theamericanconservative--2020-08-25--A Limited Case for Trump

A Limited Case for Trump

Is there anything that could be more expedient than expressing vitriol for Donald Trump ?
It is one thing to offer legitimate critiques of a President , and not a few come to mind with Trump .
And yet , is it not something else , different in kind , to offer an unrelenting and constant stream of disdain and disgust ?
No knowledge of the subject matter is required , or even presumed .
The vast ocean of opinions is what we are wading in , and many are desperately willing to jump in for the swim .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to politics is reminiscent of an ancient quarrel that is worth calling to mind , as it may be of certain help in our present time .
The specific quarrel I am referencing is that between politics and the practice of philosophy .
The tradition of classical political philosophy , illuminated by Plato and Aristotle , inaugurated this political problem that is still with us : what will be the status of the philosopher ( or philosophy ) before the politician ?
For classical political philosophy , the activity of philosophizing was considered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the best life , for human beings .
It was through philosophy that one would come to know the the whole of nature and the causes of things , of what is .
This tradition of philosophic inquiry affirms that the purpose of the human mind is to know the order called reality , independent of the mind .
The claim to know entailed the connection between the mind and the order of things as they actually are .
Such an alignment is called truth .
Among other things , the central implication @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of reality is not something which properly belongs to the political realm .
In other words , it does not fall to politics to determine what nature or justice is .
Aristotle , thus , rightly observed that politics does not make man to be man , but accepting man as he is , looks to make him good .
What it means to be human is a question whose answer lays outside the authority of the political .
It was precisely this point of departure that classical political philosophy makes the ultimate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If only philosophy will save us , then we must affirm that politics can not .
Here , in summation , is where we can hopefully see why it is worth pondering this relationship over the political character of philosophy .
The precise nature of the problem was articulated well by the 20th century political philosopher Leo Strauss .
According to Strauss , democratic citizens , in general , did not have much of an affinity for philosophy .
According to Strauss , it is modern liberal democratic regimes that could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
More than anything else , liberal democracy has a strong capacity for staving off the worst political ( or apolitical ) conditions imaginable , namely , tyranny .
To stand against the threat of tyranny is to openly acknowledge that the horrors of arbitrary and oppressive rule are not conducive for human flourishing .
Regardless of one ’ s conception of the human good , what John Rawls coined as a “ comprehensive doctrine , ” democratic citizens can certainly agree upon this truth .
Understood from this angle , democracy appears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collective Thrasymachus , whose philosophic modus operandi is to equate “ justice with power.
” Although this is a rather caricatured account of the classical tension between philosophy and the city , it is offered to serve as the foundation for the main thrust of a larger argument .
The argument put simply is the following : a Donald Trump presidency is a rather strong case in support of staving off the political threat of tyranny .
How could such a case be made ?
Various answers can be given , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reflection than will be offered here , but I want to zone in on the particular context of Trump ’ s presidency , and the possibility of a second term .
The political left in the United States does not have , deep down , a political philosophy in the strict sense of the term .
More accurately , it is an ideology whose motto is derived from Thrasymachus ( mentioned above ) : the aim of politics is to attain and maintain power .
The riots and civic unrest experienced since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause social instability and political decline .
And because the actions of the rioters are being intentionally portrayed within the category of identity politics , then it is undeniable that their framework is , and will be , that of the contemporary Democratic party .
It does not seem much of a stretch to equate “ being woke ” with “ being a Democrat.
” This admission is no longer something requiring proof , but is overwhelmingly self-evident .
As this alignment between rioters and the political left has solidified , we can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump .
For whatever one thinks of his various strategies , it seems incontestable now that since taking office , the President has had a singular focus in getting those on the political left to reveal their cards .
I agree with the assessment of the political philosopher Joshua Mitchell , who contends that Trump ’ s use of Twitter is like a “ sixth sense.
” The President ’ s tweets act as a kind of sonar sent out into the cosmos .
He is waiting for a kind of reverberation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussion wherein he can gauge some real sense of various dialectical narratives surrounding a said issue .
Trump ’ s tweets may be vulgar , crass , and un-presidential .
But a limited defense of Trump does not rest upon his virtue , or even lack thereof .
The fundamental concern within the tradition of classical political philosophy is not whether everyone can be a philosopher , even a sitting president .
Instead , the issue is whether the very conditions of philosophy would still be possible .
For Strauss , this was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the philosopher , or those who seek those truths that transcend the current political orthodoxy of mere opinions , be allowed to live in the liberal democratic regime ?
To put this more poignantly : would a President Trump bring a Socrates , or Christ , before him and threaten them with death if they did not give unfailing allegiance ?
Is hemlock or the Cross really possible in an America where Trump is President ?
The answer to these latter questions would seem to be a resounding “ No.
” Of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nor a rhetorician .
The ad nauseam attacks that he is not are beside the point .
What we should seek , at one level , are the social and political conditions whereby truth is still allowed to be voiced and heard .
The tension before us as democratic citizens is whether nuance in thought is permissible .
The dialectical squabbles over COVID-19 , especially the ever increasing attempts to silence and snuff out dissenters , is providing disturbing answers .
Will a second term for President Trump ensure a victory for philosophy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Perhaps there is no better public visual of this classical tension incarnated in our time than in the recent congressional hearing with Attorney General Bill Barr .
Like the rioters we see on the news , Barr ’ s interlocutors at the hearing were not interested in that thing called speech .
The goal was much more sinister , and direct .
They simply sought to smash , not his arguments , but his capacity to speak .
The 2016 election was ever the humble reminder that human affairs can not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political models may desperately try .
Yet , Michael Anton might be right once more , with Flight 93 in the air again .
My hope would be that a continued Trump presidency , if it might be anything , can continue to support those conditions where truth can be uttered and heard .
The alternative will not be a world of peace and rationality , of open dialogue and speech ordered towards grasping the truth .
Instead , we will witness those political and social conditions wherein we come to worship in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the despotism of our own opinions .
Brian Jones is a Ph.D Candidate in Philosophy in the Center for Thomistic Studies at the University of St. Thomas .

Is there anything that could be more expedient than expressing vitriol for Donald Trump? It is one thing to offer legitimate critiques of a President, and not a few come to mind with Trump. And yet, is it not something else, different in kind, to offer an unrelenting and constant stream of disdain and disgust? No knowledge of the subject matter is required, or even presumed. The vast ocean of opinions is what we are wading in, and many are desperately willing to jump in for the swim.
The mention of opinions and knowledge with respect to politics is reminiscent of an ancient quarrel that is worth calling to mind, as it may be of certain help in our present time. The specific quarrel I am referencing is that between politics and the practice of philosophy. The tradition of classical political philosophy, illuminated by Plato and Aristotle, inaugurated this political problem that is still with us: what will be the status of the philosopher (or philosophy) before the politician?
For classical political philosophy, the activity of philosophizing was considered to be the highest good, or the best life, for human beings. It was through philosophy that one would come to know the the whole of nature and the causes of things, of what is. This tradition of philosophic inquiry affirms that the purpose of the human mind is to know the order called reality, independent of the mind. The claim to know entailed the connection between the mind and the order of things as they actually are. Such an alignment is called truth.
Among other things, the central implication of this means that the mind-independent order of reality is not something which properly belongs to the political realm. In other words, it does not fall to politics to determine what nature or justice is. Aristotle, thus, rightly observed that politics does not make man to be man, but accepting man as he is, looks to make him good. What it means to be human is a question whose answer lays outside the authority of the political. It was precisely this point of departure that classical political philosophy makes the ultimate declaration: philosophy alone will save us. If only philosophy will save us, then we must affirm that politics cannot. Here, in summation, is where we can hopefully see why it is worth pondering this relationship over the political character of philosophy.
The precise nature of the problem was articulated well by the 20th century political philosopher Leo Strauss. According to Strauss, democratic citizens, in general, did not have much of an affinity for philosophy.
According to Strauss, it is modern liberal democratic regimes that could be better than any other at fostering philosophy. More than anything else, liberal democracy has a strong capacity for staving off the worst political (or apolitical) conditions imaginable, namely, tyranny. To stand against the threat of tyranny is to openly acknowledge that the horrors of arbitrary and oppressive rule are not conducive for human flourishing. Regardless of one’s conception of the human good, what John Rawls coined as a “comprehensive doctrine,” democratic citizens can certainly agree upon this truth. Understood from this angle, democracy appears decently equipped to thwart an individual or collective Thrasymachus, whose philosophic modus operandi is to equate “justice with power.”
Although this is a rather caricatured account of the classical tension between philosophy and the city, it is offered to serve as the foundation for the main thrust of a larger argument. The argument put simply is the following: a Donald Trump presidency is a rather strong case in support of staving off the political threat of tyranny. How could such a case be made?
Various answers can be given, and the question is worthy of much more insightful reflection than will be offered here, but I want to zone in on the particular context of Trump’s presidency, and the possibility of a second term.
The political left in the United States does not have, deep down, a political philosophy in the strict sense of the term. More accurately, it is an ideology whose motto is derived from Thrasymachus (mentioned above): the aim of politics is to attain and maintain power. The riots and civic unrest experienced since the end of May are coordinated attempts to cause social instability and political decline. And because the actions of the rioters are being intentionally portrayed within the category of identity politics, then it is undeniable that their framework is, and will be, that of the contemporary Democratic party. It does not seem much of a stretch to equate “being woke” with “being a Democrat.” This admission is no longer something requiring proof, but is overwhelmingly self-evident.
As this alignment between rioters and the political left has solidified, we can also affirm the unconventional success of President Trump. For whatever one thinks of his various strategies, it seems incontestable now that since taking office, the President has had a singular focus in getting those on the political left to reveal their cards. I agree with the assessment of the political philosopher Joshua Mitchell, who contends that Trump’s use of Twitter is like a “sixth sense.” The President’s tweets act as a kind of sonar sent out into the cosmos. He is waiting for a kind of reverberation, a bleep on the radar of public discussion wherein he can gauge some real sense of various dialectical narratives surrounding a said issue.
Trump’s tweets may be vulgar, crass, and un-presidential. But a limited defense of Trump does not rest upon his virtue, or even lack thereof. The fundamental concern within the tradition of classical political philosophy is not whether everyone can be a philosopher, even a sitting president. Instead, the issue is whether the very conditions of philosophy would still be possible. For Strauss, this was the political status of philosophy. Will the philosopher, or those who seek those truths that transcend the current political orthodoxy of mere opinions, be allowed to live in the liberal democratic regime? To put this more poignantly: would a President Trump bring a Socrates, or Christ, before him and threaten them with death if they did not give unfailing allegiance? Is hemlock or the Cross really possible in an America where Trump is President?
The answer to these latter questions would seem to be a resounding “No.” Of course, Trump is neither a philosopher, nor a rhetorician. The ad nauseam attacks that he is not are beside the point. What we should seek, at one level, are the social and political conditions whereby truth is still allowed to be voiced and heard. The tension before us as democratic citizens is whether nuance in thought is permissible. The dialectical squabbles over COVID-19, especially the ever increasing attempts to silence and snuff out dissenters, is providing disturbing answers.
Will a second term for President Trump ensure a victory for philosophy against tyranny? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps there is no better public visual of this classical tension incarnated in our time than in the recent congressional hearing with Attorney General Bill Barr. Like the rioters we see on the news, Barr’s interlocutors at the hearing were not interested in that thing called speech. The goal was much more sinister, and direct. They simply sought to smash, not his arguments, but his capacity to speak.
The 2016 election was ever the humble reminder that human affairs cannot be predicted, as much as our scientific political models may desperately try. Yet, Michael Anton might be right once more, with Flight 93 in the air again.
My hope would be that a continued Trump presidency, if it might be anything, can continue to support those conditions where truth can be uttered and heard. The alternative will not be a world of peace and rationality, of open dialogue and speech ordered towards grasping the truth. Instead, we will witness those political and social conditions wherein we come to worship in the only religion left, namely, the despotism of our own opinions.
Brian Jones is a Ph.D Candidate in Philosophy in the Center for Thomistic Studies at the University of St. Thomas.


theamericanconservative--2020-08-27--There’s a Word for the Way Chicago is Run: Stupidity

It 's the last major city with an all-powerful mayor .
Comparisons with the others show just how much damage the outdated system does .
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot speaks at the McCormick Place alternate care facility in Chicago on Friday , April 10 , 2020 .
( Zbigniew Bzdak/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service via Getty Images ) Stupidity is not ignorance .
Instead , it is the non-thought of received ideas .
Most of you who do not live in Chicago are ignorant of what goes on here .
Maybe you ’ ve had a nice stay here once or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occasional blurb about Chicago in the news .
And , being news , it is probably bad .
For those who live in Chicago we can not avoid the daily deluge of bad news .
It ’ s been another especially deadly summer .
The pandemic took a heavy toll on disadvantaged black and brown communities .
The fiscal condition , already in deep trouble before , is in shambles now .
Most Chicago leaders , while aware of these facts , don ’ t appreciate that the city is an outlier when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ performance .
They also don ’ t realize how freakish the city ’ s governance structure is .
This is stupidity .
Our book , The New Chicago Way : Lessons from Other Big Cities , from which this essay is adapted , looks at Chicago through this informed lens .
We start with the 15 largest U.S. cities and look at outcomes in a number of areas .
Then we look at some of the key decisions that Chicago ’ s city government has made that led to such poor outcomes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are the result of a governance structure that gives the mayor total control over every aspect of government .
This is an outdated structure that other cities have outgrown in the 120 years since the progressive movement at the turn of the previous century started cleaning up city government across the United States .
This movement skipped over Chicago .
To get an idea of how we studied these differences , look at today ’ s hot topic of policing .
The following table tells the story of Chicago .
While these numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are even worse .
Chicago is headed for a repeat of 2016 ’ s homicides but now has 13,000 sworn officers .
So , Chicago has the highest homicide rate per capita of any major city and it is five times the combined rate of New York and Los Angeles .
It also has the highest number of police officers per capita of any other major city .
This simple comparison reveals a stunning truth about Chicago .
And it ’ s not just true for policing .
Across all aspects of Chicago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , schools , budgets , pensions , policing , corruption , and the entity that runs the city ’ s convention center , decades of poor decisions by all-powerful mayors have led to poor results .
Our book begins with the story of a midnight raid by Mayor Richard M. Daley in 2003 to destroy Meigs Field , the city ’ s lakefront airport .
With no advance warning or approval from anyone in city , state , or federal government , the mayor was able to take such drastic action and get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the story of the 2008 deal that sold the rights to receive all parking revenue in the city for 75 years .
The deal was done at a giveaway price and was rushed through the city council with 48 hours notice and no supporting detail .
The result is an impairment that will last generations and cost taxpayers billions of dollars .
This happened because of how government is structured in Chicago .
The council is composed of 50 aldermen , each of whom represent parochial ward interests and wholly depend on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two of America ’ s big cities where the mayor presides in the council meetings .
Another tool for mayoral control is the city ’ s municipal election , which discourages democracy .
It takes place on the last Tuesday of February in years when there is no other state or national election .
Ever been to Chicago in February ?
Predictably , turnout averages half of that for presidential elections .
Among the top 15 cities no other has elections in February , and 10 of them are in November , several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to finances , there are no controls on the decisions made by the mayor .
As a result , Chicago has the highest debt per person of the top 15 cities and carries a junk bond rating .
The debt level and rating are even worse for the Chicago Public Schools .
A big part of this is pension debt , which totals $ 42 billion for the city and the agencies it controls .
To pay off this debt will require payments of $ 170 billion over the next 40 years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the last half of that amortization period .
Our work is not a lament of all the problems with no solutions .
Likewise , it is not an ad hominem screed lambasting this mayor or that .
Our position is that it is the structure of governance that allows that mayor such a free hand in making unopposed decisions .
The city could elect Pericles or Mother Teresa and they would still make the same mistakes .
Further , the book is not an ideological polemic .
Many of the best practices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic cities .
What these cities had in common was that , through reforms undertaken over decades , power had been distributed intelligently within the city so that the checks and balances and conflict made for wiser decisions .
In Los Angeles , the police commission provided the professional oversight that insulated decisions from the political arena and allowed them to go from one of the worst police forces in the nation to one of the best in 20 years .
Many cities keep their fiscal affairs in order because they require voter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raise taxes .
Big cities with elected school boards educated students at an average cost of $ 11,000 per pupil whereas in the four districts where the mayor controlled the schools , including Chicago , the average cost was $ 18,000 .
Winston Churchill once said that “ Men occasionally stumble over the truth , but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.
” In our research we found a book reporting the results of a 1953 Chicago blue ribbon commission on home rule .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aldermen an “ anachronism.
” Nothing has changed since then .
Perhaps the most startling finding we stumbled over was the idea of a city charter .
If there is any single tool that citizens can use to change the governance of their cities , this is it .
A charter is a written constitution that spells out how the city government is to run .
It is developed and changed by a charter commission that is made up of civic leaders but no public officials .
And then , to be legitimate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Of the top 15 cities all but two , Chicago and Indianapolis , had a charter and a robust process of revising it .
A charter could be the way to make all the structural change Chicago so desperately needs .
In our research we learned of the crucial charter revision in New York in 1989 , when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the city ’ s governance structure was unconstitutional .
There was also the dramatic 1999 charter revision in Los Angeles , prompted by a movement by communities in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city .
The 1953 study recommended that Chicago make changes via a charter .
The Illinois Constitution does not provide for a charter .
But it also doesn ’ t prohibit one .
If Chicago ’ s leaders would think about how other city governments are structured—and how those structures lead to better outcomes—they might change and turn the city around .
If they don ’ t think about them , what do you call that ?
Ed Bachrach and Austin Berg are the authors of The New Chicago Way : Lessons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Southern Illinois University Press in 2019 .

Stupidity is not ignorance. Instead, it is the non-thought of received ideas.
Most of you who do not live in Chicago are ignorant of what goes on here. Maybe you’ve had a nice stay here once or twice but now you just read an occasional blurb about Chicago in the news. And, being news, it is probably bad.
For those who live in Chicago we cannot avoid the daily deluge of bad news. It’s been another especially deadly summer. The pandemic took a heavy toll on disadvantaged black and brown communities. The fiscal condition, already in deep trouble before, is in shambles now. Most Chicago leaders, while aware of these facts, don’t appreciate that the city is an outlier when it comes to many measures of municipal performance. They also don’t realize how freakish the city’s governance structure is. This is stupidity.
Our book, The New Chicago Way: Lessons from Other Big Cities, from which this essay is adapted, looks at Chicago through this informed lens. We start with the 15 largest U.S. cities and look at outcomes in a number of areas. Then we look at some of the key decisions that Chicago’s city government has made that led to such poor outcomes. Our research showed that consistently poor decisions are the result of a governance structure that gives the mayor total control over every aspect of government. This is an outdated structure that other cities have outgrown in the 120 years since the progressive movement at the turn of the previous century started cleaning up city government across the United States. This movement skipped over Chicago.
To get an idea of how we studied these differences, look at today’s hot topic of policing. The following table tells the story of Chicago.
Population 2016 Total officers Officers per 10k pop. Murder rate per 100k New York 8,537,673 36,228 42.3 3.4 Los Angeles 3,976,322 9,850 24.6 7.1 Chicago 2,704,958 11,954 43.9 23.8 Houston 2,303,482 5,182 22.2 13.3 Philadelphia 1,567,872 6,313 40.2 17.9 Phoenix 1,615,017 2,762 17.4 7.2 San Antonio 1,492,510 2,152 14.4 6.4 San Diego 1,406,630 1,815 12.8 2.6 Dallas 1,317,929 3,279 24.8 10.4 San Jose 1,025,350 939 9 2.9 Austin 947,890 1,807 18.9 2.5 Jacksonville 880,619 1,758 20 11.2 San Francisco 870,887 2,296 26.4 6.1 Indianapolis 855,164 1,612 18.6 17.1 Columbus 860,090 1,848 22.1 9.1
While these numbers are slightly dated, more recent figures are even worse. Chicago is headed for a repeat of 2016’s homicides but now has 13,000 sworn officers. So, Chicago has the highest homicide rate per capita of any major city and it is five times the combined rate of New York and Los Angeles. It also has the highest number of police officers per capita of any other major city.
This simple comparison reveals a stunning truth about Chicago. And it’s not just true for policing.
Across all aspects of Chicago governance: the council-mayor relationship, elections, schools, budgets, pensions, policing, corruption, and the entity that runs the city’s convention center, decades of poor decisions by all-powerful mayors have led to poor results.
Our book begins with the story of a midnight raid by Mayor Richard M. Daley in 2003 to destroy Meigs Field, the city’s lakefront airport. With no advance warning or approval from anyone in city, state, or federal government, the mayor was able to take such drastic action and get away with it.
We also tell the story of the 2008 deal that sold the rights to receive all parking revenue in the city for 75 years. The deal was done at a giveaway price and was rushed through the city council with 48 hours notice and no supporting detail. The result is an impairment that will last generations and cost taxpayers billions of dollars.
This happened because of how government is structured in Chicago. The council is composed of 50 aldermen, each of whom represent parochial ward interests and wholly depend on the mayor. Chicago is one of only two of America’s big cities where the mayor presides in the council meetings.
Another tool for mayoral control is the city’s municipal election, which discourages democracy. It takes place on the last Tuesday of February in years when there is no other state or national election. Ever been to Chicago in February? Predictably, turnout averages half of that for presidential elections. Among the top 15 cities no other has elections in February, and 10 of them are in November, several during presidential elections.
When it comes to finances, there are no controls on the decisions made by the mayor. As a result, Chicago has the highest debt per person of the top 15 cities and carries a junk bond rating. The debt level and rating are even worse for the Chicago Public Schools. A big part of this is pension debt, which totals $42 billion for the city and the agencies it controls . To pay off this debt will require payments of $170 billion over the next 40 years, $100 billion of which will be in the last half of that amortization period.
Our work is not a lament of all the problems with no solutions. Likewise, it is not an ad hominem screed lambasting this mayor or that. Our position is that it is the structure of governance that allows that mayor such a free hand in making unopposed decisions. The city could elect Pericles or Mother Teresa and they would still make the same mistakes.
Further, the book is not an ideological polemic. Many of the best practices we discovered were from heavily union and Democratic cities.
What these cities had in common was that, through reforms undertaken over decades, power had been distributed intelligently within the city so that the checks and balances and conflict made for wiser decisions. In Los Angeles, the police commission provided the professional oversight that insulated decisions from the political arena and allowed them to go from one of the worst police forces in the nation to one of the best in 20 years. Many cities keep their fiscal affairs in order because they require voter approval before they can borrow money or raise taxes. Big cities with elected school boards educated students at an average cost of $11,000 per pupil whereas in the four districts where the mayor controlled the schools, including Chicago, the average cost was $18,000.
Winston Churchill once said that “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.”
In our research we found a book reporting the results of a 1953 Chicago blue ribbon commission on home rule. It called the governance structure of 50 ward aldermen an “anachronism.” Nothing has changed since then.
Perhaps the most startling finding we stumbled over was the idea of a city charter. If there is any single tool that citizens can use to change the governance of their cities, this is it. A charter is a written constitution that spells out how the city government is to run. It is developed and changed by a charter commission that is made up of civic leaders but no public officials. And then, to be legitimate, it must be approved by voters.
Of the top 15 cities all but two, Chicago and Indianapolis, had a charter and a robust process of revising it. A charter could be the way to make all the structural change Chicago so desperately needs. In our research we learned of the crucial charter revision in New York in 1989, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the city’s governance structure was unconstitutional. There was also the dramatic 1999 charter revision in Los Angeles, prompted by a movement by communities in the San Fernando Valley to secede from the city.
The 1953 study recommended that Chicago make changes via a charter. The Illinois Constitution does not provide for a charter. But it also doesn’t prohibit one.
If Chicago’s leaders would think about how other city governments are structured—and how those structures lead to better outcomes—they might change and turn the city around.
If they don’t think about them, what do you call that?
Ed Bachrach and Austin Berg are the authors of The New Chicago Way: Lessons from Other Big Cities published by the Southern Illinois University Press in 2019.


theamericanconservative--2020-08-27--Trump Needs More than ‘Meme Magic’ To Win

When the doomed impeachment of President Trump proceeded towards its anticlimax in February , many Republicans , in the midst of a strong economy , were optimistic about him being returned to the White House .
A good thing too , since over the previous two years the Republican Party had taken stock of what happened in 2016 and decided , of all the things President Trump did and said , what they really thought they should adopt was his personality .
He fights , they said , but what he might be fighting was left pretty vague .
By @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hope of the party taking his election as a sign that they might actually have to give something to the downscale voters flocking into the party is a lesson that will take another election to reinforce .
The impeachment proceedings against Trump began as news broke of the first COVID-19 cases in China , and we were told it was racist to be worried at the time .
Trump was acquitted by the Senate about two weeks after the virus began to arrive on American shores , putting a damper on any effort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only impeachment in American history rooted in foreign policy disagreements .
“ Time is running out on Donald Trump , ” read one Batman fan-fiction by the Krassenstein brothers .
Wait , no…it was an early August news lede in Politico , a publication started with funds from the scion of a banking dynasty that moved more foreign money through Washington than probably anyone else .
They might be right , but how any patriotic American can not hope for the disappointment of these people is beyond me .
The late lamented M. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never much cared for Nixon until Watergate , the first time the deep state realized it could remove presidents .
In a similar way , despite a long list of disappointments from this administration , it ’ s more obvious to me than it was in 2016 that to effect any sort of sea change in foreign policy or government , he ’ ll need four more years .
There are reasons to think the Trump administration is learning its lesson after hiring far too many ideological enemies and party functionaries .
Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s desire to withdraw from Afghanistan , but it ’ s looking more likely that Trump is going to get his way in that country , which is not a small achievement .
However , the fact that the deep state is seemingly able to conjure up a scandal to order lasting several weeks—like the highly dubious Russian bounties for Taliban members who kill U.S. soldiers—means the administration should take more seriously the problem of civil servants who do not see themselves as accountable to the American people ’ s elected leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is plenty of demoralization propaganda afoot , and given how badly that outcome was predicted , with nobody having learned anything since , it does not seem absurd to think the consensus might have things wrong again .
But a significant and troubling difference seems to be that a lot of campaign people believe the propaganda this time .
COVID-19 has accelerated economic trends favorable to Trump , having decimated small business while woke tech billionaires get even richer .
There are now millions more members of Trump ’ s most reliable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
All this means that maybe there is some logic to campaign manager Bill Stepien ’ s base-centric strategy ; as Stepien told Bloomberg on August 6 , “ These are voters that [ sic ] always need to be looked after , cared for and paid attention to , because if you lose focus on them , if you take for granted key parts of the electorate like that , there ’ s a chance that they stay at home or vote a different way.
” There are good reasons to think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right now—Batman is closing in on the Joker ’ s lair—might be missing some things .
Pennsylvania new voter registrations have added 150,000 more Republicans than Democrats , and Latino voter registrations have also benefited Trump more than Biden , according to NBC .
And one pollster we spoke with on the “ TAC Right Now ” podcast believes that the “ shy Trump voter ” effect is even stronger today than it was in 2016 .
Despite the pandemic and economic contraction , recent events have proven that 2016 is still very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goes to press the National Counterintelligence and Security Center Office has put out an advisory that , while China and Iran would prefer a Biden administration , Russia is still backing Trump .
Neither Trump nor the Democrats had even pondered the question of how one might campaign during a pandemic , but now they ’ re having to figure it out .
The conventional wisdom is that an economic catastrophe is bad for the incumbent president , a problem compounded by Trump having to pare back his popular rallies .
But there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theory : polls show voters don ’ t really blame Trump for the pandemic , and Democratic governors are giving voters an experience of what a Biden lockdown might look like , good and hard .
To that you might add that Biden ’ s case to voters , resting on the virtues of a steady hand and pitched to suburban moderates who just want the madness to end , is undermined , first of all by his limited forays out of his basement , and also his diminished verbal and possibly mental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 83 before taking leave of his senses ?
Are the odds better or worse than a game of Russian roulette ?
The Trump campaign has wisely , after a few fits and starts , started playing on the uncertainty that Biden might not be a wild-eyed radical , but he ’ s not in a condition to resist much of anything at the moment .
One Trump rapid response person tweeted that Biden “ has entirely embraced the policies of the radical left .
He signed onto the Bernie-Biden Unity Communist Manifesto Platform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ VP.
” This is certainly more effective than tweeting decades-old pictures of Biden ’ s young son in a Redskins hat , a line of attack that was being road-tested by GOP communications people .
If ever there was an election unsuited to meme magic , it ’ s this one .
The image of a man in a MAGA hat exuberantly giving a photojournalist the double birds during Trump ’ s election night event in 2016 is , alas , not exactly the color our national mood ring is showing right now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office by voters in November , it will be because Republicans mistook being a fighter for being as important as what you ’ re seen as fighting for , a message both the White House and Republican congressional caucus have allowed to become muddied since he took office .
All the same , I ’ ll confess that , after an unprecedented criminal investigation of a political opponent by the Obama White House , after every fundraising socialite from Great Falls to Silver Spring spent the last three years in a Cold War @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and after turning on The New York Times podcasts to hear columnists talk about how it ’ s every patriotic American ’ s duty to do zim or zer ’ s utmost to destroy this mad brute—after all this , if the American people simply said , “ No , I ’ m afraid we don ’ t believe you this time either , ” that would be cheering to me .
It would almost be enough to restore one ’ s faith in the country .
Arthur Bloom is managing editor of @ @ @ @

When the doomed impeachment of President Trump proceeded towards its anticlimax in February, many Republicans, in the midst of a strong economy, were optimistic about him being returned to the White House. A good thing too, since over the previous two years the Republican Party had taken stock of what happened in 2016 and decided, of all the things President Trump did and said, what they really thought they should adopt was his personality. He fights, they said, but what he might be fighting was left pretty vague. By now it has become clear that any hope of the party taking his election as a sign that they might actually have to give something to the downscale voters flocking into the party is a lesson that will take another election to reinforce.
The impeachment proceedings against Trump began as news broke of the first COVID-19 cases in China, and we were told it was racist to be worried at the time. Trump was acquitted by the Senate about two weeks after the virus began to arrive on American shores, putting a damper on any effort to capitalize on the failure of the only impeachment in American history rooted in foreign policy disagreements. “Time is running out on Donald Trump,” read one Batman fan-fiction by the Krassenstein brothers. Wait, no…it was an early August news lede in Politico, a publication started with funds from the scion of a banking dynasty that moved more foreign money through Washington than probably anyone else.
They might be right, but how any patriotic American cannot hope for the disappointment of these people is beyond me. The late lamented M. Stanton Evans used to joke that he never much cared for Nixon until Watergate, the first time the deep state realized it could remove presidents. In a similar way, despite a long list of disappointments from this administration, it’s more obvious to me than it was in 2016 that to effect any sort of sea change in foreign policy or government, he’ll need four more years.
There are reasons to think the Trump administration is learning its lesson after hiring far too many ideological enemies and party functionaries. Many of these people pushed against the president’s desire to withdraw from Afghanistan, but it’s looking more likely that Trump is going to get his way in that country, which is not a small achievement. However, the fact that the deep state is seemingly able to conjure up a scandal to order lasting several weeks—like the highly dubious Russian bounties for Taliban members who kill U.S. soldiers—means the administration should take more seriously the problem of civil servants who do not see themselves as accountable to the American people’s elected leaders.
As with four years ago, there is plenty of demoralization propaganda afoot, and given how badly that outcome was predicted, with nobody having learned anything since, it does not seem absurd to think the consensus might have things wrong again. But a significant and troubling difference seems to be that a lot of campaign people believe the propaganda this time. COVID-19 has accelerated economic trends favorable to Trump, having decimated small business while woke tech billionaires get even richer. There are now millions more members of Trump’s most reliable voting demographic: downwardly mobile white voters. All this means that maybe there is some logic to campaign manager Bill Stepien’s base-centric strategy; as Stepien told Bloomberg on August 6, “These are voters that [sic] always need to be looked after, cared for and paid attention to, because if you lose focus on them, if you take for granted key parts of the electorate like that, there’s a chance that they stay at home or vote a different way.”
There are good reasons to think that the story we’re hearing right now—Batman is closing in on the Joker’s lair—might be missing some things. Pennsylvania new voter registrations have added 150,000 more Republicans than Democrats, and Latino voter registrations have also benefited Trump more than Biden, according to NBC. And one pollster we spoke with on the “TAC Right Now” podcast believes that the “shy Trump voter” effect is even stronger today than it was in 2016.
Despite the pandemic and economic contraction, recent events have proven that 2016 is still very much with us. As this column goes to press the National Counterintelligence and Security Center Office has put out an advisory that, while China and Iran would prefer a Biden administration, Russia is still backing Trump.
Neither Trump nor the Democrats had even pondered the question of how one might campaign during a pandemic, but now they’re having to figure it out. The conventional wisdom is that an economic catastrophe is bad for the incumbent president, a problem compounded by Trump having to pare back his popular rallies. But there are reasons to be skeptical of this theory: polls show voters don’t really blame Trump for the pandemic, and Democratic governors are giving voters an experience of what a Biden lockdown might look like, good and hard.
To that you might add that Biden’s case to voters, resting on the virtues of a steady hand and pitched to suburban moderates who just want the madness to end, is undermined, first of all by his limited forays out of his basement, and also his diminished verbal and possibly mental acuity. Will he make it to 83 before taking leave of his senses? Are the odds better or worse than a game of Russian roulette?
The Trump campaign has wisely, after a few fits and starts, started playing on the uncertainty that Biden might not be a wild-eyed radical, but he’s not in a condition to resist much of anything at the moment. One Trump rapid response person tweeted that Biden “has entirely embraced the policies of the radical left. He signed onto the Bernie-Biden Unity Communist Manifesto Platform, and vetted Communist Karen Bass for VP.” This is certainly more effective than tweeting decades-old pictures of Biden’s young son in a Redskins hat, a line of attack that was being road-tested by GOP communications people.
If ever there was an election unsuited to meme magic, it’s this one. The image of a man in a MAGA hat exuberantly giving a photojournalist the double birds during Trump’s election night event in 2016 is, alas, not exactly the color our national mood ring is showing right now. If Trump is thrown out of office by voters in November, it will be because Republicans mistook being a fighter for being as important as what you’re seen as fighting for, a message both the White House and Republican congressional caucus have allowed to become muddied since he took office.
All the same, I’ll confess that, after an unprecedented criminal investigation of a political opponent by the Obama White House, after every fundraising socialite from Great Falls to Silver Spring spent the last three years in a Cold War spy novel of their own invention, and after turning on The New York Times podcasts to hear columnists talk about how it’s every patriotic American’s duty to do zim or zer’s utmost to destroy this mad brute—after all this, if the American people simply said, “No, I’m afraid we don’t believe you this time either,” that would be cheering to me. It would almost be enough to restore one’s faith in the country.
Arthur Bloom is managing editor of The American Conservative.


theamericanconservative--2020-08-26--Daniel Cameron, Breakout Star of the Republican Convention

Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron addresses the Republican National Convention on August 25 , 2020 in Washington , DC .
( Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images ) “ When I was growing up , it was hard to imagine a guy who looked like me that would be standing on this stage , running to be the chief law enforcement officer here in Kentucky , ” a state candidate by the name of Daniel Cameron said last August .
“ But that was then.
” Like so many things true of the past , even last year : that was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party is offering [ a ] diverse , dynamic roster of leaders , ” Cameron said .
“ Who will lead our future better than what the tired , liberal guard handed down to us.
” Cameron was speaking at “ Fancy Farm.
” Kentuckian politicians ( before the world changed ) delivered raucous , rehearsed lines to the gathered onlookers ( often in the sweltering , southwestern Kentucky August heat ) .
It was the cousin of “ Shad Planking , ” for anyone familiar with the politics of the neighboring Old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of bizarre , bipartisan exoticism — that in our disintegrating politics — that may soon be gone from the land .
It has gained ( limited ) national attention in recent years , as legacy media highlights whatever poor soul is challenging native son Mitch McConnell , the powerful , sinister U.S. Senate Majority Leader .
So , for the uninitiated , Fancy Farm is essentially the opposite of politics as practiced in America in 2020 : a large-enough outdoor gathering , with people shouting at each other .
Well , to judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of my hometown this week , maybe not that different .
But in 2020 , an earnest , nonviolent free-for-all — of both sides getting together in the same venue to deliver dueling political speeches — seems a world away .
And a world away is exactly where Daniel Cameron , now the state ’ s attorney general , was Tuesday night .
“ It is an honor to be with you , as a proud Republican and a supporter of Donald J. Trump , ” Cameron said in Washington at the Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just a few miles from Abraham Lincoln ’ s birthplace .
Our first Republican president believed in compassion , self-reliance , freedom , equality and justice .
Sadly , there are some that don ’ t believe in this wisdom , or in the better angels of our shared , American history.
” Because Mr. Cameron is black , and young , and seemingly out-of-nowhere , and speaking on the traditional “ keynote ” Tuesday of the convention amidst a bitter , partisan grudge match , it ’ s not difficult to find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama .
Conservative pugilist Victor Davis Hanson swiftly ruled Tuesday that Cameron ’ s address was “ a lot more impressive ” than the speech that shot the then-Illinois state senator to fame in 2004 .
I don ’ t know about Hanson ’ s verdict , but in a time where politics is changing ( seemingly by the day , and seemingly for the worse ) , the parallels in Cameron ’ s speech with Obama ’ s uplifting language that year ( which by all outward appearances , even Obama has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Well , I say to them tonight , there ’ s not a liberal America and a conservative America ; there ’ s the United States of America , ” Obama said in Boston in 2004 .
And in a line , you might be less likely to hear him say today , Obama said : “ There ’ s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America ; there ’ s the United States of America.
” The future president correctly reported : “ We worship an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and we don ’ t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states .
… There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq , and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.
” “ Unpatriotic conservatives , ” included .
Hard to imagine back then , for anyone who followed the cynical 2004 campaign , but sixteen years later , Cameron addressed a country in a far , far more defeated mood—and yes , in the shadow of President ’ s Obama failure to unite the nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tear down the statues of people like Ulysses S. Grant , Frederick Douglass and even Mr. Lincoln himself , ” Cameron noted , before continuing : “ Lincoln said , ‘ Any nation that does not honor its heroes will not long endure.
’ ” Cameron argued “ our heroes are those who propelled an imperfect nation ever forward — always striving to make life better for everyone.
” Anarchists “ mindlessly tear up American cities , ” while “ attacking police and innocent bystanders , ” Cameron said .
In a nod @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans will not turn a blind eye to unjust acts , ” he declared .
“ But neither will we accept an all-out assault on Western civilization.
” Mr. Cameron ’ s office is handling the investigation into the death of Breonna Taylor , perhaps the most clearly egregious ( though not most ferociously covered ) of the police murders that have convulsed a nation .
Cameron says his office is waiting for more information , and fair enough .
The country could use more restraint before passing judgment on the manifold , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , anxious moment of every day , including the cases that have grabbed headlines since June .
But if Mr. Cameron ’ s America has space for the bystanders verbally assaulted on 18th Street in D.C. , or bystanding small businesses torched in Kenosha , Wisconsin , it surely has a place for the likes of Ms. Taylor , a fatal bystander to a botched police raid .
“ His presence was immediate , ” Politico journalist Tim Alberta said of Cameron .
“ His innate abilities as an orator were evident from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t come around often— but you know them when you see them.
” We ’ ll see more of Mr. Cameron .
Otherwise , this affair ( thus far ) has been a mixed bag .
After an initial list of speakers that disappointed , especially populists and nationalists ever curious about President Trump , night one surprised .
Herschel Walker , the former Washington Generals player , spoke with genuine affection for his old friend , the president .
It was needed light shed on a figure frequently cast as sociopathically self-interested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Walker is black ) .
Another black voice for Trump — Georgia state politician Vernon Davis — genuinely nailed it .
Crossover pols in state politics are frequently eccentrics unprepared for primetime , but Senator Davis was no such thing .
Earned or not , he spoke with optimism about the country and this president that was the opposite of the last , famous Georgia convert to Republican presidents .
Also in 2004 , Zell Miller gave a menacing address befitting the administration he advocated for .
But on night two , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this administration .
Despite all the pedigree and canny in the world , Secretary of State Pompeo gave a mailed-in address from Israel , playing into caricatures of this White House as norm-ruining and reckless .
I ’ ve seen him do much better , but Pompeo , at times , gave a child ’ s simplifications of foreign policy- the Iranian government is bad , we know .
He reminded the country he won ’ t be president .
Tiffany Trump , the ( apparently , groundlessly ) much-mocked first daughter gave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the only child of the president ’ s most anonymous marriage , his second .
But the lengthy inclusion of Eric Trump ( just announced as a subject of a fraud investigation in New York on Tuesday ) , on top of an overlong address from the First Lady at the White House , added on to an unhinged speech from Donald Trump Jr. ’ s partner , Kimberly Guilfoyle , the previous night and also Trump , Jr. himself , left the viewer with the impression that there is just too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on display , at least in a talented country of 330 million people .
At times , it can have a Holy Roman Emperor feel .
So , neither holy , nor Roman , nor a real empire .

“When I was growing up, it was hard to imagine a guy who looked like me that would be standing on this stage, running to be the chief law enforcement officer here in Kentucky,” a state candidate by the name of Daniel Cameron said last August. “But that was then.”
Like so many things true of the past, even last year: that was then. “Today, the Republican Party is offering [a] diverse, dynamic roster of leaders,” Cameron said. “Who will lead our future better than what the tired, liberal guard handed down to us.”
Cameron was speaking at “Fancy Farm.” Kentuckian politicians (before the world changed) delivered raucous, rehearsed lines to the gathered onlookers (often in the sweltering, southwestern Kentucky August heat). It was the cousin of “Shad Planking,” for anyone familiar with the politics of the neighboring Old Dominion. That is, the kind of bizarre, bipartisan exoticism — that in our disintegrating politics — that may soon be gone from the land. It has gained (limited) national attention in recent years, as legacy media highlights whatever poor soul is challenging native son Mitch McConnell, the powerful, sinister U.S. Senate Majority Leader.
So, for the uninitiated, Fancy Farm is essentially the opposite of politics as practiced in America in 2020: a large-enough outdoor gathering, with people shouting at each other. Well, to judge the streets of the Adams Morgan neighborhood of my hometown this week, maybe not that different. But in 2020, an earnest, nonviolent free-for-all — of both sides getting together in the same venue to deliver dueling political speeches — seems a world away.
And a world away is exactly where Daniel Cameron, now the state’s attorney general, was Tuesday night. “It is an honor to be with you, as a proud Republican and a supporter of Donald J. Trump,” Cameron said in Washington at the Republican National Convention. “I was raised… just a few miles from Abraham Lincoln’s birthplace. Our first Republican president believed in compassion, self-reliance, freedom, equality and justice. Sadly, there are some that don’t believe in this wisdom, or in the better angels of our shared, American history.”
Because Mr. Cameron is black, and young, and seemingly out-of-nowhere, and speaking on the traditional “keynote” Tuesday of the convention amidst a bitter, partisan grudge match, it’s not difficult to find a precedent for his address: Barack Obama. Conservative pugilist Victor Davis Hanson swiftly ruled Tuesday that Cameron’s address was “a lot more impressive” than the speech that shot the then-Illinois state senator to fame in 2004. I don’t know about Hanson’s verdict, but in a time where politics is changing (seemingly by the day, and seemingly for the worse), the parallels in Cameron’s speech with Obama’s uplifting language that year (which by all outward appearances, even Obama has since abandoned) were clear.
“Well, I say to them tonight, there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America; there’s the United States of America,” Obama said in Boston in 2004. And in a line, you might be less likely to hear him say today, Obama said: “There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.” The future president correctly reported: “We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states. … There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.” “Unpatriotic conservatives,” included.
Hard to imagine back then, for anyone who followed the cynical 2004 campaign, but sixteen years later, Cameron addressed a country in a far, far more defeated mood—and yes, in the shadow of President’s Obama failure to unite the nation, no less. “As they tear down the statues of people like Ulysses S. Grant, Frederick Douglass and even Mr. Lincoln himself,” Cameron noted, before continuing: “Lincoln said, ‘Any nation that does not honor its heroes will not long endure.’”
Cameron argued “our heroes are those who propelled an imperfect nation ever forward — always striving to make life better for everyone.” Anarchists “mindlessly tear up American cities,” while “attacking police and innocent bystanders,” Cameron said. In a nod to episodes of police brutality, “Republicans will not turn a blind eye to unjust acts,” he declared. “But neither will we accept an all-out assault on Western civilization.”
Mr. Cameron’s office is handling the investigation into the death of Breonna Taylor, perhaps the most clearly egregious (though not most ferociously covered) of the police murders that have convulsed a nation. Cameron says his office is waiting for more information, and fair enough. The country could use more restraint before passing judgment on the manifold, complex issues law enforcement grapple with every, anxious moment of every day, including the cases that have grabbed headlines since June. But if Mr. Cameron’s America has space for the bystanders verbally assaulted on 18th Street in D.C., or bystanding small businesses torched in Kenosha, Wisconsin, it surely has a place for the likes of Ms. Taylor, a fatal bystander to a botched police raid.
“His presence was immediate,” Politico journalist Tim Alberta said of Cameron. “His innate abilities as an orator were evident from the jump. Political phenoms don’t come around often— but you know them when you see them.”
We’ll see more of Mr. Cameron.
***
Otherwise, this affair (thus far) has been a mixed bag.
After an initial list of speakers that disappointed, especially populists and nationalists ever curious about President Trump, night one surprised. Herschel Walker, the former Washington Generals player, spoke with genuine affection for his old friend, the president. It was needed light shed on a figure frequently cast as sociopathically self-interested, and bigoted, to boot (Walker is black). Another black voice for Trump — Georgia state politician Vernon Davis — genuinely nailed it. Crossover pols in state politics are frequently eccentrics unprepared for primetime, but Senator Davis was no such thing. Earned or not, he spoke with optimism about the country and this president that was the opposite of the last, famous Georgia convert to Republican presidents. Also in 2004, Zell Miller gave a menacing address befitting the administration he advocated for.
But on night two, the convention showed many of the flaws of this administration. Despite all the pedigree and canny in the world, Secretary of State Pompeo gave a mailed-in address from Israel, playing into caricatures of this White House as norm-ruining and reckless. I’ve seen him do much better, but Pompeo, at times, gave a child’s simplifications of foreign policy- the Iranian government is bad, we know. He reminded the country he won’t be president.
Tiffany Trump, the (apparently, groundlessly) much-mocked first daughter gave nice insight into her father; she is the only child of the president’s most anonymous marriage, his second. But the lengthy inclusion of Eric Trump (just announced as a subject of a fraud investigation in New York on Tuesday), on top of an overlong address from the First Lady at the White House, added on to an unhinged speech from Donald Trump Jr.’s partner, Kimberly Guilfoyle, the previous night and also Trump, Jr. himself, left the viewer with the impression that there is just too much of this guy’s family on display, at least in a talented country of 330 million people. At times, it can have a Holy Roman Emperor feel. So, neither holy, nor Roman, nor a real empire.
Onto night three.


theamericanconservative--2020-08-26--China Leaves Russian Meddling in the Dust

We have been warned for years that Beijing has been actively interfering in our politics but it 's all but ignored by the left .
At least Nancy Pelosi , Adam Schiff , and their surrogates in the Mainstream Media got one point right regarding foreign interference in U.S. politics : that it is totally bogus to compare the records of Russia and China in election meddling and in other aspects of American public life , and their abilities to do so .
Trouble is , the House Speaker , the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee , and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the main culprit has been and will be for years to come .
It ’ s not Russia , it ’ s China— and by orders of magnitude .
In fact , on top of efforts to shape voters ’ opinions during election campaigns , Beijing for decades has been influencing American politics in ways Moscow can barely dream of .
Commenting on the spotlight that U.S. intelligence officials have placed on both countries ’ interference efforts ( along with Iran ’ s ) , Pelosi and Schiff declared that the analysis “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the actions of foreign adversaries by listing three countries of unequal operational intent , actions , and capabilities together.
” In particular , they charged , the actions of Kremlin-linked actors seeking to undermine Vice President Biden , and seeking to help President Trump ” were glossed over .
Pelosi stated subsequently , “ The Chinese , they said , prefer ( presumptive Democratic nominee Joe ) Biden—we don ’ t know that , but that ’ s what they ’ re saying , but they ’ re not really getting involved in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as is so often the case , echoed this Democratic talking point .
According to The New York Times ‘ Robert Draper , author of a long piece in the paper ’ s magazine section on Trump ’ s supposed refusal to approve anti-Russia interference measures or take seriously such findings by the intelligence community , China “ is really not able to affect the integrity of our electoral system the way Russia can.
” What these Trump opponents have completely overlooked is that the Chinese are unquestionably meddling—though with some distinctive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , China has long been interfering in American political activities by capitalizing on the degree to which so many major American institutions have become beholden to the Chinese government through pre-Trump “ bilateral ties.
” As for the narrower , more direct kind of election corrupting , you don ’ t need to take the word of President Trump ’ s national security adviser , Robert O ’ Brien that “ China , like Russia and Iran , have engaged in cyberattacks and fishing and that sort of thing with respect to our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” You don ’ t have to take the word of Vice President Mike Pence , who in 2018 cited a national intelligence assessment that found that China “ is targeting U.S. state and local governments and officials to exploit any divisions between federal and local levels on policy .
It ’ s using wedge issues , like trade tariffs , to advance Beijing ’ s political influence.
” You can ignore Pence ’ s contention that that same year , a document circulated by Beijing stated that China must [ quoting directly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ splitting apart different domestic groups ” in the United States .
Nor do you need to take seriously the intelligence community judgement dismissed by Pelosi and Schiff that : Much harder to ignore : China ’ s decision at the height of the 2018 Congressional election campaigns to take out a four-page supplement in the Sunday Des Moines [ Iowa ] Register that clearly was “ intended to undermine farm-country support for President Donald Trump ’ s escalating trade war.
” The New York Times itself reported that this past spring that U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic was peaking in the nation , Chinese operatives were responsible for sending throughout social media scary sounding warnings that President Trump was about to lock down the entire country—complete with prepositioning troops “ to help prevent looters and rioters.
” At least as worrisome : A new report from the information analysis firm Graphika documenting how , “ Social media accounts from the pro-Chinese political spam network Spamouflage Dragonstarted posting English-language videos that attacked American policy and the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump in June , as the rhetorical confrontation between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to Graphika , such disinformation campaigns had begun in mid-2019 , but were waged in Chinese and aimed at Chinese audiences .
This new phase , however , targeted at the United States , represented “ a clear expansion of its scope ” and even featured “ clusters of accounts with AI-generated profile pictures ” to convey the impression that those sending these materials were actual human beings .
Also alleging that Chinese agents are increasingly active on major social media platforms—a study from research institute Freedom House , which reported that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Institution report issued especially disturbing findings about Beijing ’ s efforts to influence the views ( and therefore the votes ) of Chinese Americans , including exploiting the potential hostage status of their relatives in China .
According to the Hoover researchers : In addition : “ In the American media , China has all but eliminated the plethora of independent Chinese-language media outlets that once served Chinese American communities .
It has co-opted existing Chinese language outlets and established its own new outlets.
” Operations aimed at Chinese Americans are anything but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they represented nearly 2.6 million eligible U.S. voters , and they belonged to an Asian-American super-category that reflects the fastest growing racial and ethnic population of eligible voters in the country .
Most live in heavily Democratic states , like California , New York , and Massachusetts , but significant concentrations are also found in the battleground states where many of the 2016 presidential election margins were razor thin , and many of which look up for grabs this year , like Florida , Georgia , North Carolina , Texas , Michigan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Hoover study : But even more thoroughly overlooked than these narrower forms of Chinese political interference is a broader , much more dangerous type of Chinese meddling that leaves Moscow ’ s efforts in the dust .
For example , U.S.-owned multinational companies , which have long profited at the expense of the domestic economy by offshoring production and jobs to China , have just as long carried Beijing ’ s water in American politics through their massive contributions to U.S. political campaigns .
The same goes for Wall Street , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operations overseas , but which has long hungered for permission to do more business in the Chinese market .
These same big businesses continually and surreptitiously inject their views into American political debates by heavily financing leading think tanks —which garb their special interest agendas in the raiment of objective scholarship .
Hollywood and the rest of the U.S. entertainment industry has become so determined to brown nose China in search of profits that it ’ s made nearly routine rewriting and censoring material deemed offensive to China .
In case you haven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ haven ’ t exactly been reluctant to weigh in on U.S. political issues lately .
And yes , these entertainment figures include stars and leading coaches of the National Basketball Association , who have taken a leading role in what ’ s become known as the Black Lives Matter movement , but who have remained conspicuously silent about the lives of inhabitants of the vast China market that ’ s one of their biggest and most promising cash cows .
Moreover , the gap between this indirect Chinese involvement in American politics and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It shows no signs of closing .
As a result , China ’ s overall advantage is so great that it makes a case for a useful rule-of-thumb : Whenever you find out about someone complaining about Russia ’ s election interference but brushing off China ’ s , you can be sure that they ’ re not really angry about interference as such .
They ’ re just angry about interference they don ’ t like .
Alan Tonelson is the founder of RealityChek , a public policy blog focusing on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ author of The Race to the Bottom .

At least Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and their surrogates in the Mainstream Media got one point right regarding foreign interference in U.S. politics: that it is totally bogus to compare the records of Russia and China in election meddling and in other aspects of American public life, and their abilities to do so.
Trouble is, the House Speaker, the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, and other Never Trumpers are wildly off-base about who the main culprit has been and will be for years to come. It’s not Russia, it’s China— and by orders of magnitude.
In fact, on top of efforts to shape voters’ opinions during election campaigns, Beijing for decades has been influencing American politics in ways Moscow can barely dream of.
Commenting on the spotlight that U.S. intelligence officials have placed on both countries’ interference efforts (along with Iran’s), Pelosi and Schiff declared that the analysis “provided a false sense of equivalence to the actions of foreign adversaries by listing three countries of unequal operational intent, actions, and capabilities together.”
In particular, they charged, the actions of Kremlin-linked actors seeking to undermine Vice President Biden, and seeking to help President Trump” were glossed over.
Pelosi stated subsequently, “The Chinese, they said, prefer (presumptive Democratic nominee Joe) Biden—we don’t know that, but that’s what they’re saying, but they’re not really getting involved in the presidential election.”
The liberal media, as is so often the case, echoed this Democratic talking point. According to The New York Times‘ Robert Draper, author of a long piece in the paper’s magazine section on Trump’s supposed refusal to approve anti-Russia interference measures or take seriously such findings by the intelligence community, China “is really not able to affect the integrity of our electoral system the way Russia can.”
What these Trump opponents have completely overlooked is that the Chinese are unquestionably meddling—though with some distinctive Chinese characteristics. And much more importantly, China has long been interfering in American political activities by capitalizing on the degree to which so many major American institutions have become beholden to the Chinese government through pre-Trump “bilateral ties.”
As for the narrower, more direct kind of election corrupting, you don’t need to take the word of President Trump’s national security adviser, Robert O’Brien that “China, like Russia and Iran, have engaged in cyberattacks and fishing and that sort of thing with respect to our election infrastructure and with respect to websites.”
You don’t have to take the word of Vice President Mike Pence, who in 2018 cited a national intelligence assessment that found that China “is targeting U.S. state and local governments and officials to exploit any divisions between federal and local levels on policy. It’s using wedge issues, like trade tariffs, to advance Beijing’s political influence.”
You can ignore Pence’s contention that that same year, a document circulated by Beijing stated that China must [quoting directly] “strike accurately and carefully, splitting apart different domestic groups” in the United States.
Nor do you need to take seriously the intelligence community judgement dismissed by Pelosi and Schiff that:
“China has been expanding its influence efforts ahead of November 2020 to shape the policy environment in the United States, pressure political figures it views as opposed to China’s interests, and deflect and counter criticism of China….Beijing recognizes that all of these efforts might affect the presidential race.”
Much harder to ignore: China’s decision at the height of the 2018 Congressional election campaigns to take out a four-page supplement in the Sunday Des Moines [Iowa] Register that clearly was “intended to undermine farm-country support for President Donald Trump’s escalating trade war.”
The New York Times itself reported that this past spring that U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that as the coronavirus pandemic was peaking in the nation, Chinese operatives were responsible for sending throughout social media scary sounding warnings that President Trump was about to lock down the entire country—complete with prepositioning troops “to help prevent looters and rioters.”
At least as worrisome: A new report from the information analysis firm Graphika documenting how, “Social media accounts from the pro-Chinese political spam network Spamouflage Dragon started posting English-language videos that attacked American policy and the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump in June, as the rhetorical confrontation between the United States and China escalated.”
According to Graphika, such disinformation campaigns had begun in mid-2019, but were waged in Chinese and aimed at Chinese audiences. This new phase, however, targeted at the United States, represented “a clear expansion of its scope” and even featured “clusters of accounts with AI-generated profile pictures” to convey the impression that those sending these materials were actual human beings.
Also alleging that Chinese agents are increasingly active on major social media platforms—a study from research institute Freedom House, which reported that:
“[C]hinese state-affiliated trolls are…apparently operating on [Twitter] in large numbers. In the hours and days after Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey tweeted in support of Hong Kong protesters in October 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported, nearly 170,000 tweets were directed at Morey by users who seemed to be based in China as part of a coordinated intimidation campaign. Meanwhile, there have been multiple suspected efforts by pro-Beijing trolls to manipulate the ranking of content on popular sources of information outside China, including Google’s search engine Reddit,and YouTube.”
Last year, a major Hoover Institution report issued especially disturbing findings about Beijing’s efforts to influence the views (and therefore the votes) of Chinese Americans, including exploiting the potential hostage status of their relatives in China. According to the Hoover researchers:
“Among the Chinese American community, China has long sought to influence—even silence—voices critical of the PRC or supportive of Taiwan by dispatching personnel to the United States to pressure these individuals and while also pressuring their relatives in China. Beijing also views Chinese Americans as members of a worldwide Chinese diaspora that presumes them to retain not only an interest in the welfare of China but also a loosely defined cultural, and even political, allegiance to the so-called Motherland.”
In addition: “In the American media, China has all but eliminated the plethora of independent Chinese-language media outlets that once served Chinese American communities. It has co-opted existing Chinese language outlets and established its own new outlets.”
Operations aimed at Chinese Americans are anything but trivial politically. As of 2018, they represented nearly 2.6 million eligible U.S. voters, and they belonged to an Asian-American super-category that reflects the fastest growing racial and ethnic population of eligible voters in the country.
Most live in heavily Democratic states, like California, New York, and Massachusetts, but significant concentrations are also found in the battleground states where many of the 2016 presidential election margins were razor thin, and many of which look up for grabs this year, like Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
More broadly, according to the Hoover study:
“In American federal and state politics, China seeks to identify and cultivate rising politicians. Like many other countries, Chinese entities employ prominent lobbying and public relations firms and cooperate with influential civil society groups. These activities complement China’s long-standing support of visits to China by members of Congress and their staffs. In some rare instances Beijing has used private citizens and companies to exploit loopholes in US regulations that prohibit direct foreign contributions to elections.”
But even more thoroughly overlooked than these narrower forms of Chinese political interference is a broader, much more dangerous type of Chinese meddling that leaves Moscow’s efforts in the dust. For example, U.S.-owned multinational companies, which have long profited at the expense of the domestic economy by offshoring production and jobs to China, have just as long carried Beijing’s water in American politics through their massive contributions to U.S. political campaigns. The same goes for Wall Street, which hasn’t sent many U.S. operations overseas, but which has long hungered for permission to do more business in the Chinese market.
These same big businesses continually and surreptitiously inject their views into American political debates by heavily financing leading think tanks —which garb their special interest agendas in the raiment of objective scholarship.
Hollywood and the rest of the U.S. entertainment industry has become so determined to brown nose China in search of profits that it’s made nearly routine rewriting and censoring material deemed offensive to China. In case you haven’t noticed, show biz figures haven’t exactly been reluctant to weigh in on U.S. political issues lately. And yes, these entertainment figures include stars and leading coaches of the National Basketball Association, who have taken a leading role in what’s become known as the Black Lives Matter movement, but who have remained conspicuously silent about the lives of inhabitants of the vast China market that’s one of their biggest and most promising cash cows.
Moreover, the gap between this indirect Chinese involvement in American politics and Russian election interference is not only yawning. It shows no signs of closing. As a result, China’s overall advantage is so great that it makes a case for a useful rule-of-thumb: Whenever you find out about someone complaining about Russia’s election interference but brushing off China’s, you can be sure that they’re not really angry about interference as such. They’re just angry about interference they don’t like.
Alan Tonelson is the founder of RealityChek, a public policy blog focusing on economics and national security, and the author of The Race to the Bottom.


theamericanconservative--2020-08-29--Conservatives Should Look Beyond November

We must resist the temptation to treat conservatism as a continuous losing battle .
One way or another , this election will mark a new beginning .
I sometimes think that conservatives , especially in murky times like these , can be divided into two categories : those struggling to “ hold back the night , ” and those determined to “ fight on till the dawn.
” The first group is driven by an essentially pessimistic , almost apocalyptic view of politics and the world .
It assumes not only that our civilized values are under attack , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death cycle .
This has a certain appeal for those who want to join a small , select group , a sort of political version of Mensa .
It lets them feel good about themselves while feeling awful about the world .
If it ’ s Twilight of the Gods time , then the only remaining role for such conservatives , as my late friend Bill Buckley often proclaimed , is to “ stand athwart history , yelling stop.
” But this “ hold back the night ” approach , despite its gloomy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allure of membership in an elite ( though probably doomed ) rear guard—an unhappy rather than happy band of heroes tilting their way to the last windmill—is narrow and quixotic .
Still , one should never underestimate the siren call of a lost cause .
It confers on its followers , at least in their own eyes , a sense of moral superiority that is just one step away from smug self-righteousness .
Today , we see a much more virulent strain of this self-righteousness on the far Left , the view that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the truth , the whole truth , and nothing but the truth .
Everyone else is either evil , misguided , or just so much chopped liver .
Unless you own the only guns in town , and are willing to use them on anyone who disagrees with you , you can only get so far with this “ true believer ” approach , whether practiced from the Right or the Left .
That least flashy but wisest of Victorian novelists , Anthony Trollope , wrote of a character in one of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of life had been squeezed out of him ; his thoughts were all of his cares and never of his hopes.
” So it is with “ hold back the night ” conservatives .
By contrast , the “ fight on till dawn ” conservatives—and I would count myself among them—take a longer , less cataclysmic view .
The history of human progress has never been drawn in a straight line .
The war between good and evil , darkness and truth , will be with us as long as the world turns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more furious at some times than others , but it always has been and always will be with us .
And , once again , Anthony Trollope got it right when he wrote in Barchester Towers that , “ Till we can become divine we must be content to be human , lest in our hurry for a change we sink to something lower.
” We all have a duty to fight for our beliefs .
But we owe it to our cause to choose our battles wisely rather than with an eye @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There will always be casualties .
But we should make our casualties count .
History rightly remembers the sacrifice of a handful of brave Texans who drew a line in the sand at the Alamo , and died defending that line .
But we remember them not because they died , but because their sacrifice bought crucial time for Sam Houston to rally a demoralized band of patriots and lead them on to victory at the Battle of San Jacinto with the words “ Remember the Alamo ” on their lips .
Without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stand at the Alamo would have been pointless , like shouting “ stop ” into a void .
Whatever happens just a few weeks from now on November 3 , it will be one more turn in a long , winding road .
If the worst-case scenario occurs and the left-driven Democrats really do capture the White House and majorities in both the Senate and the House , they will immediately launch a legislative and regulatory kamikaze attack on the Constitution which will cause much alarm , inflict some short term damage , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the 2022 midterm elections .
In the meantime , the Republican Party and the conservative movement will have freed itself of a lot of dead wood and begun the sort of revival that occurred after Barry Goldwater ’ s defeat in 1964 and Jerry Ford ’ s loss in 1976 , and again after the Clinton and Obama years .
If we get four more years of the Great Orange Hope , the challenges and opportunities will be different , but equally great : surviving many a presidential slip twixt the tweet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , lasting economic recovery , and putting principles before personalities .
Either way , November will be more of a beginning than an end .
Aram Bakshian Jr. is a former aide to presidents Nixon , Ford , and Reagan .
His writings on politics , history , gastronomy , and the arts have been widely published in the United States and abroad .

I sometimes think that conservatives, especially in murky times like these, can be divided into two categories: those struggling to “hold back the night,” and those determined to “fight on till the dawn.”
The first group is driven by an essentially pessimistic, almost apocalyptic view of politics and the world. It assumes not only that our civilized values are under attack, but that they are in an almost inevitable death cycle. This has a certain appeal for those who want to join a small, select group, a sort of political version of Mensa. It lets them feel good about themselves while feeling awful about the world. If it’s Twilight of the Gods time, then the only remaining role for such conservatives, as my late friend Bill Buckley often proclaimed, is to “stand athwart history, yelling stop.”
But this “hold back the night” approach, despite its gloomy snob appeal, leads nowhere. The allure of membership in an elite (though probably doomed) rear guard—an unhappy rather than happy band of heroes tilting their way to the last windmill—is narrow and quixotic. Still, one should never underestimate the siren call of a lost cause. It confers on its followers, at least in their own eyes, a sense of moral superiority that is just one step away from smug self-righteousness.
Today, we see a much more virulent strain of this self-righteousness on the far Left, the view that it is the sole possessor—and sole dispenser—of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Everyone else is either evil, misguided, or just so much chopped liver. Unless you own the only guns in town, and are willing to use them on anyone who disagrees with you, you can only get so far with this “true believer” approach, whether practiced from the Right or the Left.
That least flashy but wisest of Victorian novelists, Anthony Trollope, wrote of a character in one of his lesser novels that, “The juices of life had been squeezed out of him; his thoughts were all of his cares and never of his hopes.” So it is with “hold back the night” conservatives.
By contrast, the “fight on till dawn” conservatives—and I would count myself among them—take a longer, less cataclysmic view. The history of human progress has never been drawn in a straight line. The war between good and evil, darkness and truth, will be with us as long as the world turns. It is a constant struggle, more furious at some times than others, but it always has been and always will be with us. And, once again, Anthony Trollope got it right when he wrote in Barchester Towers that, “Till we can become divine we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for a change we sink to something lower.”
We all have a duty to fight for our beliefs. But we owe it to our cause to choose our battles wisely rather than with an eye for instant martyrdom and personal glory. There will always be casualties. But we should make our casualties count. History rightly remembers the sacrifice of a handful of brave Texans who drew a line in the sand at the Alamo, and died defending that line. But we remember them not because they died, but because their sacrifice bought crucial time for Sam Houston to rally a demoralized band of patriots and lead them on to victory at the Battle of San Jacinto with the words “Remember the Alamo” on their lips. Without the victory of San Jacinto, the stand at the Alamo would have been pointless, like shouting “stop” into a void.
Whatever happens just a few weeks from now on November 3, it will be one more turn in a long, winding road. If the worst-case scenario occurs and the left-driven Democrats really do capture the White House and majorities in both the Senate and the House, they will immediately launch a legislative and regulatory kamikaze attack on the Constitution which will cause much alarm, inflict some short term damage, and probably generate a massive conservative backlash in the 2022 midterm elections.
In the meantime, the Republican Party and the conservative movement will have freed itself of a lot of dead wood and begun the sort of revival that occurred after Barry Goldwater’s defeat in 1964 and Jerry Ford’s loss in 1976, and again after the Clinton and Obama years.
If we get four more years of the Great Orange Hope, the challenges and opportunities will be different, but equally great: surviving many a presidential slip twixt the tweet and the lip, building a responsible, lasting economic recovery, and putting principles before personalities.
Either way, November will be more of a beginning than an end.
Aram Bakshian Jr. is a former aide to presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. His writings on politics, history, gastronomy, and the arts have been widely published in the United States and abroad.