paul and Florida Representative Matt Gaetz—are all too rare. Still, impeachment on this matter to some extent relies on perverse constitutional priorities.
Trump is no innocent victim here. But it would be easier to credit Democratic concerns about his fitness for office if they hadn’t been scouring the landscape for charges to justify impeachment since before his inaugural.
It is difficult to avoid a couple of conclusions. Eli Manning will make it to Canton because he beat Tom Brady. Donald Trump is being impeached because he beat Hillary Clinton.
W. James Antle III is the editor of The American Conservative.


theamericanconservative--2020-01-24--Where Are All the Governors on the Democratic Debate Stage?


theamericanconservative--2020-01-27--Why Conservatives Should Support Expunging Criminal Records

Minor arrests and convictions can taint a person for life .
But there is a way to get ' a clean slate . '
Addiction has enveloped much of Armando Aguilar ’ s life since he came into this world .
It ran rampant in his family .
And when he was just 15 , Aguilar began to pick up criminal convictions rooted in his own substance abuse problem .
This year , Aguilar celebrates 16 years of sobriety , and 16 years since his last run-in with the law .
He is now a father , a husband , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abuse counselor who works with high-risk youth .
Aguilar ’ s success was made possible by a state law that expunged his convictions .
Now that a decade has passed , he reflects on that law ’ s power : “ My expungement gave me the confidence to turn my life around.
” That ’ s the American dream—the ability to have a second chance , an Act II to one ’ s story .
But for close to a third of Americans , one mistake—even a minor one made decades ago—can hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life .
Right now , a lack of knowledge , exorbitant fees , and complex processes prevent many people from having their records expunged .
Luckily , there ’ s a path to redemption that can lift the burden of a criminal record off people ’ s shoulders .
It is a policy called the “ Clean Slate ” initiative , which would automate record clearance for Americans who have minor records and have remained crime-free for a given number of years .
Conservatives should claim this cause as their own .
Clean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and makes our communities safer .
And it supports the core of conservatism—a limited , effective government—so that individuals like Aguilar , and his family and community , can thrive .
President George W. Bush spoke of “ the non-negotiable demands of human dignity ” —a value that should be front and center in our criminal justice system .
Respect for human dignity is what separates a legitimate system from one that treats individuals as less than human .
While we must hold people accountable when they have violated the law , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beings throughout the process .
Failure to do so makes us all less than human .
Dignity can not be given or earned ; it is inherent to all people .
Still , it can be dishonored .
So many of our fellow Americans who have already paid their debt to society have had their dignity dishonored , especially in our workforce .
For many , working and providing for one ’ s family is fundamental to preserving their dignity .
“ I love my job , ” says Aguilar .
“ Getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and what I can do to help them , and later seeing the graduation invitations get dropped off .
It ’ s a great feeling.
” Unfortunately , it is estimated that 9 out of 10 employers run background checks on prospective employees , and any record—even just an arrest record , not a conviction—can make them less likely to hire a given applicant .
In fact , research suggests that having a criminal record reduces a person ’ s chances of receiving a job callback by an average of 50 percent .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are unable to find opportunities due to their records , we perpetuate their shame and isolation .
While some policies , like certificates of relief or rehabilitation , can help inform employers of an individual ’ s potential , expungement remains the most effective way to bring individuals into the workforce .
Aguilar experienced such obstacles firsthand .
Before his expungement , he was interviewing to work with high-risk youth for a pilot program at a community agency .
As someone who has been through the system himself , he ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trouble—someone they would listen to and trust .
But during his interview , the employer said , “ I really want you .
But we can ’ t take you any further with your record.
” “ It took the wind out of my sails , ” Aguilar recalls .
Jobs like Aguilar ’ s also require occupational licenses .
These licenses operate as government permission slips fornearly a quarter of all occupations—many of them well-paid and highly sought after .
Occupational licenses , generally speaking , are a regulatory burden and create @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on safety or quality .
On average , these laws require an exam , over $ 260 in fees , an examination , and a year of education and experience .
As Aguilar explains , getting the necessary education and training for a license to work in his desired career was only the first step .
Many licensing boards bar those with criminal records from obtaining licenses , even when they are not directly related to their record .
Aguilar explains that the licensing board made an exception in his case , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hurdles would perhaps be justifiable if a record was an effective proxy for conveying important information to employers .
For instance , if those with a record tended to be poor employees or threaten harm to public or workplace safety , employers ’ knowledge of that record would be useful .
But instead , the opposite is often true .
By clearing obstacles to obtaining licenses , the Clean Slate initiative hands the decision of whether serious records disqualify candidates back to where it belongs : with the private employer , not government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individuals should receive second chances , and the Clean Slate initiative would automate these expungements .
When individuals are able to maintain steady , quality employment , they are less likely to resort to committing crimes .
It ’ s easy to see why : employment offers people access to housing , education , and other resources that stabilize their lives .
Thus , by facilitating employment , expungements enhance public safety .
Additionally , when individuals find work as helpers and mentors in their communities , there are “ trickle-down ” public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community has been shown to decrease re-offending rates among mentees .
Yet too often , policies prevent justice-involved individuals from getting the jobs through which they can communicate with and positively influence high-risk youth .
The Clean Slate initiative expunges the records of would-be mentors so they aren ’ t shut out of employment positions where they can do the most good .
Some commentators have argued that the public should know about a person ’ s past—that this knowledge will keep society safer .
But research suggests that after a few years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ point of redemption ” where they are no more likely than anyone in the general population to commit future crimes .
Expunging records increases public safety by promoting second chances for individuals whose records no longer hold predictive value or significance .
Criminal records can sentence entire families to a life of poverty .
One study estimates that our country could have experienced a 20 percent reduction in poverty from 1980 to 2004 if it had not been for the barriers caused by incarceration and criminal records .
A record often means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a cycle of familial poverty , housing instability , and lowered economic mobility .
What ’ s more , a parent ’ s criminal record can have an enormous negative effect on a child—from their emotional and physical well-being to their future life chances .
Without the steady , positive influence of a parent , a child ’ s school performance can suffer .
When parents face perpetual challenges in meeting basic needs , children are more likely to suffer short-term consequences like behavioral and cognitive issues in school , as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mental health in adulthood , as well as lowered future employment and educational prospects .
The Clean Slate initiative can mitigate many of these effects .
Aguilar ’ s expungement has enabled him to be the best father he can be .
It has improved his employment prospects and made him more able to provide for his family .
It ’ s also allowed him to pass the background check required by his children ’ s school so that he can volunteer in their classes .
It ’ s made him a role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children are proud of what I do .
My daughter knows I work with people who have addiction issues , and so she wants to help the homeless .
My son wants to be a first responder .
Both my children are passionate and want to help others.
” The truth is that right now , very few people take advantage of expungements .
Aguilar is in the minority—he was fortunate enough to come across a legal clinic to assist him .
Still , Aguilar describes the process as arduous , consisting of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office , meetings with the clinic , forms to fill out , and court hearings .
It ’ s no wonder one study found that only 6.5 percent of individuals who were eligible actually received an expungement .
By perpetuating inefficient and unnecessarily complex processes , the current system is the antithesis of limited , effective government .
Automating the process with available technology to alert those who have expungeable records would not only streamline matters but make it more fair .
Automation also means that valuable hours of staff and court time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t wasted on relief that we ’ ve determined individuals are entitled to under the law .
And while automation might have short-term startup costs , it will result in long-term cost savings .
Aguilar imagines a world where his relief would have been automatic : “ It would have given me opportunities I didn ’ t have .
I was intimidated to apply for things .
It would have increased my confidence , and I would have been more ambitious.
” Conservatives should scrutinize every law imposed and test whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every arrest and criminal record in perpetuity does not make us safer or better off .
Instead , we would do well to support a path to redemption for individuals like Aguilar by supporting the Clean Slate initiative .
Nila Bala is associate director of Criminal Justice and Civil Liberties at the R Street Institute , a nonprofit , nonpartisan public policy think tank .

Addiction has enveloped much of Armando Aguilar’s life since he came into this world. It ran rampant in his family. And when he was just 15, Aguilar began to pick up criminal convictions rooted in his own substance abuse problem.
This year, Aguilar celebrates 16 years of sobriety, and 16 years since his last run-in with the law. He is now a father, a husband, a school volunteer, and a substance abuse counselor who works with high-risk youth. Aguilar’s success was made possible by a state law that expunged his convictions. Now that a decade has passed, he reflects on that law’s power: “My expungement gave me the confidence to turn my life around.”
That’s the American dream—the ability to have a second chance, an Act II to one’s story. But for close to a third of Americans, one mistake—even a minor one made decades ago—can hold them back for the rest of their life.
Right now, a lack of knowledge, exorbitant fees, and complex processes prevent many people from having their records expunged. Luckily, there’s a path to redemption that can lift the burden of a criminal record off people’s shoulders. It is a policy called the “Clean Slate” initiative, which would automate record clearance for Americans who have minor records and have remained crime-free for a given number of years.
Conservatives should claim this cause as their own. Clean Slate improves our workforce, supports families, and makes our communities safer. And it supports the core of conservatism—a limited, effective government—so that individuals like Aguilar, and his family and community, can thrive.
Workforce and Dignity
President George W. Bush spoke of “the non-negotiable demands of human dignity”—a value that should be front and center in our criminal justice system. Respect for human dignity is what separates a legitimate system from one that treats individuals as less than human. While we must hold people accountable when they have violated the law, we should respect their dignity as human beings throughout the process. Failure to do so makes us all less than human.
Dignity cannot be given or earned; it is inherent to all people. Still, it can be dishonored. So many of our fellow Americans who have already paid their debt to society have had their dignity dishonored, especially in our workforce.
For many, working and providing for one’s family is fundamental to preserving their dignity. “I love my job,” says Aguilar. “Getting up every day, seeing the kids and what I can do to help them, and later seeing the graduation invitations get dropped off. It’s a great feeling.”
Unfortunately, it is estimated that 9 out of 10 employers run background checks on prospective employees, and any record—even just an arrest record, not a conviction—can make them less likely to hire a given applicant. In fact, research suggests that having a criminal record reduces a person’s chances of receiving a job callback by an average of 50 percent. When individuals are ready to work but are unable to find opportunities due to their records, we perpetuate their shame and isolation. While some policies, like certificates of relief or rehabilitation, can help inform employers of an individual’s potential, expungement remains the most effective way to bring individuals into the workforce.
Aguilar experienced such obstacles firsthand. Before his expungement, he was interviewing to work with high-risk youth for a pilot program at a community agency. As someone who has been through the system himself, he’s a uniquely credible messenger for young people in trouble—someone they would listen to and trust. But during his interview, the employer said, “I really want you. But we can’t take you any further with your record.”
“It took the wind out of my sails,” Aguilar recalls.
Jobs like Aguilar’s also require occupational licenses. These licenses operate as government permission slips for nearly a quarter of all occupations—many of them well-paid and highly sought after. Occupational licenses, generally speaking, are a regulatory burden and create unnecessary costs and processes without any return on safety or quality. On average, these laws require an exam, over $260 in fees, an examination, and a year of education and experience.
As Aguilar explains, getting the necessary education and training for a license to work in his desired career was only the first step. Many licensing boards bar those with criminal records from obtaining licenses, even when they are not directly related to their record. Aguilar explains that the licensing board made an exception in his case, a decision facilitated by his expungement.
These hurdles would perhaps be justifiable if a record was an effective proxy for conveying important information to employers. For instance, if those with a record tended to be poor employees or threaten harm to public or workplace safety, employers’ knowledge of that record would be useful. But instead, the opposite is often true.
By clearing obstacles to obtaining licenses, the Clean Slate initiative hands the decision of whether serious records disqualify candidates back to where it belongs: with the private employer, not government bureaucrats. But for minor records, individuals should receive second chances, and the Clean Slate initiative would automate these expungements.
Public Safety
When individuals are able to maintain steady, quality employment, they are less likely to resort to committing crimes. It’s easy to see why: employment offers people access to housing, education, and other resources that stabilize their lives. Thus, by facilitating employment, expungements enhance public safety.
Additionally, when individuals find work as helpers and mentors in their communities, there are “trickle-down” public safety benefits. Engaging mentors in the community has been shown to decrease re-offending rates among mentees. Yet too often, policies prevent justice-involved individuals from getting the jobs through which they can communicate with and positively influence high-risk youth. The Clean Slate initiative expunges the records of would-be mentors so they aren’t shut out of employment positions where they can do the most good.
Some commentators have argued that the public should know about a person’s past—that this knowledge will keep society safer. But research suggests that after a few years of living crime-free, individuals reach a “point of redemption” where they are no more likely than anyone in the general population to commit future crimes. Expunging records increases public safety by promoting second chances for individuals whose records no longer hold predictive value or significance.
Strong, healthy families
Criminal records can sentence entire families to a life of poverty. One study estimates that our country could have experienced a 20 percent reduction in poverty from 1980 to 2004 if it had not been for the barriers caused by incarceration and criminal records. A record often means unemployment or underemployment for parents, leading to a cycle of familial poverty, housing instability, and lowered economic mobility.
What’s more, a parent’s criminal record can have an enormous negative effect on a child—from their emotional and physical well-being to their future life chances. Without the steady, positive influence of a parent, a child’s school performance can suffer. When parents face perpetual challenges in meeting basic needs, children are more likely to suffer short-term consequences like behavioral and cognitive issues in school, as well as long-term consequences like poorer physical and mental health in adulthood, as well as lowered future employment and educational prospects.
The Clean Slate initiative can mitigate many of these effects. Aguilar’s expungement has enabled him to be the best father he can be. It has improved his employment prospects and made him more able to provide for his family. It’s also allowed him to pass the background check required by his children’s school so that he can volunteer in their classes. It’s made him a role model to his children: “My children are proud of what I do. My daughter knows I work with people who have addiction issues, and so she wants to help the homeless. My son wants to be a first responder. Both my children are passionate and want to help others.”
The Case for Automation: Promoting limited, effective government
The truth is that right now, very few people take advantage of expungements. Aguilar is in the minority—he was fortunate enough to come across a legal clinic to assist him. Still, Aguilar describes the process as arduous, consisting of a trip to the sheriff’s office, meetings with the clinic, forms to fill out, and court hearings. It’s no wonder one study found that only 6.5 percent of individuals who were eligible actually received an expungement. By perpetuating inefficient and unnecessarily complex processes, the current system is the antithesis of limited, effective government.
Automating the process with available technology to alert those who have expungeable records would not only streamline matters but make it more fair. Automation also means that valuable hours of staff and court time, not to mention taxpayer dollars, aren’t wasted on relief that we’ve determined individuals are entitled to under the law. And while automation might have short-term startup costs, it will result in long-term cost savings.
Aguilar imagines a world where his relief would have been automatic: “It would have given me opportunities I didn’t have. I was intimidated to apply for things. It would have increased my confidence, and I would have been more ambitious.”
Conservatives should scrutinize every law imposed and test whether it truly enhances human dignity. Preserving every arrest and criminal record in perpetuity does not make us safer or better off. Instead, we would do well to support a path to redemption for individuals like Aguilar by supporting the Clean Slate initiative.
Nila Bala is associate director of Criminal Justice and Civil Liberties at the R Street Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy think tank.


theamericanconservative--2020-01-28--For Dems, Impeachment Keeps Us From Making Same ‘Mistake’

For Dems , Impeachment Keeps Us From Making Same ‘ Mistake ’ Disqualifying presidential candidates whom populists favor but elites abhor is a quite common practice—in Third World countries .
In 1868 , President Andrew Johnson was impeached for violating the Tenure of Office Act that had been enacted by Congress over his veto in 1867 .
Defying the law , Johnson fired Secretary of War Edwin Stanton , without getting Senate approval , as the act required him to do .
In his 1956 Pulitzer Prize-winning book , John F. Kennedy made Edmund Ross one of the Senate ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his decisive and heroic vote not to convict and remove Johnson .
Repealed in 1887 , the Tenure of Office Act was later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court .
But while the act was the lethal instrument to be used in the political assassination of a president whom the Radical Republicans meant to terminate , Stanton ’ s ouster was not the primary cause of their fury .
What truly enraged the Radical Republicans was Johnson ’ s resolve to be more magnanimous toward the defeated South than they meant to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end to the military occupation of the South and a more rapid return of the seceded states to the Union .
The story is told in the 1942 Hollywood film “ Tennessee Johnson , ” starring Van Heflin , which has since gone down the memory hole along with Woodrow Wilson ’ s White House favorite , “ Birth of a Nation.
” As historians concede , the impeachment of Johnson was about Reconstruction and who would remake the South .
Would it be the Southern majority that fought and lost the war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ scalawags ” and “ carpetbaggers ” laboring alongside them ?
The triumphant Radical Republicans were not about conciliation .
So severe were aspects of the occupation that Gen. Robert E. Lee reportedly said if he had known what was coming , he might not have quit fighting .
So , too , the impeachment of Donald Trump is not really about his 10-week delay in shipping arms to Ukraine or his postponing of a visit by Ukraine ’ s president until he announced an investigation of Burisma Holdings and Joe and Hunter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Democrats , collaborating with a like-minded media , were using the instruments of power they possess , to first prevent and then to overturn the election results of 2016 .
Russiagate , the James Comey FBI investigation , the Mueller probe—aborting a Trump presidency has always been the goal .
Saturday , White House counsel Pat Cipollone succinctly described to the Senate the bottom line : “ They ’ re asking you to remove President Trump from the ballot in an election that ’ s occurring in approximately nine months .
… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up all of the ballots across this country on your own initiative , take that decision away from the American people.
” To save “ our democracy , ” to which they pay tireless tribute , the impeachers want to ensure that the people , in a supposedly free election in 2020 , are not allowed to make the same mistake they made in 2016 .
To save our democracy , the House and half the Senate want to deny the America electorate one of the most important roles the people play in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to choose the head of state and commander in chief of the United States .
Disqualifying presidential candidates whom populists favor but elites abhor is a quite common practice—in Third World countries .
Over the weekend , we learned that John Bolton , who has offered to testify in the Senate trial , claims in his coming book that Trump made a direct link between sending military aid to Ukraine and Ukraine ’ s opening an investigation of the Bidens .
This has caused some Republican senators to reconsider calling witnesses , particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If four Republicans vote for witnesses , they will be doing the work Adam Schiff , Jerry Nadler and Nancy Pelosi ’ s House failed to do in their haste to get Trump impeached by Christmas .
They will be prolonging a trial set up to burn and bury their president .
The Senate should let Trump ’ s defenders complete their case , as the House managers and impeachers have already done .
Then allow 16 hours of questioning .
Then call for the verdict .
There is no treason , no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House managers allege .
There is nothing in the articles of impeachment voted that rises to a level to justify removing a president .
Harry Truman dropped atomic bombs on defenseless cities and sent two million POWs back to the tender mercies of Stalin in Operation Keelhaul after World War II .
JFK greenlighted the overthrow of an ally , President Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam , in a coup that ended in the murder of Diem .
LBJ ordered the wiretapping of Martin Luther King , and his White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a friendly press .
No one was impeached .
Why ?
Because Truman , JFK and LBJ were establishment favorites .
For Trump , a phone call with a Ukrainian president saying , “ Send us your Biden file and we will have a meeting , ” is a political capital crime justifying democracy ’ s version of a death penalty .
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon ’ s White House Wars : The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever .

In 1868, President Andrew Johnson was impeached for violating the Tenure of Office Act that had been enacted by Congress over his veto in 1867. Defying the law, Johnson fired Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, without getting Senate approval, as the act required him to do.
In his 1956 Pulitzer Prize-winning book, John F. Kennedy made Edmund Ross one of the Senate’s “Profiles in Courage” for his decisive and heroic vote not to convict and remove Johnson.
Repealed in 1887, the Tenure of Office Act was later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
But while the act was the lethal instrument to be used in the political assassination of a president whom the Radical Republicans meant to terminate, Stanton’s ouster was not the primary cause of their fury.
What truly enraged the Radical Republicans was Johnson’s resolve to be more magnanimous toward the defeated South than they meant to be. Johnson had in mind an earlier end to the military occupation of the South and a more rapid return of the seceded states to the Union.
The story is told in the 1942 Hollywood film “Tennessee Johnson,” starring Van Heflin, which has since gone down the memory hole along with Woodrow Wilson’s White House favorite, “Birth of a Nation.”
As historians concede, the impeachment of Johnson was about Reconstruction and who would remake the South. Would it be the Southern majority that fought and lost the war, or the victorious Yankees and the “scalawags” and “carpetbaggers” laboring alongside them?
The triumphant Radical Republicans were not about conciliation. So severe were aspects of the occupation that Gen. Robert E. Lee reportedly said if he had known what was coming, he might not have quit fighting.
So, too, the impeachment of Donald Trump is not really about his 10-week delay in shipping arms to Ukraine or his postponing of a visit by Ukraine’s president until he announced an investigation of Burisma Holdings and Joe and Hunter Biden.
Even before the 2016 election, Democrats, collaborating with a like-minded media, were using the instruments of power they possess, to first prevent and then to overturn the election results of 2016.
Russiagate, the James Comey FBI investigation, the Mueller probe—aborting a Trump presidency has always been the goal.
Saturday, White House counsel Pat Cipollone succinctly described to the Senate the bottom line:
“They’re asking you to remove President Trump from the ballot in an election that’s occurring in approximately nine months. … They’re asking you to tear up all of the ballots across this country on your own initiative, take that decision away from the American people.”
To save “our democracy,” to which they pay tireless tribute, the impeachers want to ensure that the people, in a supposedly free election in 2020, are not allowed to make the same mistake they made in 2016.
To save our democracy, the House and half the Senate want to deny the America electorate one of the most important roles the people play in this republi —the exercise of their right to choose the head of state and commander in chief of the United States.
Disqualifying presidential candidates whom populists favor but elites abhor is a quite common practice—in Third World countries.
Over the weekend, we learned that John Bolton, who has offered to testify in the Senate trial, claims in his coming book that Trump made a direct link between sending military aid to Ukraine and Ukraine’s opening an investigation of the Bidens.
This has caused some Republican senators to reconsider calling witnesses, particularly Bolton, in the impeachment trial.
If four Republicans vote for witnesses, they will be doing the work Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and Nancy Pelosi’s House failed to do in their haste to get Trump impeached by Christmas. They will be prolonging a trial set up to burn and bury their president.
The Senate should let Trump’s defenders complete their case, as the House managers and impeachers have already done. Then allow 16 hours of questioning. Then call for the verdict.
There is no treason, no bribery and no high crime in what the House managers allege. There is nothing in the articles of impeachment voted that rises to a level to justify removing a president.
Harry Truman dropped atomic bombs on defenseless cities and sent two million POWs back to the tender mercies of Stalin in Operation Keelhaul after World War II.
JFK greenlighted the overthrow of an ally, President Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam, in a coup that ended in the murder of Diem.
LBJ ordered the wiretapping of Martin Luther King, and his White House shared the fruits of that FBI surveillance with a friendly press.
No one was impeached.
Why? Because Truman, JFK and LBJ were establishment favorites.
For Trump, a phone call with a Ukrainian president saying, “Send us your Biden file and we will have a meeting,” is a political capital crime justifying democracy’s version of a death penalty.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.


theamericanconservative--2020-01-28--Passing the Coal Hat at the Church of Greta Thunberg

Another year of the Davos World Economic Forum has come and gone .
One notable inclusion this year was “ green ” pope and teenage firebrand Greta Thunberg .
Speaking at the conference , Thunberg admonished heathen world leaders for not doing more to stop the ruination of her childhood .
She later joined the ongoing climate strike outside the forum .
In response , economic elites venturing home from their luxurious digs in Switzerland are now calling for a carbon tax to kickstart the U.S. on a path to a “ green ” future .
But this green ideal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high prices and greater government control .
Future Davos conferences should focus on practical reforms , not pipe dreams fueled by emotion that threaten to quash the American dream .
By now , the church of carbon “ pricing ” has plenty of zealous converts and a well-worn gospel .
If only the entire world could find the “ right ” price for carbon , they preach , the planet ’ s catastrophic warming could be reversed and Florida could be spared its fate as a tacky Atlantis .
There is , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dystopian disciples choose to ignore : inevitable , catastrophic costs for consumers .
The price of gasoline and electricity is an input to , well , virtually all goods , and making the lifeblood of the economy more costly won ’ t be good for anybody .
A 2010 analysis by University of Wisconsin and Stanford University found that “ just ” imposing a $ 15-per-ton carbon tax in the U.S. would cost the poorest fifth of households more than $ 300 annually .
Meanwhile , a team from Columbia University ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with the $ 24-per-ton carbon tax plan proposed by ousted former congressman Carlos Curbelo , electricity prices would spike by 8 percent overnight and increase energy spending by $ 275 annually per person .
These troubling revelations have not stopped church devotees who hold out faith that any tax can be “ revenue-neutral ” by returning money to taxpayers via cuts in other taxes .
Never mind the inevitably high costs of tax bureaucracy in administering such a program .
The main purported example of this is British Columbia , which supposedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax .
That tax is now C $ 45 ( roughly $ 30 U.S. ) .
But according to budgetary research by the Fraser Institute , that nudge stopped being neutral a long time ago .
Official budgetary claims notwithstanding , the tax ceased to be neutral in 2013 , and now amounts to a net increase totaling more than C $ 700 ( about $ 530 U.S. ) for a family of four .
For all this pain , a carbon tax had better work wonders to save the world .
Yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emissions is only around 16 percent , and taxes by themselves are unlikely to lead to “ deep decarbonization.
” A forthcoming paper in the American Economic Journal finds , “ After implementation of a carbon tax and VAT [ value-added tax ] on transport fuels in Sweden , CO2 emissions from transport declined almost 11 percent in an average year , with 6 percent from the carbon tax alone.
” This finding is nothing short of astounding .
Sweden , which has a per-ton carbon tax rate of more than $ 130 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ annual reduction in its emissions .
And apparently this is an outlier finding , since “ earlier empirical studies…find little to no effect on emissions from carbon taxes.
” In other words , people seem to mainly respond to gas price hikes by shelling out more dollars ( or kronas ) and not switching to “ green ” fuels and technologies .
Even if America can muster up Sweden ’ s discipline and somehow tack on exorbitant prices to gas and electricity , global carbon emissions would likely decline by less than 2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China and other developing countries would continue to darken the skies with new coal plants while the U.S. shoots itself in the foot by making its industries uncompetitive .
But don ’ t expect facts to get in the way of the ongoing climate crusade for runaway taxation and government spending .
Ross Marchand is the director of policy for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance .

Another year of the Davos World Economic Forum has come and gone. One notable inclusion this year was “green” pope and teenage firebrand Greta Thunberg. Speaking at the conference, Thunberg admonished heathen world leaders for not doing more to stop the ruination of her childhood. She later joined the ongoing climate strike outside the forum. In response, economic elites venturing home from their luxurious digs in Switzerland are now calling for a carbon tax to kickstart the U.S. on a path to a “green” future.
But this green ideal is in fact a dystopia marred by high prices and greater government control. Future Davos conferences should focus on practical reforms, not pipe dreams fueled by emotion that threaten to quash the American dream.
By now, the church of carbon “pricing” has plenty of zealous converts and a well-worn gospel. If only the entire world could find the “right” price for carbon, they preach, the planet’s catastrophic warming could be reversed and Florida could be spared its fate as a tacky Atlantis. There is, of course, one small problem that these dystopian disciples choose to ignore: inevitable, catastrophic costs for consumers. The price of gasoline and electricity is an input to, well, virtually all goods, and making the lifeblood of the economy more costly won’t be good for anybody. A 2010 analysis by University of Wisconsin and Stanford University found that “just” imposing a $15-per-ton carbon tax in the U.S. would cost the poorest fifth of households more than $300 annually.
Meanwhile, a team from Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy found that, with the $24-per-ton carbon tax plan proposed by ousted former congressman Carlos Curbelo, electricity prices would spike by 8 percent overnight and increase energy spending by $275 annually per person.
These troubling revelations have not stopped church devotees who hold out faith that any tax can be “revenue-neutral” by returning money to taxpayers via cuts in other taxes. Never mind the inevitably high costs of tax bureaucracy in administering such a program. The main purported example of this is British Columbia, which supposedly instituted a revenue-neutral C$10-per-ton carbon tax. That tax is now C$45 (roughly $30 U.S.). But according to budgetary research by the Fraser Institute, that nudge stopped being neutral a long time ago. Official budgetary claims notwithstanding, the tax ceased to be neutral in 2013, and now amounts to a net increase totaling more than C$700 (about $530 U.S.) for a family of four.
For all this pain, a carbon tax had better work wonders to save the world. Yet America’s share of global carbon emissions is only around 16 percent, and taxes by themselves are unlikely to lead to “deep decarbonization.” A forthcoming paper in the American Economic Journal finds, “After implementation of a carbon tax and VAT [value-added tax] on transport fuels in Sweden, CO2 emissions from transport declined almost 11 percent in an average year, with 6 percent from the carbon tax alone.”
This finding is nothing short of astounding. Sweden, which has a per-ton carbon tax rate of more than $130, can only manage an 11 percent annual reduction in its emissions. And apparently this is an outlier finding, since “earlier empirical studies…find little to no effect on emissions from carbon taxes.” In other words, people seem to mainly respond to gas price hikes by shelling out more dollars (or kronas) and not switching to “green” fuels and technologies. Even if America can muster up Sweden’s discipline and somehow tack on exorbitant prices to gas and electricity, global carbon emissions would likely decline by less than 2 percent as a result. Meanwhile, China and other developing countries would continue to darken the skies with new coal plants while the U.S. shoots itself in the foot by making its industries uncompetitive. But don’t expect facts to get in the way of the ongoing climate crusade for runaway taxation and government spending.
Ross Marchand is the director of policy for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.


theamericanconservative--2020-01-29--The Marxist Case Against Meritocracy Has No Merit

One way to tell the history of the last millennium or so—the way Alexis de Tocqueville did—is to describe a transition from aristocracy to democracy .
In the old days , some people had the goods , some didn ’ t , and that was that ; you were born into a class , and nothing you could do would get you out of it .
But gradually we entered a new regime , in which people were freed from caste and custom to do what they wanted .
Freedom , equality , the opportunity to succeed through hard work—these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saw , however , this world altogether new would have costs as well as benefits .
So how has our regime of meritocracy , in which effort and ability rather than lineage rule the day , worked out ?
According to Daniel Markovits , terribly .
In his book The Meritocracy Trap , he sets out to reveal , as the subtitle puts it , “ how America ’ s foundational myth feeds inequality , dismantles the middle class , and devours the elite.
” Markovits , a law professor at Yale , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rewards skill and grit , and that seems to give each his due , produces not the just society we might have expected , but rather a new form of servitude .
Though meritocracy might sound like an ideal worthy of our aspirations—surely the best applicant , not the one with the right connections , ought to get the job ?
—Markovits argues that it is in fact the cause of many of our greatest maladies .
It has turned our economy into a winner-take-all tournament , with a few “ glossy ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gloomy ” jobs at the bottom , and little in between .
Upward mobility is down , inequality is up , and now we don ’ t even have an excuse for our failures ; the highly skilled and educated worked their way to the top and we didn ’ t .
Criticism of how the little man fares in the modern economy is nothing new .
But Markovits ’ contribution is novel in two respects .
First , he insists that the problems we face result from meritocracy itself , rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ The central tragedy of the age reflects meritocracy ’ s triumph .
Meritocracy—not by betraying its ideals but rather by realizing them—imposes a caste order that equality ’ s champions should condemn.
” This is a bold claim .
Unlike , say , Richard Reeves ’ Dream Hoarders , a particularly good contribution to the genre , The Meritocracy Trap insists that the greatest problems we face stem not from abuses of the system , but from the system itself .
There are no two ways around it : “ each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t create a prosperous society for all .
Or even for some , in Markovits ’ s telling .
Even more provocatively , unlike other critics , Markovits insists that meritocracy is not working out even for the winners .
You might think the poor have it bad .
But in this story , it ’ s the elites who are the truly wretched .
Caught in a grueling fight-to-the-death competition , from a selective pre-school to prep school to an Ivy League to a lucrative but demanding job to an even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exhausted ever to enjoy their spoils .
Make even one misstep—one failed course , one botched internship—and they will fall from their thrones , condemned to misery among the proles .
In his attempt to stand up for the big man , Markovits alternates between a Marxist-Freudian diagnosis , a barrage of statistics , and harrowing tales of the elites ’ plight .
Talk of alienation from one ’ s labor , inauthenticity , and the lumpenproletariat abounds .
The elites are too busy and stressed to become their true selves : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost entirely on her human capital simply can not afford to consult her own interests or passions in choosing her job—far too much rides on training and work to indulge curiosity or pursue a calling or vocation.
” Say what you want about the unemployed , at least they have time for their hobbies .
Coming down from high theory , Markovits unleashes a deluge of statistics .
He illustrates how human capital and education have become more important in this economy , with “ skills-biased technological change ” greatly rewarding those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consult or invest ) .
The Meritocracy Trap is full of economic facts one forgets immediately upon reading—for example , “ only about one worker in fifty from the bottom half of the educational distribution makes more than the median worker from the top tenth ” —with even more in the enormous endnotes section .
Providing some welcome relief are anecdotes about the elite ’ s obsession with work and the ways it wrecks them .
Stories of 20-hour workdays and parents allocating 10 minutes for their children daily are certainly alarming , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Markovits could find rather than the norm .
Amid this intimidating brew of psychoanalysis , statistics , and horror stories , Markovits rightly emphasizes how novel our current situation is .
When Thorstein Veblen wrote The Theory of the Leisure Class in 1899 , work and busyness were antithetical to elite life .
But “ The social order that Veblen discerned , which had been stable across a millennium , has within a century been turned on its head : aristocrats yield to meritocrats , and the leisured elite gives way to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this point that Markovits might have broached is what meritocracy means for the arts .
If leisure is , as philosopher Josef Pieper wrote , “ the basis of culture , ” then a society without leisure must be one without culture .
Does Markovits think we are producing great artists and writers today ?
We don ’ t know .
But perhaps it ’ s just as well that this question doesn ’ t come up , as the diagnosis is already too long , with an unfortunate amount of repetition .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the prescription .
What ’ s to be done ?
In the final pages , Markovits makes two major proposals : removing tax-exempt status from private colleges and universities unless at least half of their students come from families in the bottom two thirds of the income distribution , and encouraging through additional public spending colleges and universities to expand enrollments .
Coming after a wholesale indictment of our society , these suggestions are bewildering .
Shoveling yet more money into universities and getting a few more poor kids into Harvard will right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ dramatic premise is correct—that our entire regime rests on the worship of a false god—then tinkering around the edges like this , whatever merit it might have in principle , is worthless .
Forget fiddling with the tax code ; it ’ s time to storm the Bastille !
Happily , we can put away the guillotines , because his premise is not correct .
The elites may imagine they ’ re trapped in their C-Suite cages , but there ’ s no lock on the door .
The consultants , investment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Ivy League professors , who work so hard and are paid so well , do not deserve our sympathy , for the simple reason that if they don ’ t enjoy their jobs , they can quit .
This possibility never seems to occur to Markovits .
True to his Marxist affinities , he does not have any place in his story for individual agency : “ Highlighting individual actions ignores the deeper structures within which people act.
” This is a convenient way to get off the hook , but outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , personal responsibility remains widely recognized as an important virtue .
If an overworked CEO steps down to spend more time with his family , kudos to him ; if he does not , a poor personal life is his own fault .
Markovits ’ book does pose an important question : what are we to make of these members of the bourgeois whose “ lives [ are ] devoid of everything but work ” ?
But if the crisis of our age is as great as he says , it deserves a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Markovits never escapes the dilemma he sets for himself : any society must allocate scarce resources , be they material goods or intangibles like honor , somehow , and if it does not do so according to merit , it must do so according to something else .
But what ?
A book that managed to make a convincing case for something new , beyond aristocracy and meritocracy alike—now that would be evidence of merit .
Robert Bellafiore is a congressional staffer .
His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal @

The Meritocracy Trap: How America’s Foundational Myth Feeds Inequality, Dismantles the Middle Class, and Devours the Elite, by Daniel Markovits, Penguin Press, 448 pages
One way to tell the history of the last millennium or so—the way Alexis de Tocqueville did—is to describe a transition from aristocracy to democracy. In the old days, some people had the goods, some didn’t, and that was that; you were born into a class, and nothing you could do would get you out of it. But gradually we entered a new regime, in which people were freed from caste and custom to do what they wanted. Freedom, equality, the opportunity to succeed through hard work—these sound not too bad. As Tocqueville saw, however, this world altogether new would have costs as well as benefits. So how has our regime of meritocracy, in which effort and ability rather than lineage rule the day, worked out?
According to Daniel Markovits, terribly. In his book The Meritocracy Trap, he sets out to reveal, as the subtitle puts it, “how America’s foundational myth feeds inequality, dismantles the middle class, and devours the elite.” Markovits, a law professor at Yale, seeks to show how a system that rewards skill and grit, and that seems to give each his due, produces not the just society we might have expected, but rather a new form of servitude.
Though meritocracy might sound like an ideal worthy of our aspirations—surely the best applicant, not the one with the right connections, ought to get the job?—Markovits argues that it is in fact the cause of many of our greatest maladies. It has turned our economy into a winner-take-all tournament, with a few “glossy” jobs at the top, many “gloomy” jobs at the bottom, and little in between. Upward mobility is down, inequality is up, and now we don’t even have an excuse for our failures; the highly skilled and educated worked their way to the top and we didn’t.
Criticism of how the little man fares in the modern economy is nothing new. But Markovits’ contribution is novel in two respects. First, he insists that the problems we face result from meritocracy itself, rather than its absence. As he puts it, “The central tragedy of the age reflects meritocracy’s triumph. Meritocracy—not by betraying its ideals but rather by realizing them—imposes a caste order that equality’s champions should condemn.” This is a bold claim. Unlike, say, Richard Reeves’ Dream Hoarders, a particularly good contribution to the genre, The Meritocracy Trap insists that the greatest problems we face stem not from abuses of the system, but from the system itself. There are no two ways around it: “each according to his means” just can’t create a prosperous society for all.
Or even for some, in Markovits’s telling. Even more provocatively, unlike other critics, Markovits insists that meritocracy is not working out even for the winners. You might think the poor have it bad. But in this story, it’s the elites who are the truly wretched. Caught in a grueling fight-to-the-death competition, from a selective pre-school to prep school to an Ivy League to a lucrative but demanding job to an even worse promotion, these victors are too exhausted ever to enjoy their spoils. Make even one misstep—one failed course, one botched internship—and they will fall from their thrones, condemned to misery among the proles.
In his attempt to stand up for the big man, Markovits alternates between a Marxist-Freudian diagnosis, a barrage of statistics, and harrowing tales of the elites’ plight. Talk of alienation from one’s labor, inauthenticity, and the lumpenproletariat abounds. The elites are too busy and stressed to become their true selves: “A person whose wealth and status depend almost entirely on her human capital simply cannot afford to consult her own interests or passions in choosing her job—far too much rides on training and work to indulge curiosity or pursue a calling or vocation.” Say what you want about the unemployed, at least they have time for their hobbies.
Coming down from high theory, Markovits unleashes a deluge of statistics. He illustrates how human capital and education have become more important in this economy, with “skills-biased technological change” greatly rewarding those who “learn to code” (or consult or invest). The Meritocracy Trap is full of economic facts one forgets immediately upon reading—for example, “only about one worker in fifty from the bottom half of the educational distribution makes more than the median worker from the top tenth”—with even more in the enormous endnotes section. Providing some welcome relief are anecdotes about the elite’s obsession with work and the ways it wrecks them. Stories of 20-hour workdays and parents allocating 10 minutes for their children daily are certainly alarming, although these are surely the worst cases Markovits could find rather than the norm.
Amid this intimidating brew of psychoanalysis, statistics, and horror stories, Markovits rightly emphasizes how novel our current situation is. When Thorstein Veblen wrote The Theory of the Leisure Class in 1899, work and busyness were antithetical to elite life. But “The social order that Veblen discerned, which had been stable across a millennium, has within a century been turned on its head: aristocrats yield to meritocrats, and the leisured elite gives way to the superordinate working class.” One question on this point that Markovits might have broached is what meritocracy means for the arts. If leisure is, as philosopher Josef Pieper wrote, “the basis of culture,” then a society without leisure must be one without culture. Does Markovits think we are producing great artists and writers today? We don’t know.
But perhaps it’s just as well that this question doesn’t come up, as the diagnosis is already too long, with an unfortunate amount of repetition. Nevertheless, it eventually comes time for the prescription. What’s to be done?
In the final pages, Markovits makes two major proposals: removing tax-exempt status from private colleges and universities unless at least half of their students come from families in the bottom two thirds of the income distribution, and encouraging through additional public spending colleges and universities to expand enrollments. Coming after a wholesale indictment of our society, these suggestions are bewildering. Shoveling yet more money into universities and getting a few more poor kids into Harvard will right the ship of state? If Markovits’ dramatic premise is correct—that our entire regime rests on the worship of a false god—then tinkering around the edges like this, whatever merit it might have in principle, is worthless. Forget fiddling with the tax code; it’s time to storm the Bastille!
Happily, we can put away the guillotines, because his premise is not correct. The elites may imagine they’re trapped in their C-Suite cages, but there’s no lock on the door. The consultants, investment bankers, and, one might add, Ivy League professors, who work so hard and are paid so well, do not deserve our sympathy, for the simple reason that if they don’t enjoy their jobs, they can quit. This possibility never seems to occur to Markovits. True to his Marxist affinities, he does not have any place in his story for individual agency: “Highlighting individual actions ignores the deeper structures within which people act.” This is a convenient way to get off the hook, but outside the deeper structures of elite higher education, personal responsibility remains widely recognized as an important virtue. If an overworked CEO steps down to spend more time with his family, kudos to him; if he does not, a poor personal life is his own fault.
Markovits’ book does pose an important question: what are we to make of these members of the bourgeois whose “lives [are] devoid of everything but work”? But if the crisis of our age is as great as he says, it deserves a more penetrating assessment than he can provide. Markovits never escapes the dilemma he sets for himself: any society must allocate scarce resources, be they material goods or intangibles like honor, somehow, and if it does not do so according to merit, it must do so according to something else. But what? A book that managed to make a convincing case for something new, beyond aristocracy and meritocracy alike—now that would be evidence of merit.
Robert Bellafiore is a congressional staffer. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal.