theamericanconservative--2020-04-28--In Defense of Intellectual Trumpism

In Defense of Intellectual Trumpism

In his recent New York Times review of Andrew Bacevich ’ s new anthology of “ conservative ” writings , columnist George Will tosses out a dig at “ self-described ‘ national conservatives , ’ convinced that ‘ the thinking person ’ s Trumpism ’ is not an oxymoron.
” These poor souls , he adds , are “ struggling to infuse intellectual content into the simmering stew of economic nationalism , resentment of globalization ’ s disruptions and nostalgia for the economy and communities of the 1950s.
” Though Will issued his characterization merely in passing , part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ambiguous attitude toward modernity , it was meant to sting .
In terms of intellectual content , he seems to be saying , Trump and Trumpism are the same thing .
But are they ?
Trumpism got Donald Trump elected in 2016 .
If he loses in 2020 , as seems increasingly likely , it won ’ t be because of Trumpism but because of his own severe limitations as a leader .
As president , Trump has been a haphazard and largely hapless exponent of Trumpism .
Leaving aside Trump , what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inherently contradictory to the thoughts of thinking people ?
Of course , Trump himself is not a thinking person .
He operates by instinct and viscera .
But those attributes provided him with enough insight in 2016 to understand that a host of issues were agitating a substantial constituency that had been forgotten or dismissed by the political establishment .
So he ran against the establishment and won .
That doesn ’ t reflect particularly well on the establishment—a habitat , of course , of thinking people .
If we confine ourselves to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on in 2016 and leave aside his empty governance and his incapacity to build a governing coalition , we can distill the essence of Trumpism .
And then we can assess whether it is worthy of thinking people .
The component parts : The World We Live In : One of Trump ’ s sharpest insights was that we no longer live in the world that brought us Barry Goldwater , William F. Buckley , and Ronald Reagan .
Their conservatism was right for their time , and Reagan was the right man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the country and the world have changed since then .
In 2016 , Trump and Senator Bernie Sanders were the only politicians who pressed the view that the status quo was crumbling .
And Trump , in capturing the Republican Party in the primaries , made clear he had little regard for the issue clusters and sensibilities that had guided the party since Goldwater .
Immigration : Nothing illustrates this more starkly than immigration , which likely was the single most powerful issue that propelled Trump into the White House .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the proportion of foreign born persons in the country was 6.2 percent .
In 2016 , it was 13.5 percent .
Today , it is approaching 15 percent .
History tells us that , when this important metric approaches or exceeds 14 percent , as it did around the turn of the last century , political concerns emerge about the ability of the country to assimilate such immigration numbers smoothly .
Smart politicians pay attention , but the establishment politicians of 2016 ignored it .
This no doubt was part of what George @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to those seeking to infuse intellectual content into the “ simmering stew of…globalization ’ s disruptions.
” But why is it smart to disdain those concerned about the disruptions wrought by immigration flows exceeding anything ever seen before in the country ?
Particularly when the last time they approached today ’ s level , a century ago , the country became agitated and moved decisively to curb that inflow ?
To understand this political reality is an element of Trumpism , and to have a finger on the pulse of political sentiment would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ thinking person ’ s Trumpism.
” Further , those who either missed it or ignored it don ’ t look much like thinking people , and their ignorance or ideological zeal helped give us Donald Trump .
Trade : The Republican Party of Goldwater , Buckley , and Reagan was a free-trade party ( though Reagan was willing to stray from that doctrine in deft and often camouflaged ways when political pressures impinged upon him ) .
Trump ripped away the free-trade label .
Does this represent another of those disassociations of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Republican Party was consistently protectionist from its beginning in the 1850s right up until the end of World War II .
One president during that time , William McKinley , sought to craft a new doctrine , called “ reciprocity , ” dedicated to multiple bilateral agreements in which two countries mutually reduced trade barriers .
He didn ’ t have a chance to demonstrate how well it could work before he was killed in 1901 .
His successor , Theodore Roosevelt , promptly abandoned the concept .
The Trump trade policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s “ reciprocity ” concept .
Whatever one thinks of it , no one can deny that the free trade regimen wasn ’ t working as advertised .
Indeed , it helped hollow out America ’ s industrial base and devastated the blue-collar working class long considered the country ’ s brawn and backbone .
Further , it became an invitation for other nations , particularly China , to game the system and undermine America ’ s ability to compete in the global marketplace .
And where were our establishment politicians ?
Clinging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see or address the devastation .
Who were the thinking people in this tale ?
Financialization of the Economy : Trump went after the big banks of Wall Street during his campaign but hasn ’ t taken them on as president .
He was right the first time .
Today , $ 1 out of every $ 12 of GDP goes to the financial sector ; in the 1950s , it was only $ 1 for every $ 40 of GDP .
This represents a huge additional cut for people who don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create many jobs , and generally just move money around .
“ The financial system we have now , ” wrote Matthew Stewart in The Atlantic a couple years ago , “ has been engineered , over decades , by powerful bankers for their own benefit and for that of their posterity.
” The federal government favors these elements of society further with lavish tax preferences and other juicy perks of crony capitalism .
If Trumpism is what Trump campaigned on in 2016 , then the big financial institutions would be under political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Foreign Policy : Before Trump , the Republican Party was thoroughly under the sway of internationalists bent on remaking the world in the American image , including through regime change wars and threats of war , and dedicated to preventing the emergence of regional powers allowed to pursue their own interests in their own neighborhoods .
Trump ran against all this .
As president , severely beleaguered by allegations of Russian “ collusion ” that turned out to be bogus , he has had to abandon his desire to forge better relations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new Mideast wars , though his bellicosity toward Iran could yield that result and he has been unable to get the country out of ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq .
And his foreign policy rhetoric during the campaign clearly was popular with many voters and set new terms of debate both within the party and in the broader political environment .
Political Correctness : After the 2016 presidential campaign , mathematician Spencer Greenberg conducted a study indicating that anger over political correctness was the second most reliable predictor of Trump support , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservatism , protectionism , and anti-immigration sentiments .
This provided a remarkable window on the frustrations and anger on the part of those who felt they were being dismissed and marginalized by the nation ’ s liberal elites .
No serious presidential candidate had ever taken on the PC forces with Trump ’ s brand of pugilism , often accompanied by his unsavory mode of expression .
It was a brutal pushback against those seeking to silence conservatives by declaring their views to be outside the bounds of proper discourse .
It turned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forcing the issue onto the national stage , that many Americans were fed up with that political ploy .
These Trumpian positions of 2016 represent a repository of political sentiment in the country and constitute Trump ’ s tightly formed political base , which has been and remains about 43 percent of the electorate .
Could these positions also serve as bedrock for a broader political movement undergirding a governing coalition for the future ?
We don ’ t know because Trump has proved himself incapable of building any such governing coalition .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s tough to disguise buffoonery in a crisis .
But not all of Trumpism is divorced from intelligent thinking , and some of it will still be out there , beckoning a politician , even perhaps a thinking politician , interested in building that coalition .
Robert W. Merry , former Wall Street Journal correspondent and Congressional Quarterly CEO , is the author most recently of President McKinley : Architect of the American Century ( Simon & Schuster ) .

In his recent New York Times review of Andrew Bacevich’s new anthology of “conservative” writings, columnist George Will tosses out a dig at “self-described ‘national conservatives,’ convinced that ‘the thinking person’s Trumpism’ is not an oxymoron.” These poor souls, he adds, are “struggling to infuse intellectual content into the simmering stew of economic nationalism, resentment of globalization’s disruptions and nostalgia for the economy and communities of the 1950s.”
Though Will issued his characterization merely in passing, part of a broader point about conservatism’s ambiguous attitude toward modernity, it was meant to sting. In terms of intellectual content, he seems to be saying, Trump and Trumpism are the same thing.
But are they? Trumpism got Donald Trump elected in 2016. If he loses in 2020, as seems increasingly likely, it won’t be because of Trumpism but because of his own severe limitations as a leader. As president, Trump has been a haphazard and largely hapless exponent of Trumpism.
Leaving aside Trump, what is Trumpism? And why is it inherently contradictory to the thoughts of thinking people? Of course, Trump himself is not a thinking person. He operates by instinct and viscera. But those attributes provided him with enough insight in 2016 to understand that a host of issues were agitating a substantial constituency that had been forgotten or dismissed by the political establishment. So he ran against the establishment and won. That doesn’t reflect particularly well on the establishment—a habitat, of course, of thinking people.
If we confine ourselves to the general policy positions that Trump ran on in 2016 and leave aside his empty governance and his incapacity to build a governing coalition, we can distill the essence of Trumpism. And then we can assess whether it is worthy of thinking people. The component parts:
The World We Live In: One of Trump’s sharpest insights was that we no longer live in the world that brought us Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley, and Ronald Reagan. Their conservatism was right for their time, and Reagan was the right man to carry it to national prominence. But the country and the world have changed since then. In 2016, Trump and Senator Bernie Sanders were the only politicians who pressed the view that the status quo was crumbling. And Trump, in capturing the Republican Party in the primaries, made clear he had little regard for the issue clusters and sensibilities that had guided the party since Goldwater.
Immigration: Nothing illustrates this more starkly than immigration, which likely was the single most powerful issue that propelled Trump into the White House. When Reagan ran for president in 1980, the proportion of foreign born persons in the country was 6.2 percent. In 2016, it was 13.5 percent. Today, it is approaching 15 percent. History tells us that, when this important metric approaches or exceeds 14 percent, as it did around the turn of the last century, political concerns emerge about the ability of the country to assimilate such immigration numbers smoothly. Smart politicians pay attention, but the establishment politicians of 2016 ignored it.
This no doubt was part of what George Will was talking about when he referred to those seeking to infuse intellectual content into the “simmering stew of…globalization’s disruptions.” But why is it smart to disdain those concerned about the disruptions wrought by immigration flows exceeding anything ever seen before in the country? Particularly when the last time they approached today’s level, a century ago, the country became agitated and moved decisively to curb that inflow? To understand this political reality is an element of Trumpism, and to have a finger on the pulse of political sentiment would seem to be an example of a “thinking person’s Trumpism.” Further, those who either missed it or ignored it don’t look much like thinking people, and their ignorance or ideological zeal helped give us Donald Trump.
Trade: The Republican Party of Goldwater, Buckley, and Reagan was a free-trade party (though Reagan was willing to stray from that doctrine in deft and often camouflaged ways when political pressures impinged upon him). Trump ripped away the free-trade label. Does this represent another of those disassociations of Trumpism from thinking people? Well, the Republican Party was consistently protectionist from its beginning in the 1850s right up until the end of World War II. One president during that time, William McKinley, sought to craft a new doctrine, called “reciprocity,” dedicated to multiple bilateral agreements in which two countries mutually reduced trade barriers. He didn’t have a chance to demonstrate how well it could work before he was killed in 1901. His successor, Theodore Roosevelt, promptly abandoned the concept.
The Trump trade policy bears a serious resemblance to McKinley’s “reciprocity” concept. Whatever one thinks of it, no one can deny that the free trade regimen wasn’t working as advertised. Indeed, it helped hollow out America’s industrial base and devastated the blue-collar working class long considered the country’s brawn and backbone. Further, it became an invitation for other nations, particularly China, to game the system and undermine America’s ability to compete in the global marketplace. And where were our establishment politicians? Clinging to the status quo and refusing to see or address the devastation. Who were the thinking people in this tale?
Financialization of the Economy: Trump went after the big banks of Wall Street during his campaign but hasn’t taken them on as president. He was right the first time. Today, $1 out of every $12 of GDP goes to the financial sector; in the 1950s, it was only $1 for every $40 of GDP. This represents a huge additional cut for people who don’t make anything, don’t create many jobs, and generally just move money around. “The financial system we have now,” wrote Matthew Stewart in The Atlantic a couple years ago, “has been engineered, over decades, by powerful bankers for their own benefit and for that of their posterity.” The federal government favors these elements of society further with lavish tax preferences and other juicy perks of crony capitalism. If Trumpism is what Trump campaigned on in 2016, then the big financial institutions would be under political pressure today, as they should be.
Foreign Policy: Before Trump, the Republican Party was thoroughly under the sway of internationalists bent on remaking the world in the American image, including through regime change wars and threats of war, and dedicated to preventing the emergence of regional powers allowed to pursue their own interests in their own neighborhoods. Trump ran against all this. As president, severely beleaguered by allegations of Russian “collusion” that turned out to be bogus, he has had to abandon his desire to forge better relations with Russia. He has avoided any new Mideast wars, though his bellicosity toward Iran could yield that result and he has been unable to get the country out of ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. And his foreign policy rhetoric during the campaign clearly was popular with many voters and set new terms of debate both within the party and in the broader political environment.
Political Correctness: After the 2016 presidential campaign, mathematician Spencer Greenberg conducted a study indicating that anger over political correctness was the second most reliable predictor of Trump support, behind party affiliation and ahead of social conservatism, protectionism, and anti-immigration sentiments. This provided a remarkable window on the frustrations and anger on the part of those who felt they were being dismissed and marginalized by the nation’s liberal elites. No serious presidential candidate had ever taken on the PC forces with Trump’s brand of pugilism, often accompanied by his unsavory mode of expression. It was a brutal pushback against those seeking to silence conservatives by declaring their views to be outside the bounds of proper discourse. It turned out, based on Trump’s forcing the issue onto the national stage, that many Americans were fed up with that political ploy.
These Trumpian positions of 2016 represent a repository of political sentiment in the country and constitute Trump’s tightly formed political base, which has been and remains about 43 percent of the electorate. Could these positions also serve as bedrock for a broader political movement undergirding a governing coalition for the future? We don’t know because Trump has proved himself incapable of building any such governing coalition. Besides, as he has proved recently, it’s tough to disguise buffoonery in a crisis. But not all of Trumpism is divorced from intelligent thinking, and some of it will still be out there, beckoning a politician, even perhaps a thinking politician, interested in building that coalition.
Robert W. Merry, former Wall Street Journal correspondent and Congressional Quarterly CEO, is the author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century (Simon & Schuster).


theamericanconservative--2020-04-28--Up for a New Cold War—With China?

Up for a New Cold War—With China?

China hawks are n't wrong about the perfidy of the CCP , but America should n't be Vietnam 's coast guard either .
Is America , in lockdown , with 26 million unemployed and entering a new depression , up for a confrontation and Cold War with China ?
For that appears to be where the GOP wishes to lead us .
According to Politico , a 57-page memo from Mitch McConnell ’ s senatorial committee instructs GOP candidates to blame the coronavirus pandemic on China , commit to stand up to China , end U.S. dependence on Chinese manufacturing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soft on China.
” “ China is not an ally , and they ’ re not just a rival—they are an adversary and the Chinese Communist Party is our enemy , ” reads one of the talking points .
Sunday , Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas echoed the memo , charging that China ’ s leaders wanted the coronavirus to spread because they “ did not want to see their relative power and standing in the world decline.
” Cotton went on : “ It ’ s a scandal to me that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communists .
If Chinese students want to come here and learn Shakespeare and the Federalist Papers — that ’ s what they need to learn from America ; they don ’ t need to learn quantum computing and artificial intelligence from America.
” The Wall Street Journal ran back-to-back editorials last week urging a more confrontational stance toward Beijing and endorsing GOP plans for new defense spending on U.S. air and naval forces in the Western Pacific .
Cotton and the Journal are not wrong in their characterization of China ’ s behavior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and hostile toward the United States .
China has indeed sent student-spies to study at U.S. universities .
Under cover of the coronavirus crisis , Beijing is moving to strip the 7 million people of Hong Kong of the rights they were guaranteed when the British departed .
The Uighurs of Xinjiang are being persecuted and coercively cleansed of their cultural and religious beliefs .
The Peoples Liberation Army seeks to intimidate Taiwan by sending military aircraft near the island .
China ’ s warships have harassed Vietnamese , Malaysian , Philippine and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the entire South China Sea .
Chinese propagandists have accused the U.S. of creating the coronavirus crisis that broke out in Wuhan last winter .
JFK may have been inexact when he observed : “ When written in Chinese , the word ‘ crisis ’ is composed of two characters .
One represents danger and the other represents opportunity.
” But that is an accurate description of how China has conducted itself since it unleashed the Wuhan virus upon the world .
But why did Americans , after a 40-year struggle with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe differently about the Communist Party of China ?
Under the code of that party , the morality of an act is determined by whether it advances or retards the goals of the regime : expansion , conquest and domination .
As President Ronald Reagan undiplomatically observed in an early press conference , Communists reserve to themselves “ the right to lie , cheat and steal , ” which is pretty much how the Chinese Communists have been behaving toward us since we reengaged with them in 1972 .
What course does the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Freedom of navigation exercises ” by U.S. naval and air forces are “ not enough to secure the Western Pacific from Chinese domination.
” Instead , the Journal says the U.S. “ may need to start recognizing claims of countries like Vietnam to make China pay a price for further expansion .
The U.S. should also try to maintain its defense pact with the Philippines ’ mercurial President Rodrigo Duterte.
” The Journal seems to be suggesting that we formally recognize and back Vietnam ’ s claims to disputed islands in the South @ @ @ @ @ @ @ belongs to us ?
Why should the U.S. Navy risk a clash at sea by making us a party to these latest quarrels halfway around the world ?
Vietnam is a country of 95 million people .
Like China , it is also Communist .
The Philippines have more than 7,000 islands and 100 million people .
Indonesia has 17,000 to 18,000 islands and is the fourth-most populous nation on earth with 267 million citizens .
Can not the nations that share the South China Sea with China acquire coastal navies to defend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Journal volunteering the U.S. as Coast Guard of the South China Sea ?
The Journal argues that with Chinese nationalism rising under Xi Jinping , “ It ’ s more important than ever for the U.S. to signal that it considers the independence of Pacific states a vital interest and isn ’ t retreating.
” The independence and borders of these states is undeniably vital to them .
But how is that vital to us , 8,000 miles away , on the other side of the Pacific ?
This is power politics , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is co-founder of TAC and the author of Nixon ’ s White House Wars : The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever .

Is America, in lockdown, with 26 million unemployed and entering a new depression, up for a confrontation and Cold War with China?
For that appears to be where the GOP wishes to lead us.
According to Politico, a 57-page memo from Mitch McConnell’s senatorial committee instructs GOP candidates to blame the coronavirus pandemic on China, commit to stand up to China, end U.S. dependence on Chinese manufacturing and tell voters “my opponent is soft on China.”
“China is not an ally, and they’re not just a rival—they are an adversary and the Chinese Communist Party is our enemy,” reads one of the talking points.
Sunday, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas echoed the memo, charging that China’s leaders wanted the coronavirus to spread because they “did not want to see their relative power and standing in the world decline.”
Cotton went on: “It’s a scandal to me that we have trained so many of the Chinese communists. If Chinese students want to come here and learn Shakespeare and the Federalist Papers — that’s what they need to learn from America; they don’t need to learn quantum computing and artificial intelligence from America.”
The Wall Street Journal ran back-to-back editorials last week urging a more confrontational stance toward Beijing and endorsing GOP plans for new defense spending on U.S. air and naval forces in the Western Pacific. Cotton and the Journal are not wrong in their characterization of China’s behavior. It is belligerent toward its neighbors and hostile toward the United States. China has indeed sent student-spies to study at U.S. universities. Under cover of the coronavirus crisis, Beijing is moving to strip the 7 million people of Hong Kong of the rights they were guaranteed when the British departed. The Uighurs of Xinjiang are being persecuted and coercively cleansed of their cultural and religious beliefs. The Peoples Liberation Army seeks to intimidate Taiwan by sending military aircraft near the island. China’s warships have harassed Vietnamese, Malaysian, Philippine and Indonesian commercial vessels to assert its claim to the entire South China Sea. Chinese propagandists have accused the U.S. of creating the coronavirus crisis that broke out in Wuhan last winter. JFK may have been inexact when he observed: “When written in Chinese, the word ‘crisis’ is composed of two characters. One represents danger and the other represents opportunity.” But that is an accurate description of how China has conducted itself since it unleashed the Wuhan virus upon the world. But why did Americans, after a 40-year struggle with another “Evil Empire,” ever believe differently about the Communist Party of China? Under the code of that party, the morality of an act is determined by whether it advances or retards the goals of the regime: expansion, conquest and domination. As President Ronald Reagan undiplomatically observed in an early press conference, Communists reserve to themselves “the right to lie, cheat and steal,” which is pretty much how the Chinese Communists have been behaving toward us since we reengaged with them in 1972. What course does the Journal recommend that we pursue? “Freedom of navigation exercises” by U.S. naval and air forces are “not enough to secure the Western Pacific from Chinese domination.” Instead, the Journal says the U.S. “may need to start recognizing claims of countries like Vietnam to make China pay a price for further expansion. The U.S. should also try to maintain its defense pact with the Philippines’ mercurial President Rodrigo Duterte.” The Journal seems to be suggesting that we formally recognize and back Vietnam’s claims to disputed islands in the South China Sea. None of these islands belongs to us? Why should the U.S. Navy risk a clash at sea by making us a party to these latest quarrels halfway around the world? Vietnam is a country of 95 million people. Like China, it is also Communist. The Philippines have more than 7,000 islands and 100 million people. Indonesia has 17,000 to 18,000 islands and is the fourth-most populous nation on earth with 267 million citizens. Cannot the nations that share the South China Sea with China acquire coastal navies to defend their own waters? Why is the Journal volunteering the U.S. as Coast Guard of the South China Sea? The Journal argues that with Chinese nationalism rising under Xi Jinping, “It’s more important than ever for the U.S. to signal that it considers the independence of Pacific states a vital interest and isn’t retreating.” The independence and borders of these states is undeniably vital to them. But how is that vital to us, 8,000 miles away, on the other side of the Pacific? This is power politics, pure and simple.
Patrick J. Buchanan is co-founder of TAC and the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.


theamericanconservative--2020-04-29--Trump’s Coming Victory Over the #MeToo Movement

Former US Vice President and Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden arrives to speak about COVID-19 , known as the Coronavirus , during a press event in Wilmington , Delaware on March 12 , 2020 .
( Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images ) “ I have been Larry Flynted ” is not chiseled on one of our national monuments .
Maybe it ’ s time to change that .
Those words were uttered in a Republican caucus meeting in December 1998 by Congressman Bob Livingston of Louisiana .
Newt Gingrich had just resigned following the GOP ’ s mediocre @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections .
Livingston was set to take over as speaker of the House , only for it to emerge , courtesy of flesh merchant Larry Flynt , that he ’ d had extramarital affairs .
This was no incidental gossip : the Republicans were then arguing that President Bill Clinton ought to be impeached for lying under oath about his own adultery .
Rather than make their efforts seem hypocritical , Livingston resigned on the House floor .
Republicans and Democrats alike gave him a standing ovation .
Don ’ t credit the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crusaded against Clinton for years despite reports of his own infidelity .
And Livingston ’ s decision was ultimately made more for the sake of his family than the consistency of his party ’ s message .
Still , the abdication of Livingston , a popular rep who many at the time believed might have shouldered the GOP into a successful post-Gingrich era , stands out as a rare example of principle superseding politics , of “ do as I say ” aligning with “ do as I do.
” Fast-forward to today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impropriety against a prominent political figure , this one far graver than simple adultery .
According to Tara Reade , in 1993 , then-senator Joe Biden approached her in the Capitol building , pushed her against a wall , and inserted his fingers inside her .
She was later fired from his office when she voiced concerns .
Her brother , friend , and former neighbor have all said she told them what happened shortly after the incident .
A video from that same year appears to show her mother calling in to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ask about “ problems ” her daughter had encountered with “ a prominent senator.
” Reade ’ s allegation is now more corroborated than anything Christine Blasey Ford leveled against Brett Kavanaugh .
If we ’ re to Believe All Women , if No Really Means No , then Reade ’ s accusations at the very least deserve a public hearing .
Instead the anti-Trump media heavyweights have all but blacked out the story .
The New York Times sat on Reade ’ s allegations for almost three weeks , only for executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they wanted to do more research to help readers “ understand ” ( a luxury notably not afforded to Kavanaugh , whom the Times hammered ) .
CNN waited 24 days to mention Reade ’ s allegations , failed to break the news of Reade ’ s mother ’ s appearance on their own network , and allowed Anderson Cooper to interview Biden without asking a single question about the purported assault .
The Democratic National Committee has stayed mum on Reade .
Women ’ s groups , usually eager to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been all but silent .
Hillary Clinton endorsed Biden on Tuesday .
To be fair , some on the left have dissented from the blackout .
The Intercept has done commendable reporting on Reade ’ s allegations and many Bernie Bros on Twitter have called out the DNC ’ s hypocrisy .
What they seem to understand is that this doesn ’ t have to be a binding political marriage .
Biden could still be replaced with a less handsy candidate at the convention in the summer—a farfetched scenario , to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being buzzed about well before Reade came forward , with Andrew Cuomo named as a potential dark horse .
And given that Democrats accepting Biden has been akin to watching a small child swallow castor oil , surely a do-over wouldn ’ t be the worst thing in the world .
Yet even if there was no second chance in sight , even if Biden were somehow the only man in America capable of beating a president currently being fact-checked by the Lysol corporation , I ’ m afraid that ’ s just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the left announced a new era of law enforcement with regard to sexual misconduct .
This tough-on-crime approach became central to Democrats ’ campaign against the president , whom they portrayed as the misogynist kingpin , a pussy-grabbing , cop-a-feeling totem of everything wrong with American men .
They don ’ t now get to do an about-face and declare clemency for Biden because they think defeating Trump is the more urgent cause .
Yet with their silence , that ’ s exactly what they ’ re doing .
One message of # @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woke platitudes would no longer excuse sexual misconduct .
Justice was to be blind , with liberal harassers coming in for the same scrutiny as conservatives .
With Biden , that ’ s all being buried .
Machiavelli is triumphing over morals ; the entire # MeToo movement teeters over a precipice .
All that talk about how the standards need to be applied evenly , the same to hip icons like Louis C.K .
as to garden-variety perverts in Florida , now looks like a mere vacation from the usual political oneupsmanship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the left in the age of Trump , and if they continue this way , the # MeToo movement may yet be routed too .
The problem here runs deeper than just crass political advantage .
America is in the midst of a culture war that has become all-consuming .
Not only have we grown factionalized to a degree that would have given the Founding Fathers migraines , those factions have subordinated , or perhaps subsumed , everything else—the law , the national interest , honor , patriotism .
These days , doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s side is regarded as the supreme political virtue , while any advancement by the other side is seen as an existential threat .
Thus did the right excuse Donald Trump ’ s alleged carnal misdeeds so long as he pledged to fight the left ; thus do many progressives now avert their eyes and whistle while Tara Reade tells her horror story .
The mentality is of wartime , with an allegation of sexual assault just another artillery salvo to be dodged .
Of course , politics has always been bloodsport waged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are far more the exception than the rule .
Still , I don ’ t think it can be denied that something has changed , that the culture war ’ s imperatives ring louder today than they used to .
It ’ s almost impossible to imagine , for example , Republicans backing the impeachment of a GOP president , as they did with Richard Nixon in 1974 .
It isn ’ t that “ nothing matters anymore ” ; it ’ s that victory over the enemy matters most of all .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ again last year , during the furor over Trump ’ s impeachment .
He ’ s a lobbyist now and represents several organizations in Ukraine , as well as more domestic clients like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce .
A former National Security Council official testified that Livingston had called her and recommended that Marie Yovanovitch , the ambassador to Ukraine , be fired because she was an “ Obama holdover ” and connected to George Soros .
Even the good guys in Washington often turn into partisans and calculators .
Still , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The question now is : how much longer will Democrats try to test those limits ?

“I have been Larry Flynted” is not chiseled on one of our national monuments. Maybe it’s time to change that.
Those words were uttered in a Republican caucus meeting in December 1998 by Congressman Bob Livingston of Louisiana. Newt Gingrich had just resigned following the GOP’s mediocre showing in that year’s midterm elections. Livingston was set to take over as speaker of the House, only for it to emerge, courtesy of flesh merchant Larry Flynt, that he’d had extramarital affairs. This was no incidental gossip: the Republicans were then arguing that President Bill Clinton ought to be impeached for lying under oath about his own adultery. Rather than make their efforts seem hypocritical, Livingston resigned on the House floor. Republicans and Democrats alike gave him a standing ovation.
Don’t credit the GOP too much. Newt Gingrich had crusaded against Clinton for years despite reports of his own infidelity. And Livingston’s decision was ultimately made more for the sake of his family than the consistency of his party’s message. Still, the abdication of Livingston, a popular rep who many at the time believed might have shouldered the GOP into a successful post-Gingrich era, stands out as a rare example of principle superseding politics, of “do as I say” aligning with “do as I do.”
How utterly adorable.
Fast-forward to today and we have another allegation of sexual impropriety against a prominent political figure, this one far graver than simple adultery. According to Tara Reade, in 1993, then-senator Joe Biden approached her in the Capitol building, pushed her against a wall, and inserted his fingers inside her. She was later fired from his office when she voiced concerns. Her brother, friend, and former neighbor have all said she told them what happened shortly after the incident. A video from that same year appears to show her mother calling in to CNN’s Larry King Live to ask about “problems” her daughter had encountered with “a prominent senator.” Reade’s allegation is now more corroborated than anything Christine Blasey Ford leveled against Brett Kavanaugh. If we’re to Believe All Women, if No Really Means No, then Reade’s accusations at the very least deserve a public hearing.
Instead the anti-Trump media heavyweights have all but blacked out the story. The New York Times sat on Reade’s allegations for almost three weeks, only for executive editor Dean Baquet to claim this was because they wanted to do more research to help readers “understand” (a luxury notably not afforded to Kavanaugh, whom the Times hammered). CNN waited 24 days to mention Reade’s allegations, failed to break the news of Reade’s mother’s appearance on their own network, and allowed Anderson Cooper to interview Biden without asking a single question about the purported assault. The Democratic National Committee has stayed mum on Reade. Women’s groups, usually eager to see another sex pest get his comeuppance, have been all but silent. Hillary Clinton endorsed Biden on Tuesday.
To be fair, some on the left have dissented from the blackout. The Intercept has done commendable reporting on Reade’s allegations and many Bernie Bros on Twitter have called out the DNC’s hypocrisy. What they seem to understand is that this doesn’t have to be a binding political marriage. Biden could still be replaced with a less handsy candidate at the convention in the summer—a farfetched scenario, to be sure, but one that was nonetheless being buzzed about well before Reade came forward, with Andrew Cuomo named as a potential dark horse. And given that Democrats accepting Biden has been akin to watching a small child swallow castor oil, surely a do-over wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world.
Yet even if there was no second chance in sight, even if Biden were somehow the only man in America capable of beating a president currently being fact-checked by the Lysol corporation, I’m afraid that’s just too bad. With #MeToo, the left announced a new era of law enforcement with regard to sexual misconduct. This tough-on-crime approach became central to Democrats’ campaign against the president, whom they portrayed as the misogynist kingpin, a pussy-grabbing, cop-a-feeling totem of everything wrong with American men. They don’t now get to do an about-face and declare clemency for Biden because they think defeating Trump is the more urgent cause.
Yet with their silence, that’s exactly what they’re doing. One message of #MeToo was supposed to be that uttering woke platitudes would no longer excuse sexual misconduct. Justice was to be blind, with liberal harassers coming in for the same scrutiny as conservatives. With Biden, that’s all being buried. Machiavelli is triumphing over morals; the entire #MeToo movement teeters over a precipice. All that talk about how the standards need to be applied evenly, the same to hip icons like Louis C.K. as to garden-variety perverts in Florida, now looks like a mere vacation from the usual political oneupsmanship. A lot has been taken from the left in the age of Trump, and if they continue this way, the #MeToo movement may yet be routed too.
The problem here runs deeper than just crass political advantage. America is in the midst of a culture war that has become all-consuming. Not only have we grown factionalized to a degree that would have given the Founding Fathers migraines, those factions have subordinated, or perhaps subsumed, everything else—the law, the national interest, honor, patriotism. These days, doing what’s right by one’s side is regarded as the supreme political virtue, while any advancement by the other side is seen as an existential threat. Thus did the right excuse Donald Trump’s alleged carnal misdeeds so long as he pledged to fight the left; thus do many progressives now avert their eyes and whistle while Tara Reade tells her horror story. The mentality is of wartime, with an allegation of sexual assault just another artillery salvo to be dodged.
Of course, politics has always been bloodsport waged by the imperfect, and Bob Livingstons are far more the exception than the rule. Still, I don’t think it can be denied that something has changed, that the culture war’s imperatives ring louder today than they used to. It’s almost impossible to imagine, for example, Republicans backing the impeachment of a GOP president, as they did with Richard Nixon in 1974. It isn’t that “nothing matters anymore”; it’s that victory over the enemy matters most of all.
As for Bob Livingston, he surfaced again last year, during the furor over Trump’s impeachment. He’s a lobbyist now and represents several organizations in Ukraine, as well as more domestic clients like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. A former National Security Council official testified that Livingston had called her and recommended that Marie Yovanovitch, the ambassador to Ukraine, be fired because she was an “Obama holdover” and connected to George Soros.
Even the good guys in Washington often turn into partisans and calculators. Still, hypocrisy can only be stretched so thin. The question now is: how much longer will Democrats try to test those limits?


theamericanconservative--2020-04-29--Trump Plan Would Unleash Big Timber on Tongass National Forest

Never heard of the 'Roadless Rule ' ?
It 's about to be lifted , unleashing a whole lot of greed on this pristine Alaskan sanctuary .
As I write this , I am looking from my window out to Shenandoah National Park and the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia .
In a time of social distancing and sheltering in place , it is a great comfort to call upon the peace and sustenance the natural world can provide .
It is an enduring good .
American presidents of both parties—from Teddy Roosevelt to my old boss , Ronald Reagan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good and sought to protect our country ’ s natural heritage .
American transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau once stated that there “ are moments when all anxiety and stated toil are becalmed in the infinite leisure and repose of nature.
” This is why , now , more than ever , we must protect the federal lands so designated by generations of American leaders .
We must conserve this heritage , our birthright as Americans , so that these lands will remain untouched , a sanctuary in trying times .
The largest federally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tongass National Forest in Alaska , is facing a threat from Big Industry , especially logging , that would enable large-scale clearcutting throughout , destroying almost 10 million acres of temperate rainforest and the wildlife within .
Too often , private logging companies operating in national forests think public lands are for their own private enterprise .
Somehow the ideals of freedom and free enterprise have gotten mixed up in this argument .
The Tongass has glaciers , fjords , islands and 11,000 miles of shoreline .
It is a natural and national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abundance of indigenous wildlife , including bears , wolves , Sitka black-tailed deer , northern goshawks , marbled murrelets and the largest known concentration of bald eagles .
In the glistening waters surrounding the forests of the Tongass , humpback and orca whales , otters , sea lions , porpoises and all five species of Pacific salmon can be found .
Migratory birds in the hundreds of thousands—snow geese , sandhill cranes , sandpipers , plovers and other species—make their way to the Tongass .
And so do the tourists .
Millions from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alaska to experience the wonders of the Tongass , yielding a multi-million-dollar tourism industry .
The tourists see the value of the Tongass and of reconnecting to something so natural , so should our government .
The proposal to lift the protections of the Roadless Rule is an effort by the Trump Administration to open up logging for the timber industry .
It would irreversibly devastate millions of acres of land and damage nearby water sources , destroying the interwoven habitats of animals , birds and fish .
This beacon of the natural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , unrestrained corporate greed and big logging .
What is more , each year government subsidies from the taxpayer ’ s wallet result in millions of dollars of economic losses , as the logging industry is propped up only to yield a 1 percent return of profit .
It is not worth it .
Needless to say , America needs economic growth , but America also needs sacred lands .
And , as any economist will tell you , America ’ s national economic future is not in clearcutting pristine national forests .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ irresponsible corporate profits .
Our refuge , our heritage , our lands .
Landon Parvin was a speechwriter for Presidents Ronald Reagan , George H.W .
Bush , George W. Bush , and California Gov .
Arnold Schwarzenegger .

As I write this, I am looking from my window out to Shenandoah National Park and the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. In a time of social distancing and sheltering in place, it is a great comfort to call upon the peace and sustenance the natural world can provide. It is an enduring good.
American presidents of both parties—from Teddy Roosevelt to my old boss, Ronald Reagan, to Barack Obama—have embraced this enduring good and sought to protect our country’s natural heritage.
American transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau once stated that there “are moments when all anxiety and stated toil are becalmed in the infinite leisure and repose of nature.”
This is why, now, more than ever, we must protect the federal lands so designated by generations of American leaders. We must conserve this heritage, our birthright as Americans, so that these lands will remain untouched, a sanctuary in trying times.
The largest federally protected forest in the country, the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, is facing a threat from Big Industry, especially logging, that would enable large-scale clearcutting throughout, destroying almost 10 million acres of temperate rainforest and the wildlife within.
Too often, private logging companies operating in national forests think public lands are for their own private enterprise. Somehow the ideals of freedom and free enterprise have gotten mixed up in this argument.
The Tongass has glaciers, fjords, islands and 11,000 miles of shoreline. It is a natural and national jewel.
It is home to an abundance of indigenous wildlife, including bears, wolves, Sitka black-tailed deer, northern goshawks, marbled murrelets and the largest known concentration of bald eagles. In the glistening waters surrounding the forests of the Tongass, humpback and orca whales, otters, sea lions, porpoises and all five species of Pacific salmon can be found.
Migratory birds in the hundreds of thousands—snow geese, sandhill cranes, sandpipers, plovers and other species—make their way to the Tongass.
And so do the tourists. Millions from around the world travel every year to Alaska to experience the wonders of the Tongass, yielding a multi-million-dollar tourism industry. The tourists see the value of the Tongass and of reconnecting to something so natural, so should our government.
The proposal to lift the protections of the Roadless Rule is an effort by the Trump Administration to open up logging for the timber industry. It would irreversibly devastate millions of acres of land and damage nearby water sources, destroying the interwoven habitats of animals, birds and fish.
This beacon of the natural world would be destroyed by government approval, unrestrained corporate greed and big logging. What is more, each year government subsidies from the taxpayer’s wallet result in millions of dollars of economic losses, as the logging industry is propped up only to yield a 1 percent return of profit. It is not worth it.
Needless to say, America needs economic growth, but America also needs sacred lands. And, as any economist will tell you, America’s national economic future is not in clearcutting pristine national forests.
There are some things more important than irresponsible corporate profits. Our refuge, our heritage, our lands.
Landon Parvin was a speechwriter for Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.


theamericanconservative--2020-05-02--Lockdown Wars: Debating Pandemic Measures in a Failed State

Protestors try to enter the Michigan House of Representative chamber and are being kept out by the Michigan State Police after the American Patriot Rally organized by Michigan United for Liberty on April 30 .
( Photo by JEFF KOWALSKY/AFP via Getty Images ) If America has a fast forward button on it , someone should push it ahead to November .
We won ’ t be done with the virus until we ’ re done with the election .
Between prudence and overreaction lies politics .
We bleat about wanting decisions to be based on science , then we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even counting the corona dead differently ( nothing left certain but taxes now ) to make the numbers seem better or worse depending on shifty politics .
Something that should not be about Trump at all is All About Trump .
It ’ s killing us .
There is no other country in the world so driven by a politics so devoid of science .
Other countries have good leaders , some not so good .
But look at us .
Our nation is held hostage to protests and counter-protests , lockdowns and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other nation where so many are convinced their leader is actively trying to kill them , even imagining he wants them to drink bleach .
The MSM portrays protesters against government restrictions as Trump death cultists who ’ d rather end up in an ICU than skip a haircut .
Such flippancy insults the righteous anger over lost livelihoods .
It is an echo of the things that lost 2016 for the Democrats .
The people don ’ t want haircuts .
They want to feed their families .
They want thought-out targeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fearmongering .
It ’ s about deep emotional waters , sense of self , a whole lot more than just how the economy will help Trump win or lose .
Many also are concerned that their rights , including to assemble , to worship , and to protest , are being controlled by leaders they don ’ t trust while a media they abandoned years ago mocks them .
Beachgoers in a red state are # FloridaMorons ; in a blue state it ’ s # SurfsUp .
But they see this time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further , beyond the deplorable label , to wishing them to catch the virus , figuring the infection will teach them a lesson before they vote wrong again .
Wishing death on people you disagree with .
Elsewhere , medical professionals say the protesters have no right to put others ’ lives at risk , and think it ’ s more than OK to physically stop the rallies .
That ’ s called “ the heckler ’ s veto ” by the Supreme Court and is not allowed under the First Amendment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nurse or an abortion protester blocking the door to a clinic .
Stopping someone from protesting by shouting them down , driving a car into their crowd , or otherwise trying to interfere with them exercising their rights ( including the right to hold a dumb opinion or one you disagree with ) is disdainful and unconstitutional .
The medical professionals and their Muppet chorus of journalists sound like some soldiers who felt their sacrifice was made cheap by people who protested the war .
Thank you for your service .
It does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choose which people can exercise their rights .
When you choose to serve you serve those you don ’ t define as worthy as well as those you do .
It ’ s bigger than you , doc .
People and governments always invoke the safety and security of the majority when they are taking away rights for “ our own good , ” just like the Patriot Act did .
It ’ s an old playbook , joined in this century by our First Amendment nannies on social media , who electronically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re screeching about how rights don ’ t matter when lives are at stake , you ’ ve got company .
The KKK used that argument to block black people from marching , claiming it was a safety issue .
Yet California will no longer issue permits for anti-lockdown protests at any state properties , including the Capitol .
Agree ?
Just remember what you ’ re saying now about these redneck inbred gun nuts the next time someone claims a march permit can ’ t be issued in the interest of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s the same thing , rights are rights .
Because you know what else can spread rapidly if “ left unchecked ?
” Tyranny .
Justice Louis Brandeis held free speech is not an abstract virtue but a key element of a democratic society .
He ruled even speech likely to result in “ violence or in destruction of property is not enough to justify its suppression.
” In braver times when Americans challenged the safety vs. liberty argument , the Supreme Court consistently ruled in favor of free speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But that was another world ago , before we measured human worth in RTs .
There is science which should be informing decisions .
But while claiming a small rally in Denver will cost lives , or Florida will kill people by opening its beaches , the same voices remain silent as NYC keeps its subway running 24/7 .
The public beach versus public transportation debate came as a new study showed that NYC ’ s “ multitentacled subway system was a major disseminator—if not the principal transmission vehicle—of coronavirus infection , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Without a superspreader like the subway it can be contained locally .
It is tragic when the virus rips through a nursing home or meatpacking plant ( it is a virus after all , it will go viral ) , but all of those together barely touch a week ’ s body count in New York .
Shut down mass transport .
We can put most people back to work with limited risk ; the protesters are right .
The virus kills a very specific patient .
About half the dead are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of deaths are under age 44 .
Almost 94 percent of the dead in any age group had serious underlying medical issues ( about half had hypertension and/or were obese , a third had lung problems ) .
The death toll in NY/NJ under total lockdown : over 27,000 .
Death toll in much more densely populated Tokyo with “ smart ” lockdown : 98 .
About 22 percent of New Yorkers already have the virus antibody and thus expected immunity .
One logical implication of this—that large numbers already have or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is harmless to them—is simply ignored .
Quarantine/social distancing should be for those most vulnerable so we can stop wrecking all of society with cruder measures .
Hospitals should separate patients by age .
No need to keep kids from school , especially if that means isolating them inside a multigenerational household .
Let them wear soggy paper masks to class , even tin foil on their heads , if it makes things easier .
Online classes are lame and America doesn ’ t need a new generation dumber than the current one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with roughly half the dead for the entire nation , practices full-on social distancing while Georgia was one of the last states to implement a weaker stay-at-home policy .
Yet as Georgia re-opens , the NY/NJ death count is over 27,000 .
Georgia is 892 .
NYC alone continues adding around 500 bodies to the pile every day , even with its bowling alleys closed .
We judge risk versus gain for every other cause of death .
We wear condoms .
We watch our diets .
Time to do the same for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we may not even be judging them accurately .
Some 22 states have had fewer than 100 deaths .
Only 15 states had total deaths for the entire duration of the crisis higher than NYC ’ s current 500 a day .
The original goal of lockdowns , to buy time for the health care system ( and most resources were never needed due to over-estimates of the viral impact ) , has passed .
If the new goal is Virus Zero it will never come .
If the real goal is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put up with this without serious discussion until November .
A Stanford doctor nails it : “ Strictly protect the known vulnerable , self-isolate the mildly sick and open most workplaces with some prudent large-group precautions .
This would allow the essential socializing to generate immunity among those with minimal risk of serious consequence , while saving lives , preventing overcrowding of hospitals , and limiting the enormous harms compounded by continued total isolation.
” We are fretting and frittering away our national muscle watching TV about a bigamous tiger keeper .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to continue indefinitely , a pathetic nation whose primary industries for its young people are camming and GoFundMe .
Politics focuses on viral deaths , but the Reaper keeps a more accurate tally : deaths from despair , from hunger ( two million new people became food insecure in NYC since the virus ) , financial losses ( 26 million Americans have filed for unemployment ) , mental health issues , and abuse ( domestic murders during the viral months in NYC outstripped the total from 2019 ) .
In some ultimate irony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for fear of bringing their kids to medical facilities .
It is the reaction to the pandemic that exhausts us , not the pandemic itself .
So when someone claims it is Money vs. Life they miss the real answer : It ’ s both .
It should not be taboo to discuss this .
Peter Van Buren , a 24-year State Department veteran , is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People , Hooper ’ s War @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Ghosts of Tom Joad : A Story of the # 99 Percent .

If America has a fast forward button on it, someone should push it ahead to November. We won’t be done with the virus until we’re done with the election. Between prudence and overreaction lies politics.
We bleat about wanting decisions to be based on science, then we do the same dumb red-blue thing, even counting the corona dead differently (nothing left certain but taxes now) to make the numbers seem better or worse depending on shifty politics. Something that should not be about Trump at all is All About Trump.
It’s killing us. There is no other country in the world so driven by a politics so devoid of science. Other countries have good leaders, some not so good. But look at us. Our nation is held hostage to protests and counter-protests, lockdowns and open bowling alleys. There is no other nation where so many are convinced their leader is actively trying to kill them, even imagining he wants them to drink bleach.
The MSM portrays protesters against government restrictions as Trump death cultists who’d rather end up in an ICU than skip a haircut. Such flippancy insults the righteous anger over lost livelihoods. It is an echo of the things that lost 2016 for the Democrats. The people don’t want haircuts. They want to feed their families. They want thought-out targeted restrictions instead of politically driven overreaction and fearmongering. It’s about deep emotional waters, sense of self, a whole lot more than just how the economy will help Trump win or lose. Many also are concerned that their rights, including to assemble, to worship, and to protest, are being controlled by leaders they don’t trust while a media they abandoned years ago mocks them. Beachgoers in a red state are #FloridaMorons; in a blue state it’s #SurfsUp.
But they see this time the Brooklyn elites are going a step further, beyond the deplorable label, to wishing them to catch the virus, figuring the infection will teach them a lesson before they vote wrong again. Wishing death on people you disagree with.
Elsewhere, medical professionals say the protesters have no right to put others’ lives at risk, and think it’s more than OK to physically stop the rallies. That’s called “the heckler’s veto” by the Supreme Court and is not allowed under the First Amendment, whether you’re a hero ER nurse or an abortion protester blocking the door to a clinic. Stopping someone from protesting by shouting them down, driving a car into their crowd, or otherwise trying to interfere with them exercising their rights (including the right to hold a dumb opinion or one you disagree with) is disdainful and unconstitutional.
The medical professionals and their Muppet chorus of journalists sound like some soldiers who felt their sacrifice was made cheap by people who protested the war. Thank you for your service. It does not, however, allow you to choose which people can exercise their rights. When you choose to serve you serve those you don’t define as worthy as well as those you do. It’s bigger than you, doc.
People and governments always invoke the safety and security of the majority when they are taking away rights for “our own good,” just like the Patriot Act did. It’s an old playbook, joined in this century by our First Amendment nannies on social media, who electronically block efforts to organize. If you’re screeching about how rights don’t matter when lives are at stake, you’ve got company. The KKK used that argument to block black people from marching, claiming it was a safety issue. Yet California will no longer issue permits for anti-lockdown protests at any state properties, including the Capitol.
Agree? Just remember what you’re saying now about these redneck inbred gun nuts the next time someone claims a march permit can’t be issued in the interest of public safety to a group you support. It’s the same thing, rights are rights. Because you know what else can spread rapidly if “left unchecked?” Tyranny. Justice Louis Brandeis held free speech is not an abstract virtue but a key element of a democratic society. He ruled even speech likely to result in “violence or in destruction of property is not enough to justify its suppression.” In braver times when Americans challenged the safety vs. liberty argument, the Supreme Court consistently ruled in favor of free speech, reminding us democracy comes with risk. But that was another world ago, before we measured human worth in RTs.
There is science which should be informing decisions. But while claiming a small rally in Denver will cost lives, or Florida will kill people by opening its beaches, the same voices remain silent as NYC keeps its subway running 24/7. The public beach versus public transportation debate came as a new study showed that NYC’s “multitentacled subway system was a major disseminator—if not the principal transmission vehicle—of coronavirus infection,” seeding the virus throughout the city. Without a superspreader like the subway it can be contained locally. It is tragic when the virus rips through a nursing home or meatpacking plant (it is a virus after all, it will go viral), but all of those together barely touch a week’s body count in New York. Shut down mass transport.
We can put most people back to work with limited risk; the protesters are right. The virus kills a very specific patient. About half the dead are over age 65. Less than one percent of deaths are under age 44. Almost 94 percent of the dead in any age group had serious underlying medical issues (about half had hypertension and/or were obese, a third had lung problems). The death toll in NY/NJ under total lockdown: over 27,000. Death toll in much more densely populated Tokyo with “smart” lockdown: 98.
About 22 percent of New Yorkers already have the virus antibody and thus expected immunity. One logical implication of this—that large numbers already have or had the virus, and that it is harmless to them—is simply ignored. Quarantine/social distancing should be for those most vulnerable so we can stop wrecking all of society with cruder measures. Hospitals should separate patients by age. No need to keep kids from school, especially if that means isolating them inside a multigenerational household. Let them wear soggy paper masks to class, even tin foil on their heads, if it makes things easier. Online classes are lame and America doesn’t need a new generation dumber than the current one.
The New York-New Jersey area, with roughly half the dead for the entire nation, practices full-on social distancing while Georgia was one of the last states to implement a weaker stay-at-home policy. Yet as Georgia re-opens, the NY/NJ death count is over 27,000. Georgia is 892. NYC alone continues adding around 500 bodies to the pile every day, even with its bowling alleys closed.
We judge risk versus gain for every other cause of death. We wear condoms. We watch our diets. Time to do the same for the virus. As for lockdowns, we may not even be judging them accurately. Some 22 states have had fewer than 100 deaths. Only 15 states had total deaths for the entire duration of the crisis higher than NYC’s current 500 a day. The original goal of lockdowns, to buy time for the health care system (and most resources were never needed due to over-estimates of the viral impact), has passed. If the new goal is Virus Zero it will never come. If the real goal is to harm Trump we’ll have to put up with this without serious discussion until November.
A Stanford doctor nails it: “Strictly protect the known vulnerable, self-isolate the mildly sick and open most workplaces with some prudent large-group precautions. This would allow the essential socializing to generate immunity among those with minimal risk of serious consequence, while saving lives, preventing overcrowding of hospitals, and limiting the enormous harms compounded by continued total isolation.”
We are fretting and frittering away our national muscle watching TV about a bigamous tiger keeper. There are too many who want this isolation to continue indefinitely, a pathetic nation whose primary industries for its young people are camming and GoFundMe. Politics focuses on viral deaths, but the Reaper keeps a more accurate tally: deaths from despair, from hunger (two million new people became food insecure in NYC since the virus), financial losses (26 million Americans have filed for unemployment), mental health issues, and abuse (domestic murders during the viral months in NYC outstripped the total from 2019). In some ultimate irony, parents are postponing standard childhood vaccinations for fear of bringing their kids to medical facilities.
It is the reaction to the pandemic that exhausts us, not the pandemic itself. So when someone claims it is Money vs. Life they miss the real answer: It’s both. It should not be taboo to discuss this.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People, Hooper’s War: A Novel of WWII Japan, and Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent.


theamericanconservative--2020-05-04--Right Now the Trump-Biden Race is a Toss Up

But do n't count the president out : his approval ratings are , as of today , nowhere near Bush 's when he left office .
WASHINGTON—The Trump project has gone to seed .
That ’ s the view of quarantined information traffickers in the nation ’ s capital , anyway .
It ’ s late spring , just months into an already turbulent decade .
And Donald Trump is doomed .
The emergence of SARS_COVID2 has understandably given Prosecco-swilling prognosticators the heebie jeebies .
The smart set is now as confident of the president ’ s political demise as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago .
On Valentine ’ s Day , a week after Trump ’ s Senate acquittal—the third in U.S. history—he was considered unstoppable .
But now , all that ’ s a lifetime from May Day .
And it ’ s Joe Biden who ’ s licking his chops .
Or so goes the conventional wisdom .
This is , of course , the kind of thinking that left the former vice president for dead before winning his South Carolina stronghold .
And for high priests in dreamland , Andrew Cuomo is sitting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is architect of America ’ s most belabored , but assuredly most performative , response to the pandemic .
It would seem—like a nuclear blast radius—that distance from national power at Cinco de Mayo assures proximity to it come Christmas .
That view means Donald Trump ’ s days are numbered .
Would that it were so simple .
A fact : Trump ’ s poll numbers versus Mr. Biden have been in the commode for a while .
Last spring , Trump sacked his pollsters who showed him losing to Mr. Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On a foreign trip last year , I watched a Republican delegation assure anyone who wanted to hear that Trump ’ s triumph in 2020 was a done deal .
That was a mistake .
When reinforcements in the polling department provided the same verdict this April , the president replied with understandable astonishment .
“ I ’ m not losing to f**king Joe Biden , ” Trump is rumored to have told his campaign man Brad Parscale .
Mr. Parscale is the mastermind of a campaign slogan now worthy of opéra bouffe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president drew the short straw , even if sanguine Republican National Committee researchers can ’ t measure .
He is facing his toughest possible opponent .
Yes , Mr. Biden .
Both party establishments underestimated Barack Obama ’ s longtime lieutenant , including Barack Obama .
Republican members of Congress last fall were preparing to go to war with Elizabeth Warren .
Unless Biden deputizes her on his ticket , as is plausible , the right won without firing a shot .
And in winter , conservatives prepared to confront a codger bent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But hope sprung eternal only for Joe .
Biden ’ s logorrheic lectures are target practice on Twitter but solid gold in the pews of African American churches , inner city school boards , and country stump stops that gave Biden the nomination , and may yet , the presidency .
There is a deeply uncomfortable power struggle between the African-American establishment , to which the not black , Irish Biden owes his present authority , and the more liberal demographic popularizing socialism in America .
Alexandria Ocascio-Cortez won gentrifying neighborhoods in New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cold civil war in the Democratic Party .
Yet , these trenches are also misunderstood by a Republican Party that believes an ancient allegation of sexual assault will dislodge a politician challenging a figure accused of at least twenty-three such transgressions .
It would seem we ’ re closer to the twilight of an era of sexual reckoning than we are to the end of the careers of either President Donald Trump or Joseph R. Biden , Jr .
But it ’ s now Trump ’ s turn in the bargain bin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , those with both mouths to feed and money to put in say this race is a tossup .
On PredictIt.org , shares of Donald Trump can be purchased for fifty-one cents .
A Biden bid costs forty-three , a steal made possible only by suckers who buy into the idea of the Cuomo circus , or Hillary Clinton ’ s worst run for the White House yet .
I ’ d be tempted to buy both shares .
The ghosts of 2008 haunt the GOP , the year the right last relinquished @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But unlike twelve years ago , the earth hasn ’ t opened up and swallowed the president ’ s approval ratings .
Trump ’ s support , in the low forties , is nearly double the twenty-two percent that George W. Bush had when he left office .
And though Vice President Mike Pence may be terrified of being dumped from the ticket this summer , he can sleep a little easier knowing that he ’ s a galaxy away from the thirteen percent Richard Cheney left office with .
Trump can plausibly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a Beijing booster .
One-size-fits-all government overreach has given Trump an opening to appeal to minorities and low-income earners decimated by the economy ’ s sudden closure .
Places of peripatetic employment—like Las Vegas , Nevada , an epicenter of the economic catastrophe—could be receptive to a message that Biden promises more lockdowns and then some .
And if Trump were to lead the U.S. exit from Afghanistan , as is being considered , he ’ d give Americans the opportunity to vote for the first president in decades who ended a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So , for some , I ’ ll be the bearer of bad news : We are a long way from November .

WASHINGTON—The Trump project has gone to seed.
That’s the view of quarantined information traffickers in the nation’s capital, anyway. It’s late spring, just months into an already turbulent decade. And Donald Trump is doomed.
The emergence of SARS_COVID2 has understandably given Prosecco-swilling prognosticators the heebie jeebies. The smart set is now as confident of the president’s political demise as they were of his invincibility a season ago. On Valentine’s Day, a week after Trump’s Senate acquittal—the third in U.S. history—he was considered unstoppable.
But now, all that’s a lifetime from May Day. And it’s Joe Biden who’s licking his chops.
Or so goes the conventional wisdom. This is, of course, the kind of thinking that left the former vice president for dead before winning his South Carolina stronghold. And for high priests in dreamland, Andrew Cuomo is sitting even prettier. The New York governor is architect of America’s most belabored, but assuredly most performative, response to the pandemic. It would seem—like a nuclear blast radius—that distance from national power at Cinco de Mayo assures proximity to it come Christmas. That view means Donald Trump’s days are numbered.
Would that it were so simple. A fact: Trump’s poll numbers versus Mr. Biden have been in the commode for a while. Last spring, Trump sacked his pollsters who showed him losing to Mr. Biden. The Republican elite hardly protested. On a foreign trip last year, I watched a Republican delegation assure anyone who wanted to hear that Trump’s triumph in 2020 was a done deal.
That was a mistake. When reinforcements in the polling department provided the same verdict this April, the president replied with understandable astonishment. “I’m not losing to f**king Joe Biden,” Trump is rumored to have told his campaign man Brad Parscale. Mr. Parscale is the mastermind of a campaign slogan now worthy of opéra bouffe: “Keep America Great.”
The president drew the short straw, even if sanguine Republican National Committee researchers can’t measure. He is facing his toughest possible opponent. Yes, Mr. Biden.
Both party establishments underestimated Barack Obama’s longtime lieutenant, including Barack Obama. Republican members of Congress last fall were preparing to go to war with Elizabeth Warren. Unless Biden deputizes her on his ticket, as is plausible, the right won without firing a shot. And in winter, conservatives prepared to confront a codger bent on bringing socialism to the States.
But hope sprung eternal only for Joe. Biden’s logorrheic lectures are target practice on Twitter but solid gold in the pews of African American churches, inner city school boards, and country stump stops that gave Biden the nomination, and may yet, the presidency. There is a deeply uncomfortable power struggle between the African-American establishment, to which the not black, Irish Biden owes his present authority, and the more liberal demographic popularizing socialism in America. Alexandria Ocascio-Cortez won gentrifying neighborhoods in New York.
Such is the terrain of the cold civil war in the Democratic Party. Yet, these trenches are also misunderstood by a Republican Party that believes an ancient allegation of sexual assault will dislodge a politician challenging a figure accused of at least twenty-three such transgressions. It would seem we’re closer to the twilight of an era of sexual reckoning than we are to the end of the careers of either President Donald Trump or Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
But it’s now Trump’s turn in the bargain bin.
Unlike an apparently unpunishable pundit class, those with both mouths to feed and money to put in say this race is a tossup. On PredictIt.org, shares of Donald Trump can be purchased for fifty-one cents. A Biden bid costs forty-three, a steal made possible only by suckers who buy into the idea of the Cuomo circus, or Hillary Clinton’s worst run for the White House yet. I’d be tempted to buy both shares.
The ghosts of 2008 haunt the GOP, the year the right last relinquished the White House amid economic catastrophe. But unlike twelve years ago, the earth hasn’t opened up and swallowed the president’s approval ratings.
Trump’s support, in the low forties, is nearly double the twenty-two percent that George W. Bush had when he left office. And though Vice President Mike Pence may be terrified of being dumped from the ticket this summer, he can sleep a little easier knowing that he’s a galaxy away from the thirteen percent Richard Cheney left office with.
Trump can plausibly run against Biden’s long career as a Beijing booster. One-size-fits-all government overreach has given Trump an opening to appeal to minorities and low-income earners decimated by the economy’s sudden closure. Places of peripatetic employment—like Las Vegas, Nevada, an epicenter of the economic catastrophe—could be receptive to a message that Biden promises more lockdowns and then some. And if Trump were to lead the U.S. exit from Afghanistan, as is being considered, he’d give Americans the opportunity to vote for the first president in decades who ended a war, not just started one.
So, for some, I’ll be the bearer of bad news: We are a long way from November.