theamericanconservative--2020-05-04--Seven Questions for Oren Cass on the New Conservatism

Taken at the 2019 National Conservatism conference in Washington , DC Editor ’ s Note : One of the leading figures in the post-Trump realignment of the GOP has been Oren Cass , whose book The Once and Future Worker was an attempt to rethink America ’ s labor structure for the 21st century , and cast a skeptical eye toward free-trade liberalism that has hurt the middle class .
This week , his new organization launches , American Compass , which will put institutional structure behind some of these discussions .
We caught up with Cass and asked him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about right-of-center economic policy and some of his goals .
These remarks have been slightly edited for clarity and succinctness .
AB : If I had to put my finger on the biggest way your recent work diverges from what conservatives are used to , it would be this : About a decade ago , when I first started working in conservative politics , we used to hear a lot about “ culture.
” Politics was downstream from culture , we had to change the culture rather than make laws , and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of families in American life was to do this , as if the success of families was unrelated to their economic circumstances .
You obviously disagree .
Why was this approach mistaken ?
OC : The approach isn ’ t wrong , it ’ s just woefully incomplete .
I think culture is incredibly important and changes in it contribute to all sorts of problems , and we should talk about all of that .
But , and this is something I wrote about recently for First Things , we shouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some get-out-of-jail-free card to avoid talking about public policy .
For one thing , while the “ downstream ” metaphor has some value , human society is not a one-directional process that just moves in neat order from one category to another .
Yes , culture influences politics .
But politics also influences culture .
The economy is influenced by both and influences both .
So the fact that a problem is in part cultural does not mean that it is not also other kinds of problems .
And when you have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t go looking for the causes you can ’ t address and say “ well , nothing we can do ” —at least , you don ’ t do that unless you ’ re looking for an excuse to justify inaction .
You go looking for the causes you can address and ask “ what can we do about those ?
” Looking across the nation today at all manner of social dysfunction—and of course , the problems aren ’ t all the same , they don ’ t all have the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but just to generalize for a moment—I think it ’ s impossible to make a claim that these are only cultural problems rather than economic , or that better public policy can not help .
Certainly , there ’ s a lot of good research showing the underlying connections , for instance between the labor market and family formation .
But just intuitively , the cultural shifts highlighted as explanatory tend to be quite broad and universal ones .
In a sense , all Americans swim in the same cultural pond .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dysfunction , we find it all in precisely the segment of the population that is facing economic struggles and a labor market that has left them behind .
You have all these people who go to college—and really , where is the quote-culture worse than on a college campus—who then have no trouble moving on to careers at which they work very hard , establishing strong , stable families and communities , and so on .
Just as they did when the quote-culture was purportedly so different in the past .
Meanwhile , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not completing college , who have seen a worsening of their economic prospects , and there you find a wide range of social maladies , bordering in some cases on social collapse .
What a coincidence , if our national cultural just happened to bifurcate just as our economy has , leading to radically different social outcomes for different economic classes , in a way that has nothing to do with economics .
AB : Granting economics among the root causes , you still have the problem that American conservatism has typically been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government .
You ’ ve made a good case for a more vigorous role for the government to play , but there is still a lot of mistrust among conservatives , much of it justified , that will make them think industrial policy is likely to be set by the ITC or Commerce Department ’ s equivalent of a Lois Lerner or James Comey .
What ’ s the best way to persuade conservatives that competent government in the interest of the common good is even possible ?
OC : I think it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be skeptical of government .
But I think the crucial question is : compared to what ?
There are many things , that if government doesn ’ t do them , no one is going to do them .
So while it may be satisfying to shoot down proposals as imperfect , or unlikely to work as well as proponents hope , those concerns aren ’ t really relevant .
The question is whether they are better than nothing—an improvement on the status quo .
Lois Lerner and James Comey are great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still need an IRS and an FBI .
And with Lerner in particular , conservatives still tend to like the idea of a charitable tax deduction , even knowing the potential for abuse .
More generally , we have lots of examples of huge government programs that are on balance positive : public education , social insurance , the military… by the way , I just described virtually our entire government budget .
Yes , all those things have problems and suffer scandals .
But you don ’ t hear a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people wishing we ’ d never pursued them .
So I ’ m all for humility and skepticism , but in some senses this answer is a repeat of my answer on culture : those things shouldn ’ t be used as an excuse for inaction .
When it comes to industrial policy , for instance , the question isn ’ t whether some federal agency is going to miraculously build the industries of tomorrow from scratch ; of course it isn ’ t .
The question is : given all our challenges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stalled productivity growth , aggressive strategies pursued by other countries , is trying to adopt some form of industrial policy preferable to doing nothing ?
It will have costs as well as benefits , there will surely be embarrassments along the way , it won ’ t deliver 100 % of what we wish it would .
But if we can agree there ’ s a problem , and see a path to programs that on balance would offer benefits , then that ’ s a pretty strong case for pursuing it—and for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to limit arbitrary power , preserve markets , and so on .
The way to advance conservative values is to us them in the formulation of public policy , not just as an excuse to avoid formulating public policy .
AB : Let ’ s make that more concrete .
For instance , today it does look like some consensus is developing that we should bring certain vital industries back to the United States , drug manufacturing for instance .
If that were to happen , it seems to me we might see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them , with libertarian conservatives wanting maybe Utah or Arizona , and populists wanting them to go to union states in the rust belt .
How should we be thinking about these sorts of problems ?
OC : This is a great example .
Bringing back industries doesn ’ t have to mean a government program that picks which states to build factories in .
The right way to think about economic policy generally , and in this instance industrial policy , is to step back and recognize that markets generate outcomes in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in .
This isn ’ t about the market being free or unfree .
It ’ s about how we choose to educate , how we choose to regulate , how we choose to invest in research , how we manage trading relationships with countries whose own markets are decidedly unfree , and so on .
So if we want vital supply chains to return to the U.S. , we should start by asking why did they leave , and under what different conditions would they have stayed , or be likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to create those conditions .
Just as a hypothetical example , in the drug manufacturing context , what if we said that drug patents expire sooner if used for manufacturing outside the country ?
Or what if we said that Medicare pays a higher reimbursement rate for drugs manufactured inside the country ?
Or created a bank that made zero-interest loans for the construction of new manufacturing facilities of all kinds ?
Or created a fast-track permitting system that ensured site review and approval within one year and allowed no further legal challenges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pros and cons , and there are plenty of other approaches too .
In fact , next month American Compass is hosting an online symposium where leading experts will each lay out the case for a different approach to encourage reshoring of supply chains .
That ’ s the kind of policy development we need , that existing institutions have really failed to facilitate .
But the point is , none of them entails bureaucrats choosing which state to put a factory in .
They require policymakers to have a goal in mind—we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ yes , we care where these things get made ” instead of just “ wherever the market wants to make them is best.
” They require the crafting of policies in pursuit of that goal , which will surely be imperfect in many ways .
But there ’ s no question that policy could help create conditions in which drug manufacturers would be more likely to construct plants in the United States .
AB : The Washington Post reported that Mitch McConnell is telling his caucus to resist Trump ’ s infrastructure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very least that we are likely to see a lot of resistance to the ideas you ’ ve been talking about from the traditional Republican donor class .
It seems some of these people have assigned Pat Toomey and Nikki Haley to denounce your views as well at the Heritage Foundation and in the Wall Street Journal .
What ’ s the plan for bringing the GOP around on some pro-worker , pro-industry policies ?
OC : I think “ assigned ” is a bit harsh .
How about “ encouraged ” or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , well you ’ re certainly correct that there is a lot of resistance within the right-of-center , from politicians , from institutions , and from donors .
But I think it ’ s really important to distinguish among types of resistance .
There are some true believers who have really convinced themselves of these quirky , unsupported theories that the smallest government and the least attention to the market ’ s operation generates the best outcomes .
Mostly , though , you have people who haven ’ t thought critically about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flow of existing orthodoxy .
And then , when it comes to politicians in particular , you encounter the meta problem where many are focused less on what they believe than on what everyone else believes , and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy where everyone thinks everyone else is committed to market fundamentalism and so they should be too .
So on one hand , you ’ re right , it feels like this overwhelming consensus .
But on the other hand , it ’ s a spectacularly fragile one—like a crowd all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And my experience has been that if you ’ re just willing to say , “ actually , that ’ s not true , ” and point out with logic and evidence that these basic tenets are not supportable , the whole façade collapses pretty quickly .
And you may not have a lot of success that way with someone who has already dedicated a career to arguing the contrary .
But with people who are open-minded , and with the kinds of people who will be defining the future direction of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s tremendous opportunity .
AB : Of course , there are also a lot of bets against you .
When Donald Trump leaves office , either in 2021 or 2025 , a lot of people in Washington expect , and perhaps even hope , that conservative politics will return to its previous melange of casino capitalism and permanent war .
It isn ’ t obvious to me that this “ national conservative ” moment or whatever you want to call it is more than a flash in the pan yet .
Tell us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Well , what you ’ ve described is exactly the impetus for American Compass .
If you look out across the right-of-center at individuals , you see this incredible intellectual energy and creativity and eagerness to return to first principles and formulate a conservatism that is responsive to the challenges of a modern economy .
And then you adjust the setting on your binoculars so that you ’ re looking at institutions , and it all disappears .
Within just about every institution , from Heritage and AEI to the Wall Street @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate office or agency , you find people excited by the idea that conservatism means more than just tax cuts , and in fact doesn ’ t really have anything to do with tax cuts .
But the institutions themselves are , by and large , creatures of inertia .
I don ’ t think it should be surprising that even years into this enormous disruption within right-of-center politics , the institutions aren ’ t especially interested in reform , rather they ’ re putting their heads down and hoping that Trump too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Trump , maybe that would be right .
But it ’ s not about Trump .
I think he has probably accelerated the process , but the fusionist coalition of economic libertarians , social conservatives , and defense hawks that carried the right-of-center through the Cold War is way past its expiration date .
And this is something that the people you see leading these efforts now were already talking about long before Trump descended down the Trump Tower escalator .
Go look at what Senator Hawley was writing in National Affairs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senator Rubio was talking about fighting poverty .
Or , for that matter , my essays in National Review , calling for confronting China on trade and challenging conservatives to take inequality seriously .
Go back to 2008 and look at what Reihan Salam and Ross Douthat wrote in Grand New Party .
The right-of-center was overdue for change , and a lot of the same forces that drove Trump ’ s success—things like the hollowing out of American industry , the deaths of despair—were also going to catalyze a firm rejection by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what conservatism should stand for .
So I understand why the institutions want to go back to how things used to be , and have perhaps even convinced themselves that there ’ s a chance of that , but in reality there ’ s not .
Their ideas and their coalition just do not hold together any more .
The question is what comes next .
And to advance that debate , there have to be institutions on the other side of it .
And the goal of American Compass is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You ’ ve been on the right your whole career , but I want to ask you about the left .
In the UK and to a lesser extent with the Bernie Sanders campaign , working class people have deserted socialist candidates in rather embarrassing electoral defeats .
At the same time , Trump ’ s election continued the trend of Republican voters skewing downscale .
The vision laid out in The Once and Future Worker is mostly about policy , but is it also good politics ?
OC : I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that ideas matter and that it is good politics to have a coherent , defensible platform that addresses people ’ s actual concerns and the nation ’ s actual challenges .
And so by that standard , yes I think it ’ s good politics .
That still leaves the question of what the coalition looks like .
Because of course , no particular approach is going to suddenly attract 80 percent of the electorate .
The other side adjusts as well , and you end up back at 50/50 , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got your act together and your opponents don ’ t .
The political scientists will blather on about median voter theorem and such things , but I think the better explanation is that politics and policy , like life , is full of tradeoffs .
Every now and then you can find a free-lunch win-win , but by and large , if you ’ re serious about making changes to benefit some people , that is going to hurt others—often those happiest with the status quo .
This is a point I spend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Once and Future Worker , that one of the great faults of our existing economic consensus is that it just takes all of the arrangements that most benefit well-educated knowledge workers—on globalization and immigration , on environmental regulation , on education , on labor , and so on—and tries to sell them as in fact best for everyone .
And that ’ s just not true .
Reorienting our policy framework and society to the advantage of those who have been left behind in recent decades is something we should do , indeed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to survive as a free-market democracy , but that means reorienting it away from today ’ s “ winners.
” And while people intuitively think of progressives as the group likely to be sympathetic to people who are struggling , in fact the progressive ideology is much more likely to believe that it can avoid tradeoffs entirely and instead develop some new social model , some set of programs that overcomes human nature , and so that is obviously very attractive to people who don ’ t want to make any sacrifices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to recognize the inevitably of tradeoffs , the importance of preserving the non-negotiable foundations of our society—things like strong communities built on people ’ s rootedness to a place , the value of work and the importance of supporting a family and being a productive contributor to society .
So I think that ’ s where we ’ re headed—toward a progressive party that tries to march ahead on our current course with ever more redistribution as a backstop , and a conservative party that pushes to reverse some of our costly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know are necessary for people to flourish .
A key question , in my mind , is whether conservatives can persuade enough people who might personally thrive in the progressive regime to look beyond their narrow self-interest and recognize that their preferred model simply isn ’ t sustainable ; that for the common good and ultimately their own good , we need to pursue a different course .
AB : If you were to do a “ Conservative Mind ” -style run-down of where we might go in American history to find figures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are some people we might look to ?
In the more recent past one might point out that Pat Buchanan has been a big critic of free trade and consumption-oriented societies .
OC : This is an easy one—so many of the great American statesmen were sympathetic to the vision I ’ m describing .
It ’ s the market fundamentalism of today that is a bizarre outlier .
Washington and Hamilton both recognized the need for the national government to have a robust economic policy .
John Quincy Adams .
Henry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leading advocate for what he called the “ American System , ” which featured government intervention in the banking system , strong protection for domestic industry , and massive infrastructure projects—what they used to call internal improvements .
Lincoln declared himself a Clay acolyte and pushed those policies further .
Teddy Roosevelt obviously believed that public policy was critical to a well-functioning market .
And on and on .
It ’ s really quite funny to look at the economic policy of the past and contrast it to the conventional wisdom of today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had among the world ’ s highest tariffs , at times we tightly restricted immigration , maintained punishingly high marginal tax rates , regulated the financial system so tightly that banks were not allowed multiple branches… how is that we didn ’ t collapse , and instead rose to become the world ’ s most powerful economy ?
Today , economic policy pretty much means taxes and spending , and to the right-of-center it means tax cuts and deregulation—just getting out of the way .
But historically , American policymakers thought deeply about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was discussing earlier in the context of the pharmaceutical plant .
How could government build institutions and make investments and craft rules that would lead to a market that generated widespread prosperity ?
That ’ s the tradition we have to get back to .

Editor’s Note: One of the leading figures in the post-Trump realignment of the GOP has been Oren Cass, whose book The Once and Future Worker was an attempt to rethink America’s labor structure for the 21st century, and cast a skeptical eye toward free-trade liberalism that has hurt the middle class. This week, his new organization launches, American Compass, which will put institutional structure behind some of these discussions. We caught up with Cass and asked him a few questions about how to think about right-of-center economic policy and some of his goals. These remarks have been slightly edited for clarity and succinctness.
AB: If I had to put my finger on the biggest way your recent work diverges from what conservatives are used to, it would be this: About a decade ago, when I first started working in conservative politics, we used to hear a lot about “culture.” Politics was downstream from culture, we had to change the culture rather than make laws, and that the best way to restore the place of families in American life was to do this, as if the success of families was unrelated to their economic circumstances. You obviously disagree. Why was this approach mistaken?
OC: The approach isn’t wrong, it’s just woefully incomplete. I think culture is incredibly important and changes in it contribute to all sorts of problems, and we should talk about all of that. But, and this is something I wrote about recently for First Things, we shouldn’t be using “culture problem” as some get-out-of-jail-free card to avoid talking about public policy. For one thing, while the “downstream” metaphor has some value, human society is not a one-directional process that just moves in neat order from one category to another. Yes, culture influences politics. But politics also influences culture. The economy is influenced by both and influences both. So the fact that a problem is in part cultural does not mean that it is not also other kinds of problems.
And when you have a problem with many causes, you don’t go looking for the causes you can’t address and say “well, nothing we can do”—at least, you don’t do that unless you’re looking for an excuse to justify inaction. You go looking for the causes you can address and ask “what can we do about those?”
Looking across the nation today at all manner of social dysfunction—and of course, the problems aren’t all the same, they don’t all have the same causes and the same solutions, but just to generalize for a moment—I think it’s impossible to make a claim that these are only cultural problems rather than economic, or that better public policy cannot help. Certainly, there’s a lot of good research showing the underlying connections, for instance between the labor market and family formation.
But just intuitively, the cultural shifts highlighted as explanatory tend to be quite broad and universal ones. In a sense, all Americans swim in the same cultural pond. And yet when we look for the social dysfunction, we find it all in precisely the segment of the population that is facing economic struggles and a labor market that has left them behind. You have all these people who go to college—and really, where is the quote-culture worse than on a college campus—who then have no trouble moving on to careers at which they work very hard, establishing strong, stable families and communities, and so on. Just as they did when the quote-culture was purportedly so different in the past. Meanwhile, you have all these people who are not completing college, who have seen a worsening of their economic prospects, and there you find a wide range of social maladies, bordering in some cases on social collapse. What a coincidence, if our national cultural just happened to bifurcate just as our economy has, leading to radically different social outcomes for different economic classes, in a way that has nothing to do with economics.
AB: Granting economics among the root causes, you still have the problem that American conservatism has typically been hostile to government, and especially national government. You’ve made a good case for a more vigorous role for the government to play, but there is still a lot of mistrust among conservatives, much of it justified, that will make them think industrial policy is likely to be set by the ITC or Commerce Department’s equivalent of a Lois Lerner or James Comey. What’s the best way to persuade conservatives that competent government in the interest of the common good is even possible?
OC: I think it’s healthy, and fair, to be skeptical of government. But I think the crucial question is: compared to what? There are many things, that if government doesn’t do them, no one is going to do them. So while it may be satisfying to shoot down proposals as imperfect, or unlikely to work as well as proponents hope, those concerns aren’t really relevant. The question is whether they are better than nothing—an improvement on the status quo. Lois Lerner and James Comey are great examples because, guess what, we still need an IRS and an FBI. And with Lerner in particular, conservatives still tend to like the idea of a charitable tax deduction, even knowing the potential for abuse.
More generally, we have lots of examples of huge government programs that are on balance positive: public education, social insurance, the military… by the way, I just described virtually our entire government budget. Yes, all those things have problems and suffer scandals. But you don’t hear a lot of calls to repeal them all, or people wishing we’d never pursued them. So I’m all for humility and skepticism, but in some senses this answer is a repeat of my answer on culture: those things shouldn’t be used as an excuse for inaction.
When it comes to industrial policy, for instance, the question isn’t whether some federal agency is going to miraculously build the industries of tomorrow from scratch; of course it isn’t. The question is: given all our challenges, the hollowing out of industry, stalled productivity growth, aggressive strategies pursued by other countries, is trying to adopt some form of industrial policy preferable to doing nothing? It will have costs as well as benefits, there will surely be embarrassments along the way, it won’t deliver 100% of what we wish it would. But if we can agree there’s a problem, and see a path to programs that on balance would offer benefits, then that’s a pretty strong case for pursuing it—and for pursuing it in a way that tries to limit arbitrary power, preserve markets, and so on. The way to advance conservative values is to us them in the formulation of public policy, not just as an excuse to avoid formulating public policy.
AB: Let’s make that more concrete. For instance, today it does look like some consensus is developing that we should bring certain vital industries back to the United States, drug manufacturing for instance. If that were to happen, it seems to me we might see a big argument about where to put them, with libertarian conservatives wanting maybe Utah or Arizona, and populists wanting them to go to union states in the rust belt. How should we be thinking about these sorts of problems?
OC: This is a great example. Bringing back industries doesn’t have to mean a government program that picks which states to build factories in. The right way to think about economic policy generally, and in this instance industrial policy, is to step back and recognize that markets generate outcomes in response to the conditions they are operating in. This isn’t about the market being free or unfree. It’s about how we choose to educate, how we choose to regulate, how we choose to invest in research, how we manage trading relationships with countries whose own markets are decidedly unfree, and so on.
So if we want vital supply chains to return to the U.S., we should start by asking why did they leave, and under what different conditions would they have stayed, or be likely to return? And then we should try to create those conditions. Just as a hypothetical example, in the drug manufacturing context, what if we said that drug patents expire sooner if used for manufacturing outside the country? Or what if we said that Medicare pays a higher reimbursement rate for drugs manufactured inside the country? Or created a bank that made zero-interest loans for the construction of new manufacturing facilities of all kinds? Or created a fast-track permitting system that ensured site review and approval within one year and allowed no further legal challenges?
Every one of those ideas has pros and cons, and there are plenty of other approaches too. In fact, next month American Compass is hosting an online symposium where leading experts will each lay out the case for a different approach to encourage reshoring of supply chains. That’s the kind of policy development we need, that existing institutions have really failed to facilitate. But the point is, none of them entails bureaucrats choosing which state to put a factory in. They require policymakers to have a goal in mind—we have to be willing to say, “yes, we care where these things get made” instead of just “wherever the market wants to make them is best.” They require the crafting of policies in pursuit of that goal, which will surely be imperfect in many ways. But there’s no question that policy could help create conditions in which drug manufacturers would be more likely to construct plants in the United States.
AB: The Washington Post reported that Mitch McConnell is telling his caucus to resist Trump’s infrastructure spending impulses. It seems at the very least that we are likely to see a lot of resistance to the ideas you’ve been talking about from the traditional Republican donor class. It seems some of these people have assigned Pat Toomey and Nikki Haley to denounce your views as well at the Heritage Foundation and in the Wall Street Journal. What’s the plan for bringing the GOP around on some pro-worker, pro-industry policies?
OC: I think “assigned” is a bit harsh. How about “encouraged” or “invited”?
AB: Sure.
OC: OK, well you’re certainly correct that there is a lot of resistance within the right-of-center, from politicians, from institutions, and from donors. But I think it’s really important to distinguish among types of resistance. There are some true believers who have really convinced themselves of these quirky, unsupported theories that the smallest government and the least attention to the market’s operation generates the best outcomes. Mostly, though, you have people who haven’t thought critically about the issues and are just going with the flow of existing orthodoxy. And then, when it comes to politicians in particular, you encounter the meta problem where many are focused less on what they believe than on what everyone else believes, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy where everyone thinks everyone else is committed to market fundamentalism and so they should be too.
So on one hand, you’re right, it feels like this overwhelming consensus. But on the other hand, it’s a spectacularly fragile one—like a crowd all pretending a naked emperor is splendidly dressed. And my experience has been that if you’re just willing to say, “actually, that’s not true,” and point out with logic and evidence that these basic tenets are not supportable, the whole façade collapses pretty quickly. And you may not have a lot of success that way with someone who has already dedicated a career to arguing the contrary. But with people who are open-minded, and with the kinds of people who will be defining the future direction of the right-of-center, I think there’s tremendous opportunity.
AB: Of course, there are also a lot of bets against you. When Donald Trump leaves office, either in 2021 or 2025, a lot of people in Washington expect, and perhaps even hope, that conservative politics will return to its previous melange of casino capitalism and permanent war. It isn’t obvious to me that this “national conservative” moment or whatever you want to call it is more than a flash in the pan yet. Tell us why that’s wrong.
OC: Well, what you’ve described is exactly the impetus for American Compass. If you look out across the right-of-center at individuals, you see this incredible intellectual energy and creativity and eagerness to return to first principles and formulate a conservatism that is responsive to the challenges of a modern economy. And then you adjust the setting on your binoculars so that you’re looking at institutions, and it all disappears. Within just about every institution, from Heritage and AEI to the Wall Street Journal and National Review to name your Senate office or agency, you find people excited by the idea that conservatism means more than just tax cuts, and in fact doesn’t really have anything to do with tax cuts. But the institutions themselves are, by and large, creatures of inertia.
I don’t think it should be surprising that even years into this enormous disruption within right-of-center politics, the institutions aren’t especially interested in reform, rather they’re putting their heads down and hoping that Trump too shall pass. And if this were about Trump, maybe that would be right. But it’s not about Trump. I think he has probably accelerated the process, but the fusionist coalition of economic libertarians, social conservatives, and defense hawks that carried the right-of-center through the Cold War is way past its expiration date. And this is something that the people you see leading these efforts now were already talking about long before Trump descended down the Trump Tower escalator.
Go look at what Senator Hawley was writing in National Affairs eight years ago. Or the way Senator Rubio was talking about fighting poverty. Or, for that matter, my essays in National Review, calling for confronting China on trade and challenging conservatives to take inequality seriously. Go back to 2008 and look at what Reihan Salam and Ross Douthat wrote in Grand New Party. The right-of-center was overdue for change, and a lot of the same forces that drove Trump’s success—things like the hollowing out of American industry, the deaths of despair—were also going to catalyze a firm rejection by conservatives of libertarian pieties and a reevaluation of what conservatism should stand for.
So I understand why the institutions want to go back to how things used to be, and have perhaps even convinced themselves that there’s a chance of that, but in reality there’s not. Their ideas and their coalition just do not hold together any more. The question is what comes next. And to advance that debate, there have to be institutions on the other side of it. And the goal of American Compass is to be such an institution.
AB: You’ve been on the right your whole career, but I want to ask you about the left. In the UK and to a lesser extent with the Bernie Sanders campaign, working class people have deserted socialist candidates in rather embarrassing electoral defeats. At the same time, Trump’s election continued the trend of Republican voters skewing downscale. The vision laid out in The Once and Future Worker is mostly about policy, but is it also good politics?
OC: I’m a real believer, maybe somewhat naively, that ideas matter and that it is good politics to have a coherent, defensible platform that addresses people’s actual concerns and the nation’s actual challenges. And so by that standard, yes I think it’s good politics.
That still leaves the question of what the coalition looks like. Because of course, no particular approach is going to suddenly attract 80 percent of the electorate. The other side adjusts as well, and you end up back at 50/50, or maybe 55/45 if you’ve really got your act together and your opponents don’t. The political scientists will blather on about median voter theorem and such things, but I think the better explanation is that politics and policy, like life, is full of tradeoffs. Every now and then you can find a free-lunch win-win, but by and large, if you’re serious about making changes to benefit some people, that is going to hurt others—often those happiest with the status quo.
This is a point I spend a lot of time on in The Once and Future Worker, that one of the great faults of our existing economic consensus is that it just takes all of the arrangements that most benefit well-educated knowledge workers—on globalization and immigration, on environmental regulation, on education, on labor, and so on—and tries to sell them as in fact best for everyone. And that’s just not true. Reorienting our policy framework and society to the advantage of those who have been left behind in recent decades is something we should do, indeed that we have to do if we want to survive as a free-market democracy, but that means reorienting it away from today’s “winners.”
And while people intuitively think of progressives as the group likely to be sympathetic to people who are struggling, in fact the progressive ideology is much more likely to believe that it can avoid tradeoffs entirely and instead develop some new social model, some set of programs that overcomes human nature, and so that is obviously very attractive to people who don’t want to make any sacrifices. It is conservatives who are more likely to recognize the inevitably of tradeoffs, the importance of preserving the non-negotiable foundations of our society—things like strong communities built on people’s rootedness to a place, the value of work and the importance of supporting a family and being a productive contributor to society.
So I think that’s where we’re headed—toward a progressive party that tries to march ahead on our current course with ever more redistribution as a backstop, and a conservative party that pushes to reverse some of our costly mistakes and restore the conditions that we know are necessary for people to flourish. A key question, in my mind, is whether conservatives can persuade enough people who might personally thrive in the progressive regime to look beyond their narrow self-interest and recognize that their preferred model simply isn’t sustainable; that for the common good and ultimately their own good, we need to pursue a different course.
AB: If you were to do a “Conservative Mind”-style run-down of where we might go in American history to find figures who are sympathetic to your vision, who are some people we might look to? In the more recent past one might point out that Pat Buchanan has been a big critic of free trade and consumption-oriented societies.
OC: This is an easy one—so many of the great American statesmen were sympathetic to the vision I’m describing. It’s the market fundamentalism of today that is a bizarre outlier. Washington and Hamilton both recognized the need for the national government to have a robust economic policy. John Quincy Adams. Henry Clay, of course, was the leading advocate for what he called the “American System,” which featured government intervention in the banking system, strong protection for domestic industry, and massive infrastructure projects—what they used to call internal improvements. Lincoln declared himself a Clay acolyte and pushed those policies further. Teddy Roosevelt obviously believed that public policy was critical to a well-functioning market. And on and on.
It’s really quite funny to look at the economic policy of the past and contrast it to the conventional wisdom of today. For much of American history we had among the world’s highest tariffs, at times we tightly restricted immigration, maintained punishingly high marginal tax rates, regulated the financial system so tightly that banks were not allowed multiple branches… how is that we didn’t collapse, and instead rose to become the world’s most powerful economy?
Today, economic policy pretty much means taxes and spending, and to the right-of-center it means tax cuts and deregulation—just getting out of the way. But historically, American policymakers thought deeply about the market’s underlying conditions—as I was discussing earlier in the context of the pharmaceutical plant. How could government build institutions and make investments and craft rules that would lead to a market that generated widespread prosperity? That’s the tradition we have to get back to.


theamericanconservative--2020-05-04--Why Trump’s Re-Election Chances Are Now Underrated

Biden is his biggest challenge yet , but the president 's approvals are 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 they were of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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.


theamericanconservative--2020-05-05--How Long Can Biden Stay In His Basement?

Where Barack Obama achieved notoriety for “ leading from behind , ” Joe Biden , these last two months , has been leading from the basement .
And , one must add , doing so quite successfully .
Since his rout of Bernie Sanders on Super Tuesday , Biden has led President Donald Trump in every national poll and , lately , opened up a lead in Michigan , Wisconsin , Pennsylvania and Florida .
One poll has him tied with Trump in Texas .
Last week , however , reality intruded .
Biden was forced to defend himself against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , as a senator in 1993 , he had groped and assaulted her inside the Capitol complex .
Why did Biden go public ?
Because witnesses were coming forward to say Reade told them of Biden ’ s misconduct years ago , and major media outlets began to give the charge credibility by moving the allegation onto Page One .
Media allies were signaling that they could not forever give Biden a pass on this , and he had to speak to the charges .
Which is what Biden did Friday as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ This never happened … and it ’ s as simple as that.
” With that flat denial , Biden put his credibility on the line — in defense of his character .
For one can not equate what Reade claims Biden did with the reputation he has built over half a century as a decent and honorable man .
Biden now has to persuade the nation this woman is deluded , wildly exaggerating , misremembering — or is deliberately lying .
If “ nothing happened , ” Biden must explain how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left a plum job in the office of a U.S. senator after only nine months .
This is not a matter any presidential candidate wants to discuss while conducting his campaign .
But this is only the beginning of Biden ’ s problems — and of his party ’ s problems with Biden .
With four months left before his nomination in Milwaukee , and six months before the November election , there are still among Democrats gnawing concerns based on Biden ’ s performance in the debates and primaries , and since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to articulate issues clearly and cogently , or to complete complex thoughts .
The worry is that he is suffering from mental decline and could be destroyed by Trump in a presidential debate .
Biden forgets , mumbles , misspeaks , loses his train of thought and appears , at times , confused .
Moreover , Biden is no spring chicken .
He would take office at the same age that Ronald Reagan , our oldest president , left office .
Biden has also signaled , by his references to being a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be serving only the single term that would end in 2025 with him having celebrated his 82nd birthday .
“ I view myself as a transition candidate , ” Biden conceded last week .
This makes his vice presidential choice crucial .
For that individual would not only become president instantly should something happen to a President Biden , but he or she would also become the leader of the Democratic Party , the probable presidential nominee in 2024 , and possibly president .
Who will Biden select as America ’ s future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : No white men need apply .
Biden has ruled them out .
Indeed , no male candidate of any race or ethnicity need apply .
The vice presidential nomination has been set aside for a woman .
But here Biden has another problem .
It was a huge turnout among African Americans in South Carolina that rescued Biden ’ s failing candidacy and propelled him to his Super Tuesday triumph three days later .
Should Biden choose Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar as his running mate in a party that celebrates diversity above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and conceivably enrage the political elites of the black and Hispanic communities in the Democratic coalition .
If he chooses Sen. Elizabeth Warren , that ticket would also be all white .
Moreover , it would point to a Democratic Party future far to the left of the constituencies that turned out in panic for Joe Biden because he was the last man standing athwart the forced march to the left of democratic socialist Bernie Sanders .
If Biden chooses an African American like Stacey Abrams , who lost the Georgia governor ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kamala Harris , who did poorly in the primaries and savaged Biden for his opposing forced busing to integrate public schools in the 1970s , would Democrats welcome either as the party ’ s designated future leader ?
Michelle Obama , as Biden wistfully says , would fit the bill perfectly .
But the former first lady is unavailable .
And while Biden is mulling over his choice in his basement , Republicans will be attacking his character , credibility and mental competence .
Before the fall campaign begins , they will have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried , ” said Winston Churchill , after the British gave him “ The Order of the Boot ” in 1945 .
Campaign 2020 may show us our own democracy at its worst .
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon ’ s White House Wars : The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever .

Where Barack Obama achieved notoriety for “leading from behind,” Joe Biden, these last two months, has been leading from the basement.
And, one must add, doing so quite successfully.
Since his rout of Bernie Sanders on Super Tuesday, Biden has led President Donald Trump in every national poll and, lately, opened up a lead in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida. One poll has him tied with Trump in Texas.
Last week, however, reality intruded. Biden was forced to defend himself against the lurid charge of ex-aide Tara Reade that, as a senator in 1993, he had groped and assaulted her inside the Capitol complex.
Why did Biden go public?
Because witnesses were coming forward to say Reade told them of Biden’s misconduct years ago, and major media outlets began to give the charge credibility by moving the allegation onto Page One.
Media allies were signaling that they could not forever give Biden a pass on this, and he had to speak to the charges. Which is what Biden did Friday as he told MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski:
“This never happened … and it’s as simple as that.”
With that flat denial, Biden put his credibility on the line — in defense of his character. For one cannot equate what Reade claims Biden did with the reputation he has built over half a century as a decent and honorable man. Biden now has to persuade the nation this woman is deluded, wildly exaggerating, misremembering — or is deliberately lying.
If “nothing happened,” Biden must explain how well he knew Reade and why she left a plum job in the office of a U.S. senator after only nine months.
This is not a matter any presidential candidate wants to discuss while conducting his campaign. But this is only the beginning of Biden’s problems — and of his party’s problems with Biden.
With four months left before his nomination in Milwaukee, and six months before the November election, there are still among Democrats gnawing concerns based on Biden’s performance in the debates and primaries, and since, that he has lost the ability to articulate issues clearly and cogently, or to complete complex thoughts.
The worry is that he is suffering from mental decline and could be destroyed by Trump in a presidential debate. Biden forgets, mumbles, misspeaks, loses his train of thought and appears, at times, confused.
Moreover, Biden is no spring chicken. He would take office at the same age that Ronald Reagan, our oldest president, left office.
Biden has also signaled, by his references to being a “bridge” president, that he will be serving only the single term that would end in 2025 with him having celebrated his 82nd birthday.
“I view myself as a transition candidate,” Biden conceded last week.
This makes his vice presidential choice crucial. For that individual would not only become president instantly should something happen to a President Biden, but he or she would also become the leader of the Democratic Party, the probable presidential nominee in 2024, and possibly president.
Who will Biden select as America’s future leader, after him?
First rule: No white men need apply. Biden has ruled them out.
Indeed, no male candidate of any race or ethnicity need apply. The vice presidential nomination has been set aside for a woman.
A woman of color? Not necessarily.
But here Biden has another problem. It was a huge turnout among African Americans in South Carolina that rescued Biden’s failing candidacy and propelled him to his Super Tuesday triumph three days later.
Should Biden choose Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar as his running mate in a party that celebrates diversity above all, that all-white ticket would dismay and conceivably enrage the political elites of the black and Hispanic communities in the Democratic coalition.
If he chooses Sen. Elizabeth Warren, that ticket would also be all white. Moreover, it would point to a Democratic Party future far to the left of the constituencies that turned out in panic for Joe Biden because he was the last man standing athwart the forced march to the left of democratic socialist Bernie Sanders.


theamericanconservative--2020-05-06--The Election Comes to Libertarian Land

The Election Comes to Libertarian Land

Rep. Justin Amash , I-Mich. , walks down the House steps of the U.S. Capitol during the House vote on the $ 483.4 billion economic relief package on Thursday , April 23 , 2020 .
( Photo By Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call , Inc via Getty Images ) I ’ ve long had a soft spot for Lincoln Chafee .
The earnest WASP from Rhode Island whose nickname is Linc and whose middle name is Davenport ( the same as his corgi , presumably ) , Chafee is best remembered for an ill-fated presidential bid in 2016 where he endorsed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the debates .
But before that , he was the lone Republican in the Senate to vote against the war in Iraq .
In a speech beforehand , he echoed then-Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak : “ If you strike Iraq , not one Arab leader will be able to control the angry outburst of the masses.
” He was proven right about that , though it wasn ’ t enough to save his Senate seat .
He lost it in 2006 to a pompous windbag named Sheldon Whitehouse , as Democrats capitalized on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Since then , Chafee has tried on a number of political coats without ever seeming to find one that fits .
He quit the GOP after leaving the Senate and was elected governor of Rhode Island as an independent .
He endorsed Barack Obama , then became a Democrat .
And earlier this year , he underwent yet another wardrobe change , this time announcing he was seeking the Libertarian Party nomination for president .
Chafee admitted he was new to the Libertarian cause , though he noted his record of fiscal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members were nonetheless skeptical of Linc ’ s awakening , and Chafee ultimately ended his campaign in April .
He told Reason , “ To be honest , I wasn ’ t getting good traction even before coronavirus.
” Chafee ’ s terminal difficulties might be blamed on any number of things : the rise of rank partisanship , the death of GOP “ moderates , ” his own shortcomings , the persistence of the inch against the centimeter .
Yet now another former Republican has launched a Libertarian presidential bid and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justin Amash threw his hat in the ring last week .
And whereas Chafee garnered little attention , Amash immediately touched off a Twitter tantrum , as both Democrats and Republicans shrieked that he could play spoiler .
Amash was first elected to Congress with the Tea Party class of 2010 .
Among political watchers , he ’ s best remembered for three things .
The first was his legislation in 2013 that would have ended the NSA ’ s blanket collection of metadata , which had recently been exposed by Edward Snowden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 205 to 217 vote that mashed up Congress ’ s usual partisan certainties , with libertarian Republicans joining with liberal Democrats to support the measure , while GOP leadership and the Obama White House condemned it .
Speaker John Boehner , who was then engaged in delicate political brinksmanship with his Tea Party members , allowed a vote in the hopes of pacifying his right flank .
Instead he ended up granting Amash a national profile .
The second thing Amash is known for is delivering the most glorious victory speech in recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primaried in his Michigan district by a Chamber of Commerce tool named Brian Ellis .
The race quickly turned vicious , with Ellis airing a commercial that called Amash “ al-Qaeda ’ s best friend in Congress.
” Amash went on to win handily , and when Ellis called him to concede , he sent him to voicemail .
Then , speaking to supporters , he unloaded : “ To Brian Ellis , you owe my family and this community an apology for your disgusting , despicable smear campaign.
” He added , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people like you.
” The third thing Amash is known for is by far the most relevant : his vote to impeach Donald Trump .
In explaining this decision , Amash drew a distinction : the House votes for impeachment , which has a lower standard than even probable cause , while the Senate holds the actual trial and then decides whether to convict .
In other words , Amash wasn ’ t voting to remove Trump , just to indict him and allow the process to move forward .
Still , such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a 30-second ad .
Amash ’ s impeachment vote had already attracted a host of Republican challengers in his congressional race .
Expect it now to be treated as a placeholder in the culture war and continue to elicit controversy .
Amash will prefer to talk about other things : his opposition to America ’ s interventions in the Middle East , his desire to balance the budget , his respect for constitutional rights , perhaps even his more progressive social views ( Amash endorsed allowing gays to marry and told Forbes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under the protections that exist for sex ” ) .
Ideologically he ’ s a libertarian , which puts him in an interesting position .
On one hand , per Michael Brendan Dougherty , libertarians are having a moment right now , as governors overstep with quarantine restrictions and the bureaucracy ’ s ineptitude regarding the coronavirus becomes evident .
Gay marriage and marijuana legalization are also gaining acceptance , even among Republicans , while Donald Trump has embraced libertarian hobbyhorses like criminal justice reform and right-to-try .
On the other hand , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and you ’ ve got yourself half an hour for a vape break .
Libertarianism is curious in that it tends to be more popular piecemeal , issue by issue , than it is swallowed whole .
That ’ s especially true right now , when the broader political narratives are more about identity than liberty .
The culture war has lined up poorer rural deplorables behind Trump and wealthier urban secularites behind the Democrats .
“ Crush the left in the public square ” is in ; “ protect the rights of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Given that libertarians like to eschew cultural skirmishes in favor of economics , given that they don ’ t easily fit into a bipolar model , that could prove a tough sell .
Amash is wagering that such a read of the political landscape is wrong .
His hope is that there ’ s room between two lecherous geriatrics for a younger problem-solving reformer with no history of scandal .
It ’ s that question , not the finer points of Hayek and Rothbard , that will determine whether he catches on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the possibility of armistice , in the culture war ?
Have the two sides alienated enough voters to give a third party a chance ?
Is there bandwidth in America ’ s political imagination for an Emmanuel Macron-ish figure ?
Or will Amash find himself trapped between two stilts falling in opposite directions ?
Polls suggest the challenge is daunting .
According to Gallup , 93 percent of Republicans like the job Trump is doing , which has locked the president ’ s overall approval rating in the 40s .
Meanwhile , hefty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump is their number one priority .
Does that leave any space ?
Amash ’ s best chance is likely to be with voters similar to those in his congressional district : suburban , educated , once red but trending blue .
Neither deplorables nor Davenports , in other words .
Speaking of Linc , it ’ s worth pointing out that Amash still needs to make it through the Libertarian Party ’ s primary contests , scheduled tentatively for late May .
He ’ ll be up against current frontrunners Jacob Hornberger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the LP ( Jorgensen was the Libertarian veep candidate in 1996 ) , both of whom are already attacking him as an interloper and opportunist .
The LP has a habit of nominating ex-Republicans for president—think Bob Barr in 2008 and Gary Johnson in 2016 .
Yet those tickets also went nowhere , which is reportedly why so many of their activists were lukewarm to Chafee this time around .
Now they have Justin Amash , formerly of the GOP himself .
Can we be sure what will happen ?
Not by a @ @ @

I’ve long had a soft spot for Lincoln Chafee. The earnest WASP from Rhode Island whose nickname is Linc and whose middle name is Davenport (the same as his corgi, presumably), Chafee is best remembered for an ill-fated presidential bid in 2016 where he endorsed the metric system and stammered his way through the debates. But before that, he was the lone Republican in the Senate to vote against the war in Iraq. In a speech beforehand, he echoed then-Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak: “If you strike Iraq, not one Arab leader will be able to control the angry outburst of the masses.” He was proven right about that, though it wasn’t enough to save his Senate seat. He lost it in 2006 to a pompous windbag named Sheldon Whitehouse, as Democrats capitalized on George W. Bush’s tanking popularity.
Since then, Chafee has tried on a number of political coats without ever seeming to find one that fits. He quit the GOP after leaving the Senate and was elected governor of Rhode Island as an independent. He endorsed Barack Obama, then became a Democrat. And earlier this year, he underwent yet another wardrobe change, this time announcing he was seeking the Libertarian Party nomination for president. Chafee admitted he was new to the Libertarian cause, though he noted his record of fiscal responsibility and opposing stupid wars. LP members were nonetheless skeptical of Linc’s awakening, and Chafee ultimately ended his campaign in April. He told Reason, “To be honest, I wasn’t getting good traction even before coronavirus.”
Chafee’s terminal difficulties might be blamed on any number of things: the rise of rank partisanship, the death of GOP “moderates,” his own shortcomings, the persistence of the inch against the centimeter. Yet now another former Republican has launched a Libertarian presidential bid and his candidacy is raising similar questions. Congressman Justin Amash threw his hat in the ring last week. And whereas Chafee garnered little attention, Amash immediately touched off a Twitter tantrum, as both Democrats and Republicans shrieked that he could play spoiler.
Amash was first elected to Congress with the Tea Party class of 2010. Among political watchers, he’s best remembered for three things. The first was his legislation in 2013 that would have ended the NSA’s blanket collection of metadata, which had recently been exposed by Edward Snowden. The amendment narrowly failed in a 205 to 217 vote that mashed up Congress’s usual partisan certainties, with libertarian Republicans joining with liberal Democrats to support the measure, while GOP leadership and the Obama White House condemned it. Speaker John Boehner, who was then engaged in delicate political brinksmanship with his Tea Party members, allowed a vote in the hopes of pacifying his right flank. Instead he ended up granting Amash a national profile.
The second thing Amash is known for is delivering the most glorious victory speech in recent memory. In 2014, he was primaried in his Michigan district by a Chamber of Commerce tool named Brian Ellis. The race quickly turned vicious, with Ellis airing a commercial that called Amash “al-Qaeda’s best friend in Congress.” Amash went on to win handily, and when Ellis called him to concede, he sent him to voicemail. Then, speaking to supporters, he unloaded: “To Brian Ellis, you owe my family and this community an apology for your disgusting, despicable smear campaign.” He added, “I ran for office to stop people like you.”
The third thing Amash is known for is by far the most relevant: his vote to impeach Donald Trump. In explaining this decision, Amash drew a distinction: the House votes for impeachment, which has a lower standard than even probable cause, while the Senate holds the actual trial and then decides whether to convict. In other words, Amash wasn’t voting to remove Trump, just to indict him and allow the process to move forward. Still, such procedural nitty-gritty isn’t the stuff of a 30-second ad. Amash’s impeachment vote had already attracted a host of Republican challengers in his congressional race. Expect it now to be treated as a placeholder in the culture war and continue to elicit controversy.
Amash will prefer to talk about other things: his opposition to America’s interventions in the Middle East, his desire to balance the budget, his respect for constitutional rights, perhaps even his more progressive social views (Amash endorsed allowing gays to marry and told Forbes, “I would protect transgender Americans under the protections that exist for sex”). Ideologically he’s a libertarian, which puts him in an interesting position. On one hand, per Michael Brendan Dougherty, libertarians are having a moment right now, as governors overstep with quarantine restrictions and the bureaucracy’s ineptitude regarding the coronavirus becomes evident. Gay marriage and marijuana legalization are also gaining acceptance, even among Republicans, while Donald Trump has embraced libertarian hobbyhorses like criminal justice reform and right-to-try.
On the other hand, string together all the supposed libertarian moments and you’ve got yourself half an hour for a vape break. Libertarianism is curious in that it tends to be more popular piecemeal, issue by issue, than it is swallowed whole. That’s especially true right now, when the broader political narratives are more about identity than liberty. The culture war has lined up poorer rural deplorables behind Trump and wealthier urban secularites behind the Democrats. “Crush the left in the public square” is in; “protect the rights of both right and left” is out. Given that libertarians like to eschew cultural skirmishes in favor of economics, given that they don’t easily fit into a bipolar model, that could prove a tough sell.
Amash is wagering that such a read of the political landscape is wrong. His hope is that there’s room between two lecherous geriatrics for a younger problem-solving reformer with no history of scandal. It’s that question, not the finer points of Hayek and Rothbard, that will determine whether he catches on. Is there neutral ground, even the possibility of armistice, in the culture war? Have the two sides alienated enough voters to give a third party a chance? Is there bandwidth in America’s political imagination for an Emmanuel Macron-ish figure? Or will Amash find himself trapped between two stilts falling in opposite directions?
Polls suggest the challenge is daunting. According to Gallup, 93 percent of Republicans like the job Trump is doing, which has locked the president’s overall approval rating in the 40s. Meanwhile, hefty majorities of Democratic primary voters say defeating Trump is their number one priority. Does that leave any space? Amash’s best chance is likely to be with voters similar to those in his congressional district: suburban, educated, once red but trending blue. Neither deplorables nor Davenports, in other words. Speaking of Linc, it’s worth pointing out that Amash still needs to make it through the Libertarian Party’s primary contests, scheduled tentatively for late May. He’ll be up against current frontrunners Jacob Hornberger and Jo Jorgensen, established presences in the LP (Jorgensen was the Libertarian veep candidate in 1996), both of whom are already attacking him as an interloper and opportunist.
The LP has a habit of nominating ex-Republicans for president—think Bob Barr in 2008 and Gary Johnson in 2016. Yet those tickets also went nowhere, which is reportedly why so many of their activists were lukewarm to Chafee this time around. Now they have Justin Amash, formerly of the GOP himself. Can we be sure what will happen? Not by a country kilometer.


theamericanconservative--2020-05-06--Joe Biden Could Sexually Harass Someone in the Middle of Fifth Avenue

... and get away with it .
Those who live in eternal fear are only replacing the Orange Man with the Gray Man .
Presidential candidate Joe Biden leaves a private fundraiser at a home in Manhattan Beach on Wednesday , Sep. 25 , 2019 .
( Photo by Scott Varley/MediaNews Group/Torrance Daily Breeze via Getty Images ) Tara Reade says Joe Biden once grabbed her privates and demanded sex .
Will that change the election in November ?
The Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court hearings were a turning point , when the presumption of innocence was thrown out in favor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accusation.
” Evidence was replaced by # BelieveAllWomen .
Praised by Dems and the media as fierce justice then , it ’ s Biden ’ s turn now .
Imagine the same type of proceedings directed at him .
Amy Klobuchar repeats her accusation that Kavanaugh , er , Biden , is a drunk , with about as little evidence now as then .
Senator Dick Durbin demands Biden demand an FBI investigation into himself .
Durbin says of Biden , as he did of Kavanaugh , that if he has nothing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a line often attributed to Joseph Goebbels .
Kamala Harris goes in as bad cop , righteously shouting down whatever is said to her by Biden .
The truth ?
You can ’ t handle the truth .
After that show , imagine a second one where Elizabeth Warren , long-shot Biden VP pick Florida Representative Val Demings , Kirsten Gillibrand , Stacey Abrams , and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer all show up to stand by Biden , not believe Reade , and/or remain silent when asked .
Watching people force themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what I imagine the Beach Boys looked like backstage trying to mix Viagra and meth so they could get through “ Surfin ’ USA ” one more time .
To flesh things out , voters could call in to ask those Democratic leaders how the very serious business of # MeToo got turned into just another political tool by the “ party of women.
” Alyssa Milano , whose take on the Kavanaugh hearings was that she believed all women without the need for due process , could be brought out to explain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be disqualifying to Biden in a race against Trump is patently ridiculous .
Anybody who claims otherwise is using sexual assault as a political football.
” Well , yes , that is the point .
Dems made sexual assault a political football .
Problem is now they find themselves on defense for the first time ( having successfully ignored in 2016 Bill Clinton ’ s hands-on approach ) .
One article does what I just don ’ t have the breath to bother with : pull up exact quotes of what was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compare it to what is being said about Biden and Reade .
It ’ d be fun to do the same with the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings .
Unveiled is the total hypocrisy of # MeToo and how self-righteous Dems are when these techniques are used by them rather than against them .
Meanwhile , more and more women are realizing that Democratic hypocrisy is setting back women ’ s rights .
Harassment and assault are useful and valid only as political weapons , victims only of use to tee up a media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be… Sorry .
I just can ’ t do it again .
It ’ s the same thing over and over .
Isn ’ t it obvious ?
Isn ’ t the false narrative plain ?
And isn ’ t it likely that yet again very few people care ?
The pattern is beyond obvious , the addition of new player Joe Biden the only change .
I can ’ t get away from it .
People believe what they want to .
Instead of writing about Tara Reade , I started @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fully debunked claim that Trump was beholden to the Bank of China because of some loan .
That one fell apart faster then I could type it up .
Same for a story on how the FBI set up Michael Flynn in an obvious perjury trap .
Too many believe the Democrats and MSM when they tell us these things .
They are all wrong .
So why is anyone believing them now ?
I am tired of being lied to .
I am tired of being manipulated in the most obvious ways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announcing “ Biden didn ’ t do it ” is beyond insulting .
I am weary of talking people off of the ledge and even more weary of living among people who are convinced they are going to die freedomless in the dark .
I am tired of this : The economy will descend into a depression after he ’ s inaugurated .
There is a pee tape .
Trump is a Russian spy , an asset , Putin ’ s puppet .
Michael Cohen met with the Russians in Prague .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hotel in Moscow .
Trump wants to buy Greenland to build a hotel .
Trump left the Saudis off the no-fly Muslim list because he had a hotel there .
Trump will start a war with Iran over moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem .
Trump will start a war with Iran over the nuclear treaty .
Trump will start a war with Iran to distract from COVID .
The Kurds will all die in a genocide .
We have to take out Assad or there will be a genocide .
Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us .
Trump will start a nuclear war with North Korea .
Trump ’ s peace overtures with North Korea are dangerous .
Kim Jong-un is dead .
Trump will invade Venezuela .
Trump will withdraw from NATO .
James Comey will change everything .
Robert Mueller will change everything .
Stormy Daniels will change everything .
Michael Avenatti will run for president after changing everything .
Papadopoulos , Manafort , Flynn , Cohen , will flip and bring down Trump .
Beto , Cory Booker , Mayor Pete , Kamala , AOC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Diversity is the key to Democratic victory in 2020 .
The rule of law ended in America .
Democracy died in America .
It ’ s Weimar .
It ’ s the fall of Rome .
Impeachment will end Trump ’ s time in office .
The 25th Amendment will end Trump ’ s time in office .
The whistleblower will end Trump ’ s time in office .
Marie Yovanovitch ’ s testimony will end Trump ’ s time in office .
John Bolton ’ s book will end Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kids will change everything .
The Covington Kids are racists .
Trump is going to defund the Post Office to block mail-in ballots so he can steal the election .
Trump is going to fire Mueller , Barr , Rosenstein , Mattis , Jared , Ivanka , Pence , Bolton , Fauci .
The stock market ’ s historic rise doesn ’ t matter because most Americans don ’ t own stock .
The stock market ’ s historic decline will destroy Trump ’ s reelection chances .
Trump avoids the press and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a year .
Networks should not air Trump ’ s open mic night briefings .
Blocking visitors from China is racist and ineffectual .
People will die if my neighbor doesn ’ t wear a paper mask but lukewarm delivery food is safe .
People in New York City will die if Starbucks opens but it ’ s okay for the subway to run .
Two million Americans will die of corona .
There are not enough ventilators , we ’ re all gon na die .
There is not enough PPE , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If we end the lockdown , we ’ re all gon na die .
Accountability takes a back seat to agenda .
The ends justifies the means but never lead to good .
Hypocrisy just means choosing the lesser of two evils .
Maybe that ’ s the best we deserve in a world where “ do your research ” means Google something and then accept the first headline you agree with .
“ Oh , it ’ s okay , he beats me less than my previous spouse.
” Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s hidden Senate papers on Tara Reade are acceptable .
Ivanka and China ?
Hold my Tsingtao beer , says Hunter .
“ You think I ’ ve got dementia ?
You should see the other guy !
” Never mind Biden mare-nuzzling women ’ s hair on numerous occasions .
Then there ’ s Anita Hill .
Did being Obama ’ s VP baptize away those sins ?
Same thing in the end , just purposed toward what are sold as radically different ends , Gray Man instead of Orange Man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , gets health draft deferments , plagiarized in law school , cheats on his taxes , is corrupt with his kids ’ money , but less .
It doesn ’ t matter what happened to Tara Reade any more than it matters what happened with Russia .
It wouldn ’ t matter if Biden sexually harassed someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue .
I once wrote in reference to the lies we told ourselves about success in the Iraq war that if “ b.s .
was water we ’ d all have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the MSM have not only learned to adjust to a new environment like some prehistoric amphibian but are politically wallowing in it—at least prior to choking come November .
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 .

Tara Reade says Joe Biden once grabbed her privates and demanded sex. Will that change the election in November?
The Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court hearings were a turning point, when the presumption of innocence was thrown out in favor of a new standard, “credible accusation.” Evidence was replaced by #BelieveAllWomen. Praised by Dems and the media as fierce justice then, it’s Biden’s turn now.
Imagine the same type of proceedings directed at him. Amy Klobuchar repeats her accusation that Kavanaugh, er, Biden, is a drunk, with about as little evidence now as then. Senator Dick Durbin demands Biden demand an FBI investigation into himself. Durbin says of Biden, as he did of Kavanaugh, that if he has nothing to hide then he has nothing to fear, a line often attributed to Joseph Goebbels. Kamala Harris goes in as bad cop, righteously shouting down whatever is said to her by Biden. The truth? You can’t handle the truth.
After that show, imagine a second one where Elizabeth Warren, long-shot Biden VP pick Florida Representative Val Demings, Kirsten Gillibrand, Stacey Abrams, and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer all show up to stand by Biden, not believe Reade, and/or remain silent when asked. Watching people force themselves to support Biden under these conditions is what I imagine the Beach Boys looked like backstage trying to mix Viagra and meth so they could get through “Surfin’ USA” one more time.
To flesh things out, voters could call in to ask those Democratic leaders how the very serious business of #MeToo got turned into just another political tool by the “party of women.” Alyssa Milano, whose take on the Kavanaugh hearings was that she believed all women without the need for due process, could be brought out to explain how now “the notion that this should be disqualifying to Biden in a race against Trump is patently ridiculous. Anybody who claims otherwise is using sexual assault as a political football.”
Well, yes, that is the point. Dems made sexual assault a political football. Problem is now they find themselves on defense for the first time (having successfully ignored in 2016 Bill Clinton’s hands-on approach). One article does what I just don’t have the breath to bother with: pull up exact quotes of what was said about Kavanaugh and his accuser and compare it to what is being said about Biden and Reade. It’d be fun to do the same with the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings.
Unveiled is the total hypocrisy of #MeToo and how self-righteous Dems are when these techniques are used by them rather than against them. Meanwhile, more and more women are realizing that Democratic hypocrisy is setting back women’s rights. Harassment and assault are useful and valid only as political weapons, victims only of use to tee up a media storm. The impact on the election will be…
Sorry. I just can’t do it again. It’s the same thing over and over. Isn’t it obvious? Isn’t the false narrative plain? And isn’t it likely that yet again very few people care? The pattern is beyond obvious, the addition of new player Joe Biden the only change. I can’t get away from it. People believe what they want to.
Instead of writing about Tara Reade, I started writing a story on Politico‘s fully debunked claim that Trump was beholden to the Bank of China because of some loan. That one fell apart faster then I could type it up. Same for a story on how the FBI set up Michael Flynn in an obvious perjury trap. Too many believe the Democrats and MSM when they tell us these things. They are all wrong. So why is anyone believing them now? I am tired of being lied to. I am tired of being manipulated in the most obvious ways. After Kavanaugh, the Democrats simply announcing “Biden didn’t do it” is beyond insulting. I am weary of talking people off of the ledge and even more weary of living among people who are convinced they are going to die freedomless in the dark. I am tired of this:
Trump didn’t really win the election.
The economy will descend into a depression after he’s inaugurated.
There is a pee tape.
Trump is a Russian spy, an asset, Putin’s puppet.
Michael Cohen met with the Russians in Prague.
Trump sold out the U.S. to build a hotel in Moscow.
Trump wants to buy Greenland to build a hotel.
Trump left the Saudis off the no-fly Muslim list because he had a hotel there.
Trump will start a war with Iran over moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.
Trump will start a war with Iran over the nuclear treaty.
Trump will start a war with Iran to distract from COVID.
The Kurds will all die in a genocide.
We have to take out Assad or there will be a genocide.
Trump’s trade war with China will bankrupt us.
Trump will start a nuclear war with North Korea.
Trump’s peace overtures with North Korea are dangerous.
Kim Jong-un is dead.
Trump will invade Venezuela.
Trump will withdraw from NATO.
James Comey will change everything.
Robert Mueller will change everything.
Trump obstructed justice.
Trump violated the Emoluments Clause.
SDNY will change everything.
Stormy Daniels will change everything.
Michael Avenatti will run for president after changing everything.
Papadopoulos, Manafort, Flynn, Cohen, will flip and bring down Trump.
Beto, Cory Booker, Mayor Pete, Kamala, AOC, Stacey Abrams are the new Obama.
Diversity is the key to Democratic victory in 2020.
The rule of law ended in America.
Democracy died in America.
It’s Weimar.
It’s the fall of Rome.
Impeachment will end Trump’s time in office.
The 25th Amendment will end Trump’s time in office.
The whistleblower will end Trump’s time in office.
Marie Yovanovitch’s testimony will end Trump’s time in office.
John Bolton’s book will end Trump’s time in office.
The Parkland Kids will change everything.
The Covington Kids are racists.
Trump is going to defund the Post Office to block mail-in ballots so he can steal the election.
Trump is going to fire Mueller, Barr, Rosenstein, Mattis, Jared, Ivanka, Pence, Bolton, Fauci.
The stock market’s historic rise doesn’t matter because most Americans don’t own stock.
The stock market’s historic decline will destroy Trump’s reelection chances.
Trump avoids the press and hasn’t held a briefing in a year.
Networks should not air Trump’s open mic night briefings.
Blocking visitors from China is racist and ineffectual.
People will die if my neighbor doesn’t wear a paper mask but lukewarm delivery food is safe.
People in New York City will die if Starbucks opens but it’s okay for the subway to run.
Two million Americans will die of corona.
There are not enough ventilators, we’re all gonna die.
There is not enough PPE, we’re all gonna die.
If we end the lockdown, we’re all gonna die.
Accountability takes a back seat to agenda. The ends justifies the means but never lead to good. Hypocrisy just means choosing the lesser of two evils. Maybe that’s the best we deserve in a world where “do your research” means Google something and then accept the first headline you agree with.
“Oh, it’s okay, he beats me less than my previous spouse.” Trump’s hidden taxes are bad but Biden’s hidden Senate papers on Tara Reade are acceptable. Ivanka and China? Hold my Tsingtao beer, says Hunter. “You think I’ve got dementia? You should see the other guy!” Never mind Biden mare-nuzzling women’s hair on numerous occasions. Then there’s Anita Hill. Did being Obama’s VP baptize away those sins?
Same thing in the end, just purposed toward what are sold as radically different ends, Gray Man instead of Orange Man. Choose Joe, he harasses women, gets health draft deferments, plagiarized in law school, cheats on his taxes, is corrupt with his kids’ money, but less. It doesn’t matter what happened to Tara Reade any more than it matters what happened with Russia. It wouldn’t matter if Biden sexually harassed someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue.
I once wrote in reference to the lies we told ourselves about success in the Iraq war that if “b.s. was water we’d all have drowned.” Now it appears that Democrats and the MSM have not only learned to adjust to a new environment like some prehistoric amphibian but are politically wallowing in it—at least prior to choking come November.
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.