theamericanconservative--2020-06-19--The Supreme Court Could Cost Trump the Election

At 2017 Gorsuch swearing-in , Trump looked like the cat who ate the canary .
Today we see that Trump swallowed something else instead ( Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images ) The nation ’ s highest court — led by its putatively conservative chief , Roberts — has just stiff-armed the Trump administration ’ s attempt to demolish the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ( DACA ) program , a signature Obama-era policy .
Arguing that history repeats itself , Hammer ’ s reference was to President George H.W .
Bush ’ s first appointee to the Supreme Court ; the Rockefeller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bedeviled “ values voters ” for the better part of two decades .
In smacking down the Department of Homeland Security , Roberts said : “ The dispute before the court is not whether DHS may rescind DACA .
… All parties agree that it may .
The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so.
” Roberts ’ archconservative colleague — Justice Clarence Thomas — called the majority ’ s rationale a “ mystifying ” cop-out .
And Justice Brett Kavanaugh said “ the only practical consequence… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for President Trump , it was yet another morning of bitter recriminations — in the face of mounting legal defeats : “ Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn ’ t like me ?
” Earlier this week , in a case Trump appeared to care less about , the Court ’ s majority — joined by one of Trump ’ s appointees , Neil Gorsuch — extended massive Civil Rights protections to gay and transgendered people .
It ’ s worth remembering that the president ran first and foremost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the demographic , Trump felt the need to shore up the Religious Right with the selection of his deputy , Michael R. Pence .
Not a religious man , on the week ’ s earlier decision the president said : “ They ’ ve ruled and we live with their decision .
That ’ s what it ’ s all about .
We live with the decision of the Supreme Court .
Very powerful .
A very powerful decision actually .
But they have so ruled.
” But however you slice it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in one week is bitter medicine for the head of the Republican Party .
It couldn ’ t have come at a worse time .
Trump is already juggling a pandemic , a new economic depression , and a flawed response to social unrest that ’ s been both lacerated in the liberal press and derided by hardliners in his own column .
A person close to the president told me he looks “ weak ” and “ that ’ s the one thing voters won ’ t forgive.
” Though Roberts was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s worth noting that Gorsuch did not join the DACA majority — Trump , nonetheless , now risks personally owning what is increasingly viewed by doctrinaire conservatives as a generation of failed political strategy as it relates to the judicial branch .
“ I will be releasing a new list of Conservative Supreme Court Justice nominees , which may include some , or many of those already on the list , by September 1 , 2020 , ” Trump said Thursday .
He continued ( in perhaps the first public sign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race ) : “ If given the opportunity , I will only choose from this list , as in the past , a Conservative Supreme Court Justice… Based on decisions being rendered now , this list is more important than ever before ( Second Amendment , Right to Life , Religous [ sic ] Liberty , etc . )
– VOTE 2020 !
” But it ’ s now an open question if many loyal Republicans , after decades of presidential dominance — twenty-four years of control of the White House since 1981 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t matter who gets appointed to the court , if the culture is , from their point of view , lost .
It ’ s a perspective many would argue is overheated but from a political standpoint , pessimism about the public square — perhaps best exemplified by The American Conservative ’ s Rod Dreher and “ the Benedict Option ” — is commanding an increasing following .
At the very least , that impression could have real reverberations in the coming election , given what ’ s on offer .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. Senate , a majority of Supreme Court seats and governor ’ s mansions .
And yet , over the last several months , the country has undergone the most sweeping social change in at least a half-century .
Another figure close to the president draws another parallel to George H.W .
Bush , the last incumbent in the White House to lose re-election .
The forty-second president invoked the Insurrection Act — something Donald Trump declined to do — to quell the 1992 riots in Los Angeles .
But the damage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major American city ablaze were seared into national memory .
Voters opted for something different come November — even flirting with the most credible third party challenge in nearly a hundred years — but the prize was eventually won by the Democratic Party .
By any measure , the urban wreckage in 2020 — in tandem with months of national lockdown — is more significant than in 1992 , and national disillusionment as severe as 1968 , that year of assassination and metropolitan meltdown .
Some conservatives console themselves that history will repeat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was in 1968 .
That interpretation elides that the Republicans , not the Democrats , are in power .
If anything , the logic works in reverse .

“John Roberts is David Souter,” Newsweek’s conservative opinion editor, Josh Hammer, said Thursday.
The nation’s highest court — led by its putatively conservative chief, Roberts — has just stiff-armed the Trump administration’s attempt to demolish the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, a signature Obama-era policy. Arguing that history repeats itself, Hammer’s reference was to President George H.W. Bush’s first appointee to the Supreme Court; the Rockefeller Republican’s lurch to the left bedeviled “values voters” for the better part of two decades. In smacking down the Department of Homeland Security, Roberts said: “The dispute before the court is not whether DHS may rescind DACA. … All parties agree that it may. The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so.” Roberts’ archconservative colleague — Justice Clarence Thomas — called the majority’s rationale a “mystifying” cop-out. And Justice Brett Kavanaugh said “the only practical consequence… appears to be some delay.”
But for President Trump, it was yet another morning of bitter recriminations — in the face of mounting legal defeats: “Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn’t like me?” Earlier this week, in a case Trump appeared to care less about, the Court’s majority — joined by one of Trump’s appointees, Neil Gorsuch — extended massive Civil Rights protections to gay and transgendered people. It’s worth remembering that the president ran first and foremost on immigration. Though popular enough with the demographic, Trump felt the need to shore up the Religious Right with the selection of his deputy, Michael R. Pence. Not a religious man, on the week’s earlier decision the president said: “They’ve ruled and we live with their decision. That’s what it’s all about. We live with the decision of the Supreme Court. Very powerful. A very powerful decision actually. But they have so ruled.”
But however you slice it, two legal defeats for the right wing in one week is bitter medicine for the head of the Republican Party. It couldn’t have come at a worse time. Trump is already juggling a pandemic, a new economic depression, and a flawed response to social unrest that’s been both lacerated in the liberal press and derided by hardliners in his own column. A person close to the president told me he looks “weak” and “that’s the one thing voters won’t forgive.” Though Roberts was a George W. Bush appointee — and it’s worth noting that Gorsuch did not join the DACA majority — Trump, nonetheless, now risks personally owning what is increasingly viewed by doctrinaire conservatives as a generation of failed political strategy as it relates to the judicial branch.
“I will be releasing a new list of Conservative Supreme Court Justice nominees, which may include some, or many of those already on the list, by September 1, 2020,” Trump said Thursday. He continued (in perhaps the first public sign that he knows he trails in this race): “If given the opportunity, I will only choose from this list, as in the past, a Conservative Supreme Court Justice… Based on decisions being rendered now, this list is more important than ever before (Second Amendment, Right to Life, Religous [sic] Liberty, etc.) – VOTE 2020!”
But it’s now an open question if many loyal Republicans, after decades of presidential dominance — twenty-four years of control of the White House since 1981 — will conclude that it just doesn’t matter who gets appointed to the court, if the culture is, from their point of view, lost. It’s a perspective many would argue is overheated but from a political standpoint, pessimism about the public square — perhaps best exemplified by The American Conservative’s Rod Dreher and “the Benedict Option” — is commanding an increasing following. At the very least, that impression could have real reverberations in the coming election, given what’s on offer. The Republican Party boasts the White House, the U.S. Senate, a majority of Supreme Court seats and governor’s mansions. And yet, over the last several months, the country has undergone the most sweeping social change in at least a half-century.
Another figure close to the president draws another parallel to George H.W. Bush, the last incumbent in the White House to lose re-election. The forty-second president invoked the Insurrection Act — something Donald Trump declined to do — to quell the 1992 riots in Los Angeles. But the damage was done. The images of a major American city ablaze were seared into national memory. Voters opted for something different come November — even flirting with the most credible third party challenge in nearly a hundred years — but the prize was eventually won by the Democratic Party. By any measure, the urban wreckage in 2020 — in tandem with months of national lockdown — is more significant than in 1992, and national disillusionment as severe as 1968, that year of assassination and metropolitan meltdown. Some conservatives console themselves that history will repeat — with the Left punished as it was in 1968. That interpretation elides that the Republicans, not the Democrats, are in power. If anything, the logic works in reverse.


theamericanconservative--2020-06-19--The Left Has Gone Far Beyond ‘Relativism’

Around the middle of the last century , American conservatives came to regard “ relativism ” as an essential characteristic of the Left .
Political theorist and onetime Yale professor Willmoore Kendall , who had been the teacher of William F. Buckley , was the best-known exponent of this position .
Kendall was particularly concerned that liberals in post-World War II America were unwilling to stand up to communist infiltration and Soviet aggression , at least not in the decisive manner that he and his student , who became the animating spirit of the conservatism of that age , would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which others echoed and , in some cases , anticipated , was that many intellectuals believed “ in an unlimited right to think and say what you please , with impunity and without let or hindrance.
” Particularly in the face of the communist threat , Kendall thought that Americans would have to give up the idea of an “ open society.
” They would have to grasp that “ any viable society has an orthodoxy—a set of fundamental beliefs , implicit in its way of life , that it can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any case , will not submit to the vicissitudes of the marketplace.
” Kendall viewed English democrat and feminist John Stuart Mill as a particularly dangerous thinker on political questions .
He was convinced Mill ’ s best-known work , On Liberty , had gone too far in advocating an “ open society.
” Mill set out to defend the right of totally free inquiry but , according to Kendall , landed squarely on relativism .
In The Conservative Affirmation ( 1963 ) , Kendall traced the non-judgmentalism of many Americans when faced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s willingness to consider all views and opinions .
According to Kendall , Mill helped create America ’ s “ national religion of skepticism ” and made it increasingly difficult for Americans to hold on to what was left of a traditional society .
Mill also dealt with moral issues by encouraging the pursuit of truth without accepting “ truth itself with all its accumulated riches to date.
” In a moving tribute to Kendall , Tom Woodlief , writing recently at The American Conservative , declared that “ this outcast Yale professor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Kendall had warned against “ the suicidal pact with relativism , ” which is now driving the antifascist Left .
According to him , “ the doyens of the suicidal society will feel an irresistible compulsion to silence the voices insisting that there is truth , even Truth , and that therefore many other beliefs are in error.
” Please note that I fully share Mr. Woodlief ’ s admiration for Kendall and especially for his writings on the formation of American constitutional government and his perceptive reading of the political theory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part company is in Kendall ’ s attribution to the Left of a fixation with an “ open society.
” Equally open to question is Kendall ’ s treatment of Mill ’ s On Liberty , a work that Maurice Cowling , Linda Rader , and Joseph Hamburger have all interpreted differently from Kendall .
These scholars have documented that Mill was far less interested in open discussion than he was in other ends .
Above all , he was trying to build a secular society based on a consensus centered on scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressive who believed that open inquiry would advance his teleological goals .
Moreover , with due respect to Woodlief and Kendall , those who support Antifa and Black Lives Matter have hardly failed to recognize that there is “ Truth ” in the world .
They simply reject the moral right of their enemies to express other views .
This is a moral stand , hardly a relativistic one , and it is a political-existential one , in the sense in which Carl Schmitt understood “ the Concept of the Political ” as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is unimaginable that the more fervent and more activist side in our culture wars is not driven by its own morality , which expresses itself in rage .
One might also question whether the Left has ever believed consistently in something called “ moral relativism ” or whether it has merely appealed to it as a tactic to disarm opponents .
Certainly the pro-communist leftists with whom Kendall debated were not likely to “ relativize ” Nazism or even the Francoist regime in Spain or South African Apartheid the way they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to tell the story of a leftist acquaintance who claimed to have a perfectly open mind .
When Kirk asked his interlocutor who was morally superior , “ Jesus of Nazareth or Stalin , ” this fellow seemed unable to rate those figures by the required standard .
But when he was asked who was worse , Hitler or Stalin , Kirk ’ s acquaintance would immediately respond “ Hitler.
” I had similar experiences with advocates of the “ open society ” before the Left gave up its facade of universal tolerance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not relativism , was the problem with how the Left has presented itself .
If one were to ask what exactly the Left has believed about morality over the decades , I would begin by pointing out that the most important concept is equality .
The Left has never denied this and I see no reason to question that commitment .
What seems to me striking is the Left ’ s preoccupation with equality to the neglect of other values that seem at least as much deserving of respect , such as deference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of one ’ s civilization , piety , freedom , and so on .
We might also question how the Left understands its highest value , which is clearly different from the way non-leftists might approach it .
For example , some may think that equality before the law is enough ; others may want equal voting rights , and still others may believe it is the duty of the state to reduce its citizens or subjects to the same living conditions .
The present Left also seems interested in imposing equality of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ historical victims .
This is certainly not an expression of relativism but an attempt to carry a highest value one step beyond where it was carried in the past .
The drive toward a more total equality brings with it a host of human problems , anarcho-tyranny as seen in cities like Seattle right now being the most obvious .
But the belief that all values are relative does not in any way seem to have influenced this course of events .
Another curious characteristic of the Left is how furiously it reacts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standards of equality .
The existence of economic disparities in Western countries drove generations of leftists to look for answers in communism , or at least to treat communist governments as efforts to create more “ just ” or more “ scientifically run ” societies .
The enemy then and afterwards was “ fascism ” and it remained so long after the Second World War .
Fascism has been defined as a chronic Western disease , arising out of specifically Western cultural and religious attitudes rooted in bigotry .
Fascism used to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the means of production .
It was an ideological tool for oppressing the poor and maintaining colonial empires .
In its more contemporary form , fascism has become whatever the intersectional Left considers to be morally reprehensible .
Since the list of fascist offenses continues to grow by the minute , the only moral way to deal with this right-wing pestilence is by “ canceling culture.
” Only by getting rid of all reminders of a traditional Western society can we protect ourselves from the pervasive fascist menace .
Yet somehow the evils @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anywhere outside the West .
Other societies live in a perpetual state of grace as victims of the West or as examples of what we might become with the proper reeducation .
The late Paul Hollander wrote a voluminous study on “ political pilgrims ” who visited “ progressive ” or Marxist societies , where they hoped to find human perfection .
Hollander ’ s “ pilgrims ” were hardly relativists .
They were fixated on a highest value , usually equality , but equality combined with scientific management , which they imagined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but not in their own country .
Where Kendall was correct was in grasping that the Left was destroying traditional human attachments , where people are integrated into families and communities .
There , morality operates in an inherited social context , and not in the pursuit of highest values .
Although one may be skeptical about the portentous importance that Kendall ascribed to relativism , his description of a society without shared premises descending into “ ever-deepening differences of opinion ” is accurate .
So was his prediction that such a society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the discussion process and the arbitrament of public questions by violence and civil war.
” Paul Gottfried is the editor-in-chief of Chronicles .
He is also Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown College , where he taught for 25 years , a Guggenheim recipient , and a Yale Ph.D .
He is the author of 13 books , most recently Fascism : Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents .

Around the middle of the last century, American conservatives came to regard “relativism” as an essential characteristic of the Left.
Political theorist and onetime Yale professor Willmoore Kendall, who had been the teacher of William F. Buckley, was the best-known exponent of this position. Kendall was particularly concerned that liberals in post-World War II America were unwilling to stand up to communist infiltration and Soviet aggression, at least not in the decisive manner that he and his student, who became the animating spirit of the conservatism of that age, would have desired.
Kendall’s explanation, which others echoed and, in some cases, anticipated, was that many intellectuals believed “in an unlimited right to think and say what you please, with impunity and without let or hindrance.” Particularly in the face of the communist threat, Kendall thought that Americans would have to give up the idea of an “open society.” They would have to grasp that “any viable society has an orthodoxy—a set of fundamental beliefs, implicit in its way of life, that it cannot, should not, and, in any case, will not submit to the vicissitudes of the marketplace.”
Kendall viewed English democrat and feminist John Stuart Mill as a particularly dangerous thinker on political questions. He was convinced Mill’s best-known work, On Liberty, had gone too far in advocating an “open society.”
Mill set out to defend the right of totally free inquiry but, according to Kendall, landed squarely on relativism. In The Conservative Affirmation (1963), Kendall traced the non-judgmentalism of many Americans when faced by the communist threat to Mill’s willingness to consider all views and opinions. According to Kendall, Mill helped create America’s “national religion of skepticism” and made it increasingly difficult for Americans to hold on to what was left of a traditional society. Mill also dealt with moral issues by encouraging the pursuit of truth without accepting “truth itself with all its accumulated riches to date.”
In a moving tribute to Kendall, Tom Woodlief, writing recently at The American Conservative, declared that “this outcast Yale professor predicted 2020 better than his erstwhile colleagues.” Kendall had warned against “the suicidal pact with relativism,” which is now driving the antifascist Left. According to him, “the doyens of the suicidal society will feel an irresistible compulsion to silence the voices insisting that there is truth, even Truth, and that therefore many other beliefs are in error.”
Please note that I fully share Mr. Woodlief’s admiration for Kendall and especially for his writings on the formation of American constitutional government and his perceptive reading of the political theory of John Locke. Where I must part company is in Kendall’s attribution to the Left of a fixation with an “open society.” Equally open to question is Kendall’s treatment of Mill’s On Liberty, a work that Maurice Cowling, Linda Rader, and Joseph Hamburger have all interpreted differently from Kendall. These scholars have documented that Mill was far less interested in open discussion than he was in other ends. Above all, he was trying to build a secular society based on a consensus centered on scientific truth. Mill was an explicit 19th-century progressive who believed that open inquiry would advance his teleological goals.
Moreover, with due respect to Woodlief and Kendall, those who support Antifa and Black Lives Matter have hardly failed to recognize that there is “Truth” in the world. They simply reject the moral right of their enemies to express other views. This is a moral stand, hardly a relativistic one, and it is a political-existential one, in the sense in which Carl Schmitt understood “the Concept of the Political” as the most intensely antagonistic of human relationships. It is unimaginable that the more fervent and more activist side in our culture wars is not driven by its own morality, which expresses itself in rage.
One might also question whether the Left has ever believed consistently in something called “moral relativism” or whether it has merely appealed to it as a tactic to disarm opponents. Certainly the pro-communist leftists with whom Kendall debated were not likely to “relativize” Nazism or even the Francoist regime in Spain or South African Apartheid the way they did Soviet tyranny.
Russell Kirk liked to tell the story of a leftist acquaintance who claimed to have a perfectly open mind. When Kirk asked his interlocutor who was morally superior, “Jesus of Nazareth or Stalin,” this fellow seemed unable to rate those figures by the required standard. But when he was asked who was worse, Hitler or Stalin, Kirk’s acquaintance would immediately respond “Hitler.” I had similar experiences with advocates of the “open society” before the Left gave up its facade of universal tolerance. It may be that dishonesty, not relativism, was the problem with how the Left has presented itself.
If one were to ask what exactly the Left has believed about morality over the decades, I would begin by pointing out that the most important concept is equality. The Left has never denied this and I see no reason to question that commitment. What seems to me striking is the Left’s preoccupation with equality to the neglect of other values that seem at least as much deserving of respect, such as deference to elders, respect for the achievements of one’s civilization, piety, freedom, and so on. We might also question how the Left understands its highest value, which is clearly different from the way non-leftists might approach it. For example, some may think that equality before the law is enough; others may want equal voting rights, and still others may believe it is the duty of the state to reduce its citizens or subjects to the same living conditions.
The present Left also seems interested in imposing equality of esteem for those whom it designates as historical victims. This is certainly not an expression of relativism but an attempt to carry a highest value one step beyond where it was carried in the past. The drive toward a more total equality brings with it a host of human problems, anarcho-tyranny as seen in cities like Seattle right now being the most obvious. But the belief that all values are relative does not in any way seem to have influenced this course of events.
Another curious characteristic of the Left is how furiously it reacts to Western failures to meet its fastidious standards of equality. The existence of economic disparities in Western countries drove generations of leftists to look for answers in communism, or at least to treat communist governments as efforts to create more “just” or more “scientifically run” societies. The enemy then and afterwards was “fascism” and it remained so long after the Second World War. Fascism has been defined as a chronic Western disease, arising out of specifically Western cultural and religious attitudes rooted in bigotry. Fascism used to be explained with reference to those who controlled the means of production. It was an ideological tool for oppressing the poor and maintaining colonial empires. In its more contemporary form, fascism has become whatever the intersectional Left considers to be morally reprehensible. Since the list of fascist offenses continues to grow by the minute, the only moral way to deal with this right-wing pestilence is by “canceling culture.” Only by getting rid of all reminders of a traditional Western society can we protect ourselves from the pervasive fascist menace.
Yet somehow the evils we are supposed to combat never appear anywhere outside the West. Other societies live in a perpetual state of grace as victims of the West or as examples of what we might become with the proper reeducation. The late Paul Hollander wrote a voluminous study on “political pilgrims” who visited “progressive” or Marxist societies, where they hoped to find human perfection. Hollander’s “pilgrims” were hardly relativists. They were fixated on a highest value, usually equality, but equality combined with scientific management, which they imagined was being realized in some distant place but not in their own country.
Where Kendall was correct was in grasping that the Left was destroying traditional human attachments, where people are integrated into families and communities. There, morality operates in an inherited social context, and not in the pursuit of highest values. Although one may be skeptical about the portentous importance that Kendall ascribed to relativism, his description of a society without shared premises descending into “ever-deepening differences of opinion” is accurate. So was his prediction that such a society would descend “into the abandonment of the discussion process and the arbitrament of public questions by violence and civil war.”
Paul Gottfried is the editor-in-chief of Chronicles. He is also Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown College, where he taught for 25 years, a Guggenheim recipient, and a Yale Ph.D. He is the author of 13 books, most recently Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents.


theamericanconservative--2020-06-20--The Rally That Could Have Been

The Rally That Could Have Been

Last August , CNN published a moving feature on inner-city Baltimore by their enterprise writer , John Blake .
In it , he describes the story of an unlikely Trump voter : his late , 91-year-old African American father who provided for his family with “ a well-paying job , with union benefits , as a merchant marine.
” Blake paints a vivid portrait of his childhood memories in what was once known as “ The Greatest City in America ” : Today , however , the city is in dire straits .
Blake describes his family neighborhood in West @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” noting that “ Those stable , career jobs have now been replaced with minimum-wage service jobs and temp work.
” Conservatives like to emphasize the importance of personal responsibility , church attendance , and stable families as a cure for inner-city poverty , however , Blake urges them to reconsider what he views as the most successful “ anti-poverty ” and “ anti-drug ” program known to man : JOBS , JOBS , JOBS .
It ’ s a message that comes naturally to conservatives .
In fact , one could argue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump campaign in 2016 .
But Republicans have failed to translate that message into a majority coalition over the past 3.5 years .
Instead , the President sits with a job approval rate at 40.9 % , according to recent polling from FiveThirtyEight .
Even worse , only 8 % of blacks voted for Trump in 2016 , and at the start of 2020 , 83 % of black Americans believed that the President was a racist .
It didn ’ t have to be this way .
When J.D .
Vance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Elegy , he described the plight of the white working class in a way that captivated the nation .
For perhaps the first time in a generation , Republicans truly began to understand the connection between bad economy policy and bad social outcomes .
The argument was simple : Free trade sent jobs overseas to China and Mexico .
America ’ s great cities deindustrialized .
The businesses , civic organizations , and churches that supported company towns like Detroit , Pittsburgh , and Dayton dried up .
The social fabric of communities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left behind turned to opioids ( ironically , made in China ) to numb the pain , leading to a drug epidemic that kills nearly 70,000 people per year and counting .
Against that backdrop , Donald Trump rode a wave of anti-globalization sentiment into the White House , and the rest is history .
Republicans learned an important lesson too : while some of the problems in poor Rust Belt communities stem from failures of personal responsibility , there were also more systemic economic issues at play .
Bad decisions made on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ havoc on the Heartland .
For those with eyes to see , the “ American Carnage ” was all around .
Yet , for many on the right , the lesson didn ’ t translate to how they viewed black communities .
Many blacks moved up from the South during the “ great migration ” to take manufacturing jobs in cities like Baltimore .
While they faced the horrors of segregation , there existed thriving black communities with union jobs , black-owned business , healthy churches , and vibrant cultural institutions .
Much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same deindustrialization that pillaged white working-class communities .
Matters were made worse by the very real barriers posed by racism .
The jobs left behind were often , as Blake described , “ minimum-wage service jobs and temp work.
” In other words , not a lot opportunity to pursue the American dream .
And blacks that moved to the city in the latter half of the 20th century to buy homes in formerly white neighborhoods often fell victim to predatory developers in the form of “ blockbusting , ” which in some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sold to African-Americans by 80 – 100 % , placing an “ onerous burden on black homeowners.
” And to top it all off , in the decades following the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 , mass immigration depressed working-class wages and forced blacks to compete for the new , low-wage service jobs , which replaced their well-paying , unionized jobs in manufacturing .
As South-side Chicago pastor , Corey Brooks , told TAC in a recent interview : “ a lot of African Americans do believe that… [ on account of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of jobs that young African Americans could have , they ’ re not available.
” This sentiment is backed by data from a 2007 study published by Harvard ’ s George J. Borjas , U. Chicago ’ s Jeffrey Grogger , and UC San Diego ’ s Gordon H. Hanson , which argued that “ The 1980-2000 immigrant influx , therefore , generally ‘ explains ’ about 20 to 60 percent of the decline in wages , 25 percent of the decline in employment , and about 10 percent of the rise in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school education or less.
” All of these factors combined for a perfect storm buffeting the black community again and again over the past half century , producing understandable anger and frustration .
Yes , two-parent families and increased church attendance would help to ameliorate some of the problems in America ’ s inner-cities .
However , just as the white working class was under siege by forces beyond their control , even more so was the black community .
If only we had a President who could champion the interests of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and black .
If only we had a president who could stand behind a podium in West Baltimore , just as well as Youngstown , Ohio , and blast globalist politicians and hedge fund managers who sold these communities down the river to make a buck off of cheap labor from Communist China .
If only we had a president who could explain , in very clear terms , how tight labor markets raise wages in both inner-city and rural communities .
If only we had a messenger who could inspire a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sense of solidarity and patriotism across racial and class divides .
This weekend , President Trump travels to Tulsa for a “ Great American Comeback ” rally—the first stadium event he ’ s held since the coronavirus lockdown—that ’ s certain to attract tens of thousands of MAGA hat-wearing fans and provoke the ire of the mainstream media and cultural elites .
In a very different universe , one can imagine a similar rally taking place in downtown Baltimore .
The crowd—a cross section of the city ’ s diverse residents—cheering wildly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-family , “ one-nation conservatism ” takes the stage .
He or she looks out at the crowd , and with a resolute eye , points to an Acela train in the distance whizzing past the burnt-out , boarded-up neighborhoods of Baltimore ’ s skyline , and vows with utter sincerity and perfect moral clarity : Never again .

Last August, CNN published a moving feature on inner-city Baltimore by their enterprise writer, John Blake. In it, he describes the story of an unlikely Trump voter: his late, 91-year-old African American father who provided for his family with “a well-paying job, with union benefits, as a merchant marine.”
Blake paints a vivid portrait of his childhood memories in what was once known as “The Greatest City in America”:
The community I grew up in during the 1970s and ’80s was full of men and women like my father. Many of them had blue-collar jobs at places like the Bethlehem Steel plant or the Domino Sugar plant in the city’s inner harbor. They proudly purchased big Chevy Impalas, kept their homes in impeccable condition and had crab cookouts in their backyards.
Today, however, the city is in dire straits. Blake describes his family neighborhood in West Baltimore as an “economic wasteland,” noting that “Those stable, career jobs have now been replaced with minimum-wage service jobs and temp work.” Conservatives like to emphasize the importance of personal responsibility, church attendance, and stable families as a cure for inner-city poverty, however, Blake urges them to reconsider what he views as the most successful “anti-poverty” and “anti-drug” program known to man: JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.
It’s a message that comes naturally to conservatives. In fact, one could argue that it was the central theme of the Trump campaign in 2016. But Republicans have failed to translate that message into a majority coalition over the past 3.5 years. Instead, the President sits with a job approval rate at 40.9%, according to recent polling from FiveThirtyEight. Even worse, only 8% of blacks voted for Trump in 2016, and at the start of 2020, 83% of black Americans believed that the President was a racist.
It didn’t have to be this way.
When J.D. Vance wrote his NYT bestselling memoir, Hillbilly Elegy, he described the plight of the white working class in a way that captivated the nation. For perhaps the first time in a generation, Republicans truly began to understand the connection between bad economy policy and bad social outcomes.
The argument was simple: Free trade sent jobs overseas to China and Mexico. America’s great cities deindustrialized. The businesses, civic organizations, and churches that supported company towns like Detroit, Pittsburgh, and Dayton dried up. The social fabric of communities ripped apart. And those who were left behind turned to opioids (ironically, made in China) to numb the pain, leading to a drug epidemic that kills nearly 70,000 people per year and counting.
Against that backdrop, Donald Trump rode a wave of anti-globalization sentiment into the White House, and the rest is history. Republicans learned an important lesson too: while some of the problems in poor Rust Belt communities stem from failures of personal responsibility, there were also more systemic economic issues at play. Bad decisions made on Wall Street and in Washington had wreaked havoc on the Heartland. For those with eyes to see, the “American Carnage” was all around.
Yet, for many on the right, the lesson didn’t translate to how they viewed black communities. Many blacks moved up from the South during the “great migration” to take manufacturing jobs in cities like Baltimore. While they faced the horrors of segregation, there existed thriving black communities with union jobs, black-owned business, healthy churches, and vibrant cultural institutions.
Much of this was uprooted by the very same deindustrialization that pillaged white working-class communities. Matters were made worse by the very real barriers posed by racism. The jobs left behind were often, as Blake described, “minimum-wage service jobs and temp work.” In other words, not a lot opportunity to pursue the American dream. And blacks that moved to the city in the latter half of the 20th century to buy homes in formerly white neighborhoods often fell victim to predatory developers in the form of “blockbusting,” which in some cases artificially inflated the values of homes sold to African-Americans by 80 – 100%, placing an “onerous burden on black homeowners.”
And to top it all off, in the decades following the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, mass immigration depressed working-class wages and forced blacks to compete for the new, low-wage service jobs, which replaced their well-paying, unionized jobs in manufacturing. As South-side Chicago pastor, Corey Brooks, told TAC in a recent interview: “a lot of African Americans do believe that…[on account of] being so loose with immigration…a lot of jobs that young African Americans could have, they’re not available.” This sentiment is backed by data from a 2007 study published by Harvard’s George J. Borjas, U. Chicago’s Jeffrey Grogger, and UC San Diego’s Gordon H. Hanson, which argued that “The 1980-2000 immigrant influx, therefore, generally ‘explains’ about 20 to 60 percent of the decline in wages, 25 percent of the decline in employment, and about 10 percent of the rise in incarceration rates among blacks with a high school education or less.”
All of these factors combined for a perfect storm buffeting the black community again and again over the past half century, producing understandable anger and frustration. Yes, two-parent families and increased church attendance would help to ameliorate some of the problems in America’s inner-cities. However, just as the white working class was under siege by forces beyond their control, even more so was the black community.
If only we had a President who could champion the interests of the working and middle classes, both white and black. If only we had a president who could stand behind a podium in West Baltimore, just as well as Youngstown, Ohio, and blast globalist politicians and hedge fund managers who sold these communities down the river to make a buck off of cheap labor from Communist China. If only we had a president who could explain, in very clear terms, how tight labor markets raise wages in both inner-city and rural communities. If only we had a messenger who could inspire a new, working- and middle-class majority to restore a sense of solidarity and patriotism across racial and class divides.
This weekend, President Trump travels to Tulsa for a “Great American Comeback” rally—the first stadium event he’s held since the coronavirus lockdown—that’s certain to attract tens of thousands of MAGA hat-wearing fans and provoke the ire of the mainstream media and cultural elites.
In a very different universe, one can imagine a similar rally taking place in downtown Baltimore. The crowd—a cross section of the city’s diverse residents—cheering wildly as a champion of a pro-worker, pro-family, “one-nation conservatism” takes the stage. He or she looks out at the crowd, and with a resolute eye, points to an Acela train in the distance whizzing past the burnt-out, boarded-up neighborhoods of Baltimore’s skyline, and vows with utter sincerity and perfect moral clarity: Never again.


theamericanconservative--2020-06-22--So It Turns Out You’re a Racist

So It Turns Out You’re a Racist

Am I a racist ?
Are you ?
People tell me I sort of have to be a racist , it ’ s not really my choice .
Today , if you ’ re old , white , from the Midwest , a bit conservative , then you ’ re racist .
Maybe you don ’ t say racist things specifically , and maybe you never did anything to disadvantage a black person yourself , but by original sin , you ’ re part of “ systematic racism.
“ Now maybe your immigrant parents arrived in the U.S. 75 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white racist have trouble finding a privileged job that pays a living wage .
No matter , you ’ re still privileged thanks to a system going back 400 years whether you like it or not .
You can ’ t change what you are and people hate you for it .
That ’ s the systemic part , defined as “ not something that a few people choose to practice .
Instead it has been a feature of the social , economic , and political systems in which we all exist.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was from the news , but in recent days I heard most of that from a close relative , and the rest from a friend of many years , neither of whom want to interact with me anymore .
I ’ ve been sending one checks since her birthdays were in the single digits .
I grew up alongside the other .
They have both taken themselves out of my life because the internet told them I am a racist .
Crowd-sourced ( what old timers call a mob ) leftist fundamentalism has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be called a Nazi , er , racist , and dismissed .
Once the red line was only actual Nazis .
So no “ Thank you , Elie Wiesel for that moving account .
Now in rebuttal , Hitler ’ s deputy , Martin Bormann… ” You had to be an actual Nazi to hold an opinion outside the boundaries of legitimacy .
Not any more .
Racism scholar Ibram Kendi says one is now either racist or anti-racist , that there is no room for such thing as a “ non-racist.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should “ Text your relatives and loved ones telling them you will not be visiting them or answering phone calls until they take significant action in supporting black lives.
” Another article described my own situation , claiming “ BLM protesters are breaking up with their racist , Facebook-addled relatives.
” A Twitter thread about one such family dissolution had over 800,000 likes .
HuffPo ran an article by a biracial woman eviscerating her white mother for being too white .
High school debate clubs used to propose a topic in advance but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just before the match .
The idea was you would vigorously support or attack a position you may not personally agree with .
You were supposed to learn something intellectual from all this along with the ability to see things from another point of view .
It is a vision of the world a long way from calling someone a witch , er , racist , and dismissing them whole .
We don ’ t understand debate , or its cousin compromise , anymore .
There is no longer any tolerance for others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the left does not see opinions as such ; they are not acquired thoughts so much as they are innate to who we are , the inside and the outside fixed by color and class .
You can ’ t change , only apologize , before being ignored at family gatherings , unfriended , and canceled .
From the New York Times firing an editor for running an op-ed by a senator , to me wondering about the practicality of defunding the police and losing a friend over it , there is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t speak , I can only whitesplain ( used to be mansplain ) .
People arbitrate my intent before I open my slack jaw .
It ’ s even a job title—a writer at a black news site calls himself a “ wypipologist.
” I am unsure where all these woke white people came from .
The world around me , since George Floyd ’ s death , is flooded with overzealous sympathy , the media a waste can for guilt , and people who had never heard of the idea a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defunding the police .
Companies are stumbling over each other like they just found Jesus at an AA meeting to add Black Lives Matter to their websites , just above the ad banners .
The Washington Post reports that African Americans have said they ’ ve been overwhelmed by the number of white friends checking in , with some sending cash because guilt is an expensive hobby .
White celebs are swarming to confess their past ignorance on race .
In what may be the ultimate expression of shallowness , someone who calls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an Instagram guide on “ how to check in on your black friends.
” Which corner was everyone standing in solidarity on last week ?
The Slack for a hospitality company I worked for pre-COVID exploded last week when a benign HR data request went out on # BlackOutTuesday .
The almost all-white staff went insane with accusations of racism .
Of course , the blindsided ( and now racist ) HR drone didn ’ t think about Tuesday being some private racial Ramadan when we all fasted from reality ; she doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter .
The mob , sounding like they ’ d drunk a human growth hormone and Adderall smoothie , barked until the company issued a sort-of apology .
Then they celebrated as if they ’ d brought George Floyd back to life .
It shouldn ’ t have caught HR so off guard .
The unemployees live in a world where “ journalism is a profession of agitation.
” They were taught nothing matters more than starting a sentence with “ as a… ( woman , harassment survivor , deep sea diver ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no assembled historical fact , could be more important than a single lived experience .
They were brought up on TV shows that juxtaposed white and black characters like someone was stringing together magic diversity beads .
They made the boss apologize even though nothing was really different except that made-up racial “ holidays ” are now on the list of things where there is only one allowable opinion .
Soon enough we ’ ll all be asked over the PA to take a knee for the national anthem at sporting events .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ very much like people wanted to imagine they were on the cutting edge of a revolution , the long-awaited ( well , for four years ) Reichstag fire .
So what makes this moment into a turning point ?
Not much .
Less than taking a stand , it feels more like radical chic from people who have been cooped up for months , cut off from bars and the gym .
They don ’ t seem to know we ’ ve had this week before , after the deaths of Rodney King @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Michael Brown .
The protests feel like the last round of BLM , Occupy , Pink Hats , March for Our Lives , even Live Aid in 1986 when Queen sang for everyone ’ s racist parents to end hunger forever .
Remember in 1970 when Leonard Bernstein threw a cocktail party for the Black Panthers Defense Fund and Tom Wolfe wrote about it ?
That changed everything ; I mean , people used to say “ Negro ” back then .
But I ’ m pretty sure a year from now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It took some rough nights to work out the rules and root out the looters , but even as the protests have faded , the whole thing has become a set piece : the demonstrators arrive with water bottles and healthy snacks .
The route is established with the police a long way from “ by any means necessary ” boulevard .
As long as everyone enjoys their revolutionary cosplay inside the white lines , the cops don ’ t have to spank anyone with pepper spray .
The AP describes the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now as having a “ street fair vibe.
” See , it got complicated explaining how looting beer from a convenience run by Yemeni refugees was connected to racial justice .
It all reveals itself as hollow because this fight isn ’ t between racism and anti-racism .
It ’ s Black Rage versus White Guilt .
The cops quickly quiet down the former and the media slowly wears out the latter .
That means little of the action will have much to do with the real issues but everyone will feel self-righteously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way , however , the collateral damage of wokeness is producing the totalitarianism it purports to challenge by denying any view that challenges it .
Ideas are redefined by one side as the bad -isms of racism , sexism , fascism , and pulled out of the marketplace along with the people who want to talk about them .
No invite to the barbecue , no seat at the Thanksgiving table .
In a political system built on compromise , I ’ m not sure how we ’ re supposed to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ am not a racist .
I ’ ll get over my problem with lost friends .
America , I ’ m not so sure .
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 .

Am I a racist? Are you? People tell me I sort of have to be a racist, it’s not really my choice. Today, if you’re old, white, from the Midwest, a bit conservative, then you’re racist. Maybe you don’t say racist things specifically, and maybe you never did anything to disadvantage a black person yourself, but by original sin, you’re part of “systematic racism.“
Now maybe your immigrant parents arrived in the U.S. 75 years after slavery, or you as a white racist have trouble finding a privileged job that pays a living wage. No matter, you’re still privileged thanks to a system going back 400 years whether you like it or not. You can’t change what you are and people hate you for it. That’s the systemic part, defined as “not something that a few people choose to practice. Instead it has been a feature of the social, economic, and political systems in which we all exist.”
I’d like to say that was from the news, but in recent days I heard most of that from a close relative, and the rest from a friend of many years, neither of whom want to interact with me anymore. I’ve been sending one checks since her birthdays were in the single digits. I grew up alongside the other. They have both taken themselves out of my life because the internet told them I am a racist.
Crowd-sourced (what old timers call a mob) leftist fundamentalism has given us a country where everyone can be called a Nazi, er, racist, and dismissed. Once the red line was only actual Nazis. So no “Thank you, Elie Wiesel for that moving account. Now in rebuttal, Hitler’s deputy, Martin Bormann…” You had to be an actual Nazi to hold an opinion outside the boundaries of legitimacy.
Not any more. Racism scholar Ibram Kendi says one is now either racist or anti-racist, that there is no room for such thing as a “non-racist.” The New York Times said white allies should “Text your relatives and loved ones telling them you will not be visiting them or answering phone calls until they take significant action in supporting black lives.” Another article described my own situation, claiming “BLM protesters are breaking up with their racist, Facebook-addled relatives.” A Twitter thread about one such family dissolution had over 800,000 likes. HuffPo ran an article by a biracial woman eviscerating her white mother for being too white.
High school debate clubs used to propose a topic in advance but not assign a “side” until just before the match. The idea was you would vigorously support or attack a position you may not personally agree with. You were supposed to learn something intellectual from all this along with the ability to see things from another point of view. It is a vision of the world a long way from calling someone a witch, er, racist, and dismissing them whole.
We don’t understand debate, or its cousin compromise, anymore. There is no longer any tolerance for others’ views because the current fascism of the left does not see opinions as such; they are not acquired thoughts so much as they are innate to who we are, the inside and the outside fixed by color and class. You can’t change, only apologize, before being ignored at family gatherings, unfriended, and canceled. From the New York Times firing an editor for running an op-ed by a senator, to me wondering about the practicality of defunding the police and losing a friend over it, there is no legitimate other side. So I can’t speak, I can only whitesplain (used to be mansplain). People arbitrate my intent before I open my slack jaw. It’s even a job title—a writer at a black news site calls himself a “wypipologist.”
I am unsure where all these woke white people came from. The world around me, since George Floyd’s death, is flooded with overzealous sympathy, the media a waste can for guilt, and people who had never heard of the idea a week ago pronouncing themselves deeply committed to defunding the police.
Companies are stumbling over each other like they just found Jesus at an AA meeting to add Black Lives Matter to their websites, just above the ad banners. The Washington Post reports that African Americans have said they’ve been overwhelmed by the number of white friends checking in, with some sending cash because guilt is an expensive hobby. White celebs are swarming to confess their past ignorance on race. In what may be the ultimate expression of shallowness, someone who calls herself an influencer and life coach posted an Instagram guide on “how to check in on your black friends.” Which corner was everyone standing in solidarity on last week?
The Slack for a hospitality company I worked for pre-COVID exploded last week when a benign HR data request went out on #BlackOutTuesday. The almost all-white staff went insane with accusations of racism. Of course, the blindsided (and now racist) HR drone didn’t think about Tuesday being some private racial Ramadan when we all fasted from reality; she doesn’t follow the right people on Twitter. The mob, sounding like they’d drunk a human growth hormone and Adderall smoothie, barked until the company issued a sort-of apology. Then they celebrated as if they’d brought George Floyd back to life.
It shouldn’t have caught HR so off guard. The unemployees live in a world where “journalism is a profession of agitation.” They were taught nothing matters more than starting a sentence with “as a… (woman, harassment survivor, deep sea diver)” because no argument, and certainly no assembled historical fact, could be more important than a single lived experience. They were brought up on TV shows that juxtaposed white and black characters like someone was stringing together magic diversity beads. They made the boss apologize even though nothing was really different except that made-up racial “holidays” are now on the list of things where there is only one allowable opinion. Soon enough we’ll all be asked over the PA to take a knee for the national anthem at sporting events.
The harsh self-righteousness oozed. It sounded very much like people wanted to imagine they were on the cutting edge of a revolution, the long-awaited (well, for four years) Reichstag fire. So what makes this moment into a turning point?
Not much. Less than taking a stand, it feels more like radical chic from people who have been cooped up for months, cut off from bars and the gym. They don’t seem to know we’ve had this week before, after the deaths of Rodney King, Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, and Michael Brown. The protests feel like the last round of BLM, Occupy, Pink Hats, March for Our Lives, even Live Aid in 1986 when Queen sang for everyone’s racist parents to end hunger forever. Remember in 1970 when Leonard Bernstein threw a cocktail party for the Black Panthers Defense Fund and Tom Wolfe wrote about it? That changed everything; I mean, people used to say “Negro” back then. But I’m pretty sure a year from now there will still be funded police departments.
It took some rough nights to work out the rules and root out the looters, but even as the protests have faded, the whole thing has become a set piece: the demonstrators arrive with water bottles and healthy snacks. The route is established with the police a long way from “by any means necessary” boulevard. As long as everyone enjoys their revolutionary cosplay inside the white lines, the cops don’t have to spank anyone with pepper spray. The AP describes the once violent protests outside the White House now as having a “street fair vibe.” See, it got complicated explaining how looting beer from a convenience run by Yemeni refugees was connected to racial justice.
It all reveals itself as hollow because this fight isn’t between racism and anti-racism. It’s Black Rage versus White Guilt. The cops quickly quiet down the former and the media slowly wears out the latter. That means little of the action will have much to do with the real issues but everyone will feel self-righteously better. Until next time.
Along the way, however, the collateral damage of wokeness is producing the totalitarianism it purports to challenge by denying any view that challenges it. Ideas are redefined by one side as the bad -isms of racism, sexism, fascism, and pulled out of the marketplace along with the people who want to talk about them. No invite to the barbecue, no seat at the Thanksgiving table. In a political system built on compromise, I’m not sure how we’re supposed to get things done.
For me, I am not a racist. I’ll get over my problem with lost friends. America, I’m not so sure.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People,Hooper’s War: A Novel of WWII Japan, and Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent.


theamericanconservative--2020-06-23--How Long Will the Vandals Run Amok?

How Long Will the Vandals Run Amok?

A society whose history is hated by millions of its members will not survive .
WASHINGTON , DC - JUNE 22 : Protesters attempt to pull down the statue of Andrew Jackson in Lafayette Square near the White House on June 22 , 2020 in Washington , DC .
Protests continue around the country over the deaths of African Americans while in police custody .
( Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images ) The left ’ s war on America ’ s past crossed several new frontiers last week .
Portland ’ s statue of George Washington , the Father of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States , the greatest man of his age , was toppled and desecrated .
While the statue stood , an American flag was draped over its head and set ablaze .
After it was pulled down , a new fire was set on another American flag spread across the statue , and also burned .
The vacated pedestal was painted with the words , “ You ’ re on Native Land.
” In Portland also , a statue of Thomas Jefferson that stood at the entrance of a high school named @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Independence was torn down .
In New York , city council members demanded that the Jefferson statue in city hall be removed .
Anticipating what was coming , the New York Museum of Natural History got the permission of city hall to have the giant statue of Theodore Roosevelt astride a horse , flanked by an African and a Native American , removed from the front of the museum .
What was wrong with the 80-year-old statue ?
Said museum president Ellen Futter , the problem is its “ hierarchical composition.
” Only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jefferson and Roosevelt all under attack , three of the four presidents on Mount Rushmore are now repudiated by the left .
Our Taliban have moved on , past Columbus and the Confederate generals , to dislodge and dishonor the Founding Fathers and their patriot sons .
In Philadelphia , the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier of the American Revolution , with its statue of Washington , was defaced .
The tomb is the final resting place for thousands of soldiers , known but to God , who died in the struggle for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the charge scrawled on the memorial .
Local authorities or police did not stop the vandals .
One wonders what will happen should the haters of Washington and Jefferson decide to torch their ancestral homes at Mount Vernon and Monticello .
Still another line was crossed last week in the war against the past .
A statue of Ulysses S. Grant in San Francisco ’ s Golden Gate Park was toppled .
Police watched as hundreds gathered to take down the general and 18th president , who accepted the surrender of General @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Northern Virginia .
Also pulled down in Golden Gate Park was a statue of Francis Scott Key , who wrote our national anthem , “ The Star-Spangled Banner , ” after he watched all through the night in 1814 as British warships bombarded Fort McHenry .
A third statue torn down in Golden Gate Park was that of Father Junipero Serra , the Franciscan priest who founded nine of the 21 Spanish missions in California that run from San Diego to San Francisco .
Serra lived in the 18th century , long before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mexico won its independence .
Pope Francis canonized him in 2015 .
At the end of last week , the last statue of a Confederate soldier in the nation ’ s capital , that of Gen. Albert Pike , who spent his years after the war doing good works , was pulled down , while Mayor Muriel Bowser ’ s D.C. cops watched from police cruisers .
We erect statues to remember , revere and honor those whom we memorialize .
And what is the motivation of the people who tear them down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is hate .
A goodly slice of America ’ s young hates this country ’ s history and the men who made it .
It hates the discoverers and explorers like Columbus , the conquistadores and colonists .
It hates the Founding Fathers and the first 15 presidents , all of whom either had slaves or coexisted with the injustice of slavery .
But hating history and denying history and tearing down the statues of the men who made that history does not change history .
So , where are we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the 1960s , the American establishment is on the run .
It recoils from mob action but can not bring itself to condemn those tearing down the statues , for it basically agrees with them and seeks to marshal their energy to help it get back into power in November .
But this can not go on .
The political and propaganda war on the cops , the vandalism of the statues and memorials , the disgracing and dishonoring of American heroes can not go on indefinitely .
At some point , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and its questionable political instrument , Joe Biden , will have to have his Sister Souljah moment , and stand up and stay , “ This should stop.
” For , whatever happens in this election , the American people will not stay united around a party and a movement built on the proposition that America has been , from before its birth , a racist criminal enterprise .
You can not lead a people whose history and heroes you hate .
A house divided against itself can not stand .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions of its members will not survive .
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon ’ s White House Wars : The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever .

The left’s war on America’s past crossed several new frontiers last week.
Portland’s statue of George Washington, the Father of his Country and the first president of the United States, the greatest man of his age, was toppled and desecrated.
While the statue stood, an American flag was draped over its head and set ablaze. After it was pulled down, a new fire was set on another American flag spread across the statue, and also burned. The vacated pedestal was painted with the words, “You’re on Native Land.”
In Portland also, a statue of Thomas Jefferson that stood at the entrance of a high school named for the author of the Declaration of Independence was torn down. In New York, city council members demanded that the Jefferson statue in city hall be removed.
Anticipating what was coming, the New York Museum of Natural History got the permission of city hall to have the giant statue of Theodore Roosevelt astride a horse, flanked by an African and a Native American, removed from the front of the museum.
What was wrong with the 80-year-old statue?
Said museum president Ellen Futter, the problem is its “hierarchical composition.” Only Roosevelt was mounted.
With Washington, Jefferson and Roosevelt all under attack, three of the four presidents on Mount Rushmore are now repudiated by the left.
Our Taliban have moved on, past Columbus and the Confederate generals, to dislodge and dishonor the Founding Fathers and their patriot sons.
In Philadelphia, the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier of the American Revolution, with its statue of Washington, was defaced. The tomb is the final resting place for thousands of soldiers, known but to God, who died in the struggle for American independence.
“Committed Genocide” is the charge scrawled on the memorial.
Local authorities or police did not stop the vandals. One wonders what will happen should the haters of Washington and Jefferson decide to torch their ancestral homes at Mount Vernon and Monticello.
Still another line was crossed last week in the war against the past.
A statue of Ulysses S. Grant in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park was toppled. Police watched as hundreds gathered to take down the general and 18th president, who accepted the surrender of General Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia.
Also pulled down in Golden Gate Park was a statue of Francis Scott Key, who wrote our national anthem, “The Star-Spangled Banner,” after he watched all through the night in 1814 as British warships bombarded Fort McHenry.
A third statue torn down in Golden Gate Park was that of Father Junipero Serra, the Franciscan priest who founded nine of the 21 Spanish missions in California that run from San Diego to San Francisco.
Serra lived in the 18th century, long before the U.S. acquired California and decades before Mexico won its independence. Pope Francis canonized him in 2015.
At the end of last week, the last statue of a Confederate soldier in the nation’s capital, that of Gen. Albert Pike, who spent his years after the war doing good works, was pulled down, while Mayor Muriel Bowser’s D.C. cops watched from police cruisers.
We erect statues to remember, revere and honor those whom we memorialize. And what is the motivation of the people who tear them down and desecrate them?
In a word, it is hate. A goodly slice of America’s young hates this country’s history and the men who made it. It hates the discoverers and explorers like Columbus, the conquistadores and colonists. It hates the Founding Fathers and the first 15 presidents, all of whom either had slaves or coexisted with the injustice of slavery. But hating history and denying history and tearing down the statues of the men who made that history does not change history.
So, where are we going?
Today, as was true in the 1960s, the American establishment is on the run. It recoils from mob action but cannot bring itself to condemn those tearing down the statues, for it basically agrees with them and seeks to marshal their energy to help it get back into power in November.
But this cannot go on. The political and propaganda war on the cops, the vandalism of the statues and memorials, the disgracing and dishonoring of American heroes cannot go on indefinitely.
At some point, in the near future, the establishment, and its questionable political instrument, Joe Biden, will have to have his Sister Souljah moment, and stand up and stay, “This should stop.”
For, whatever happens in this election, the American people will not stay united around a party and a movement built on the proposition that America has been, from before its birth, a racist criminal enterprise.
You cannot lead a people whose history and heroes you hate.
A house divided against itself cannot stand. And a society whose history is hated by millions of its members will not survive.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.


theamericanconservative--2020-06-23--If John Roberts Isn’t a Conservative, What is He, Exactly?

The DACA ruling reveals the chief justice 's willingness to trifle with the Constitution to serve his own ends , whatever they may be .
We are told that ours is a government of laws and not of men .
But is it ?
Those rote words of assurance are called into question by the sad saga of President Obama ’ s executive initiatives for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals , or DACA , and by President Trump ’ s ill-fated effort to reverse those actions through his own executive authority .
The outcome should be alarming to anyone who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the American Founders .
The alarm is particularly acute in relation to one man , Chief Justice John Roberts , who seems bent on ensuring that the Supreme Court , as currently constituted , never tilts toward conservatism with any consistency .
He was nominated for his current position by President George W. Bush because of his conservative record , but it isn ’ t clear—and has never been clear , when we look back on it—precisely what he stands for , aside from his own extravagant ambition .
Joan Biskupic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Life and Turbulent Times of Chief Justice John Roberts , recounts that Roberts , as he was angling for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit , wished to remain aloof from the conservative Federalist Society , even as he accepted the Federalists ’ endorsement for the position .
The endorsement was helpful in getting him considered for the court nomination by the second President Bush in 2005 , but it could have proved problematic at confirmation time .
Roberts ’ s political conundrum was explored by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the time of his nomination to the appeals court .
“ Roberts burnished his legal image carefully , ” wrote Lane .
“ In conservative circles , membership in or association with the [ Federalist ] society has become a badge of ideological and political reliability….But the society ’ s alignment with conservative GOP politics and public policy makes Roberts ’ s relationship with the organization a potentially sensitive point for his confirmation because many Democrats regard the organization with suspicion.
” So he sought to fuzz up the matter , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” when a Post business reporter identified him as a Federalist member .
He asked for a correction , though he had attended society meetings regularly and had cultivated an ideological alignment with the organization for years .
Thus do we see a man seeking to obscure his true convictions , whatever they may have been , in an elaborate finesse .
Nothing particularly unusual about this in the annals of Washington politics .
What ’ s alarming with regard to Roberts , however , is that he ’ s still doing it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States—and doing it in ways that reveal an airy disregard for some of the fundamentals of the American system .
In the DACA case , a clear presidential violation of the U.S. Constitution doesn ’ t seem to bother him in the least .
At issue in the DACA case , DHS v. University of California , was whether Trump could employ his executive authority to reverse previous executive actions by Obama to extend a kind of immigration reprieve to so-called Dreamers who were brought to the United States illegally as children , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There is widespread support throughout the country , including within the Trump administration , for extending some kind of legal status for the Dreamers .
But the question that emanated from Obama ’ s action was whether the president could constitutionally issue such an order on his own , thus bypassing Congress .
The answer clearly is no .
Obama himself acknowledged that constitutional reality on numerous occasions before he decided to take the action anyway .
Under pressure from his liberal supporters to wave his executive wand over the Dreamers , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not having the authority to do so .
“ I am not king .
I can ’ t do these things just by myself , ” he said in 2010 .
In March 2011 , he added that with “ respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order , that ’ s just not the case.
” Two months later he added that he couldn ’ t “ just bypass Congress and change the [ immigration ] law myself….That ’ s not how democracy works.
” Even after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2012 , no one ever disputed in any serious way the reality that federal immigration laws , enacted by Congress , don ’ t confer upon the president any authority to suspend execution of those laws .
Indeed , Congress had rejected previous efforts to pass new laws enabling such an approach to the DACA issue .
Then the judiciary gave further clarity to the matter when Obama sought to follow up his 2012 DACA actions with a 2014 executive initiative designed to give an administrative amnesty , along with some federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 4.3 million illegal immigrants .
In the same series of actions , Obama also initiated a substantial expansion of DACA .
The courts struck down both .
After Texas and 25 other states sued the administration over this second overreach , the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a nationwide injunction against it .
The president ’ s action , said the court , “ does not transform presence [ of illegals ] deemed unlawful by Congress into lawful presence and confer eligibility for otherwise unavailable benefits based on that change.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Circuit ruling and the injunction—as well as the well-established principle that Congress has full constitutional authority over immigration law .
The president must bow to that .
Obama was right the first time .
Based on those rulings , and an opinion by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions that the rulings demonstrated that DACA also was illegal , President Trump in June 2017 exercised his executive authority to terminate Obama ’ s DACA policy .
In other words , he used his executive authority to reverse an unconstitutional executive action by his predecessor .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ And the man who threw the wrench into it was Roberts , who joined the four liberal justices and wrote the majority opinion .
Studiously avoiding the constitutional issues involved ( a Roberts hallmark , it increasingly seems ) , he argued that the problem was that the Trump administration hadn ’ t properly followed the niceties of federal laws requiring certain rule-making procedures , with notice and comment-period requirements .
Never mind that the Obama administration hadn ’ t followed any such procedures either in promulgating its previous unconstitutional rule-making .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a spirited dissent joined in part by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch , called the majority decision “ mystifying ” in that DACA was “ unlawful from the start , and that alone is sufficient to justify its termination.
” He also took issue with Roberts ’ s quibbling assault on a Justice Department memo that sought to justify Trump ’ s actions based on the DACA illegality .
Thomas faulted the Roberts ruling for requiring the Trump administration to “ overlook DACA ’ s obvious deficiencies and provide additional policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of law.
” This , he added , “ will hamstring all future agency attempts to undo actions that exceed statutory authority.
” As The Wall Street Journal noted , this is an “ invitation for executive mischief , especially by Presidents at the end of their terms .
They ’ ll issue orders that will invite years of legal challenge if the next president reverses them.
” We know why the four liberal justices jumped on Roberts ’ s reasoning as their vehicle for retaining DACA even in the face of its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judicial activism , it seems clear that they don ’ t care about such things ; it ’ s the outcome that animates them .
But what was Roberts ’ s motivation ?
Difficult to say , except that he seems to delight in making mischief through jesuitical tangents seemingly designed to avoid getting to the heart of the constitutional issues brought before his court .
There are enough instances of this kind of judicial review to call into question what Roberts actually believes in .
His first dramatic tilt came in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama ’ s Affordable Care Act , in which Roberts accepted the unconstitutionality of the act ’ s “ individual mandate ” under the Constitution ’ s Commerce Clause but justified it , through contortions of logic , as a tax .
As Biskupic writes in her biography , “ Some conservatives believed he was not voting his true sentiment , but trying to shore up his reputation and institutional legacy.
” Then there was Roberts ’ s bizarre majority opinion in last year ’ s case involving the administration ’ s desire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ census .
While acknowledging that the executive branch has broad discretion on what questions to ask , Roberts declared that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross ’ s rationale for wanting the question “ appears to be contrived.
” Because of timing pressures , the ruling effectively thwarted the administration ’ s interest without actually addressing the merits of the case ; and it did so by peering into Ross ’ s head and purporting to discern what he was thinking .
When laws are assessed based on that kind of rationale , the concept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is in serious danger .
In the current court session , Roberts also orchestrated a 6-3 decision stretching the language of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include under the law ’ s protections sexual orientation and gender identity , notwithstanding that Congress had specifically rejected such actions .
The Court , with Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch joining the liberals , essentially amended the statute from the bench , something Roberts had repeatedly criticized during his Senate confirmation proceedings .
But it is the DACA case that truly reveals Roberts ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trifle with the Constitution to serve his institutional ends , whatever they may be .
His actions left in place an unconstitutional executive-branch action by throwing up artificial roadblocks against a constitutional effort to undo that unconstitutional action .
Back when Roberts engineered the Affordable Care Act decision , The Wall Street Journal perceived what was emerging on the Court .
“ One thing is clear , ” said the paper .
“ This was a one-man show , and that man is John Roberts.
” Today that perception looks more and more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court ’ s internal dynamics .
That isn ’ t good news for conservatives .
Robert W. Merry , former Wall Street Journal Washington correspondent and Congressional Quarterly CEO , is the author most recently of President McKinley : Architect of the American Century ( Simon & Schuster ) .

We are told that ours is a government of laws and not of men. But is it? Those rote words of assurance are called into question by the sad saga of President Obama’s executive initiatives for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, and by President Trump’s ill-fated effort to reverse those actions through his own executive authority. The outcome should be alarming to anyone who cares about constitutional government as pieced together by the American Founders.
The alarm is particularly acute in relation to one man, Chief Justice John Roberts, who seems bent on ensuring that the Supreme Court, as currently constituted, never tilts toward conservatism with any consistency. He was nominated for his current position by President George W. Bush because of his conservative record, but it isn’t clear—and has never been clear, when we look back on it—precisely what he stands for, aside from his own extravagant ambition.
Joan Biskupic, in her biography, The Chief: The Life and Turbulent Times of Chief Justice John Roberts, recounts that Roberts, as he was angling for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit, wished to remain aloof from the conservative Federalist Society, even as he accepted the Federalists’ endorsement for the position. The endorsement was helpful in getting him considered for the court nomination by the second President Bush in 2005, but it could have proved problematic at confirmation time. Roberts’s political conundrum was explored by The Washington Post’s Charles Lane at the time of his nomination to the appeals court.
“Roberts burnished his legal image carefully,” wrote Lane. “In conservative circles, membership in or association with the [Federalist] society has become a badge of ideological and political reliability….But the society’s alignment with conservative GOP politics and public policy makes Roberts’s relationship with the organization a potentially sensitive point for his confirmation because many Democrats regard the organization with suspicion.”
So he sought to fuzz up the matter, even to the point of being “irked” when a Post business reporter identified him as a Federalist member. He asked for a correction, though he had attended society meetings regularly and had cultivated an ideological alignment with the organization for years. Thus do we see a man seeking to obscure his true convictions, whatever they may have been, in an elaborate finesse. Nothing particularly unusual about this in the annals of Washington politics. What’s alarming with regard to Roberts, however, is that he’s still doing it now as Chief Justice of the United States—and doing it in ways that reveal an airy disregard for some of the fundamentals of the American system. In the DACA case, a clear presidential violation of the U.S. Constitution doesn’t seem to bother him in the least.
At issue in the DACA case, DHS v. University of California, was whether Trump could employ his executive authority to reverse previous executive actions by Obama to extend a kind of immigration reprieve to so-called Dreamers who were brought to the United States illegally as children, through no fault of their own. There is widespread support throughout the country, including within the Trump administration, for extending some kind of legal status for the Dreamers. But the question that emanated from Obama’s action was whether the president could constitutionally issue such an order on his own, thus bypassing Congress. The answer clearly is no.
Obama himself acknowledged that constitutional reality on numerous occasions before he decided to take the action anyway. Under pressure from his liberal supporters to wave his executive wand over the Dreamers, he repeatedly refused on the basis of his not having the authority to do so. “I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself,” he said in 2010. In March 2011, he added that with “respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case.” Two months later he added that he couldn’t “just bypass Congress and change the [immigration] law myself….That’s not how democracy works.”
Even after Obama reversed himself on the constitutionality question in 2012, no one ever disputed in any serious way the reality that federal immigration laws, enacted by Congress, don’t confer upon the president any authority to suspend execution of those laws. Indeed, Congress had rejected previous efforts to pass new laws enabling such an approach to the DACA issue.
Then the judiciary gave further clarity to the matter when Obama sought to follow up his 2012 DACA actions with a 2014 executive initiative designed to give an administrative amnesty, along with some federal benefits, to certain parents of Dreamers—up to 4.3 million illegal immigrants. In the same series of actions, Obama also initiated a substantial expansion of DACA.
The courts struck down both. After Texas and 25 other states sued the administration over this second overreach, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a nationwide injunction against it. The president’s action, said the court, “does not transform presence [of illegals] deemed unlawful by Congress into lawful presence and confer eligibility for otherwise unavailable benefits based on that change.”
The Supreme Court subsequently affirmed the Fifth Circuit ruling and the injunction—as well as the well-established principle that Congress has full constitutional authority over immigration law. The president must bow to that. Obama was right the first time.
Based on those rulings, and an opinion by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions that the rulings demonstrated that DACA also was illegal, President Trump in June 2017 exercised his executive authority to terminate Obama’s DACA policy. In other words, he used his executive authority to reverse an unconstitutional executive action by his predecessor.
He was stymied by the Court. And the man who threw the wrench into it was Roberts, who joined the four liberal justices and wrote the majority opinion. Studiously avoiding the constitutional issues involved (a Roberts hallmark, it increasingly seems), he argued that the problem was that the Trump administration hadn’t properly followed the niceties of federal laws requiring certain rule-making procedures, with notice and comment-period requirements. Never mind that the Obama administration hadn’t followed any such procedures either in promulgating its previous unconstitutional rule-making.
This is astounding. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a spirited dissent joined in part by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, called the majority decision “mystifying” in that DACA was “unlawful from the start, and that alone is sufficient to justify its termination.” He also took issue with Roberts’s quibbling assault on a Justice Department memo that sought to justify Trump’s actions based on the DACA illegality. Thomas faulted the Roberts ruling for requiring the Trump administration to “overlook DACA’s obvious deficiencies and provide additional policy reason and justifications before restoring the rule of law.” This, he added, “will hamstring all future agency attempts to undo actions that exceed statutory authority.”
As The Wall Street Journal noted, this is an “invitation for executive mischief, especially by Presidents at the end of their terms. They’ll issue orders that will invite years of legal challenge if the next president reverses them.”
We know why the four liberal justices jumped on Roberts’s reasoning as their vehicle for retaining DACA even in the face of its clear unconstitutionality. Based on years of judicial activism, it seems clear that they don’t care about such things; it’s the outcome that animates them. But what was Roberts’s motivation? Difficult to say, except that he seems to delight in making mischief through jesuitical tangents seemingly designed to avoid getting to the heart of the constitutional issues brought before his court.
There are enough instances of this kind of judicial review to call into question what Roberts actually believes in. His first dramatic tilt came in his famous 2012 actions in the case involving Obama’s Affordable Care Act, in which Roberts accepted the unconstitutionality of the act’s “individual mandate” under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause but justified it, through contortions of logic, as a tax.
As Biskupic writes in her biography, “Some conservatives believed he was not voting his true sentiment, but trying to shore up his reputation and institutional legacy.”
Then there was Roberts’s bizarre majority opinion in last year’s case involving the administration’s desire to ask a citizenship question in the census. While acknowledging that the executive branch has broad discretion on what questions to ask, Roberts declared that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s rationale for wanting the question “appears to be contrived.” Because of timing pressures, the ruling effectively thwarted the administration’s interest without actually addressing the merits of the case; and it did so by peering into Ross’s head and purporting to discern what he was thinking. When laws are assessed based on that kind of rationale, the concept of “a nation of laws” is in serious danger.
In the current court session, Roberts also orchestrated a 6-3 decision stretching the language of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include under the law’s protections sexual orientation and gender identity, notwithstanding that Congress had specifically rejected such actions. The Court, with Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch joining the liberals, essentially amended the statute from the bench, something Roberts had repeatedly criticized during his Senate confirmation proceedings.
But it is the DACA case that truly reveals Roberts’s willingness to tinker with the law and trifle with the Constitution to serve his institutional ends, whatever they may be. His actions left in place an unconstitutional executive-branch action by throwing up artificial roadblocks against a constitutional effort to undo that unconstitutional action.
Back when Roberts engineered the Affordable Care Act decision, The Wall Street Journal perceived what was emerging on the Court. “One thing is clear,” said the paper. “This was a one-man show, and that man is John Roberts.” Today that perception looks more and more like the central reality of the Supreme Court’s internal dynamics. That isn’t good news for conservatives.
Robert W. Merry, former Wall Street Journal Washington correspondent and Congressional Quarterly CEO, is the author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century (Simon & Schuster).