theamericanconservative--2020-04-10--When Snitches Become Monsters

When Snitches Become Monsters

The initial solidarity of the response to the coronavirus was overwhelming .
People clapped for hospital staff ; balcony choirs amazed the # StayAtHome social media crowd .
Those who objected to lockdown policies were few and quickly dismissed as naysayers and contrarians .
Since then , weeks have passed .
In the United States , lockdowns are fresh creations , still not applied throughout the country .
In China , the government is lying through its teeth .
Only Europe gives an indication as to what these lockdowns really mean .
And from what we ’ ve seen so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That initial solidarity has been replaced by a fear that is being fanned through constant breaking news updates .
We ’ re regularly given new infection and death rates that often lack any context or nuance .
Did people die from COVID-19 alone , or with COVID-19 and from underlying health conditions ?
It ’ s hard to figure this out from the daily coverage .
In my own country , it ’ s necessary to scroll down to the bottom of an article to learn that the average coronavirus victim is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are based on very questionable foundations and have had palpable effects on interactions between people .
Public shaming has become a routine online phenomenon .
# StayHome has become # StayTheFuckHome , with outraged people posting pictures of those who dare to go to public parks : British TV celebrity Piers Morgan reacted to the same picture by labeling the park-goers as “ traitors.
” A comment calling for the death penalty for such violators received over 200 likes .
Similar examples can be found all across Europe , not least Italy where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out people in their public livestreams .
In an effort to foster mob-like behavior , snitching hotlines are being set up .
Eight hundred emails and phone calls came into the City of London ’ s own snitch line in just one weekend .
Denunciation has become a hobby .
In Germany , social scientists are worried as thousands of snitch calls pile up per day .
In France , law enforcement is overwhelmed with cases that clearly stem out of resentment and revenge .
Sociologist Patrick Bergemann , author of Judge Thy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizations and strategy at the University of Chicago , says : “ In Nazi Germany , an estimated 42 percent of the denunciations were false .
Authorities debated changing the system , but they ultimately decided to keep it because it was great for keeping everyone in line.
” Establishing snitch lines is an opportunistic and reckless method of law enforcement , feeding on people ’ s worst instincts to impose a set of rules .
Is it worth shredding the social fiber for the sake of laws that aren ’ t scientifically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
What sense is there in allowing people to visit supermarkets—which inevitably become hotspots , including those who are infected—but barring them from visiting public parks ?
The lockdown measures and law enforcement are ill-advised , but more than that , they have created lasting societal damage .
Has the lockdown exposed those who are snitches in the first place or created new ones ?
Arguably both .
Power attracts the corrupted , and corrupts those who wield it .
Most of all , the use of nurses and doctors for public messaging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argue in favor of government measures are actually sitting on a high horse .
It is comparable to the use of gun violence victims in order to push for stricter public policy on firearms , the use of vaping illnesses to push for restrictions on e-cigarettes , the use of tragic cases of alcoholism to push for booze bans , and the use of terrorism victims to justify never-ending wars .
All of them lead to rushed decision-making , public shaming , and mob-like behavior .
None of them are rooted in sound @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go even further than is currently anticipated .
If the lockdown continues , we will soon be looking at the creation of a black market : underground parties , secret barbers , fake documents .
As the government makes social interaction and mobility scarce , those unwilling to follow the rules will find a way to do so .
I ’ ll have to plead the Fifth as to whether I support this .
What is certain is that as this shadow economy develops , authorities will encourage citizens to check on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friends .
On the question of lockdowns , a lot will be said about tradeoffs .
Is a complete economic collapse and sovereign debt crisis ( which will make us even less likely to fund public services ) preferable to the hunch that lockdowns might be effective ?
Yet an even more fundamental tradeoff is that of our social fiber .
How are the behaviors of the moment not proof that we are creating a monster ?
Those who advocate in favor of these emergency measures are willingly ignoring the effects of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sowing of mistrust .
Much like those who acted in bad faith following other crises in our lifetimes , they need to be held accountable for their choices .
Bill Wirtz comments on European politics and policy in English , French , and German .
His work has appeared in Newsweek , the Washington Examiner , CityAM , Le Monde , Le Figaro , and Die Welt .

The initial solidarity of the response to the coronavirus was overwhelming. People clapped for hospital staff; balcony choirs amazed the #StayAtHome social media crowd. Those who objected to lockdown policies were few and quickly dismissed as naysayers and contrarians.
Since then, weeks have passed. In the United States, lockdowns are fresh creations, still not applied throughout the country. In China, the government is lying through its teeth. Only Europe gives an indication as to what these lockdowns really mean.
And from what we’ve seen so far, we need to be concerned.
That initial solidarity has been replaced by a fear that is being fanned through constant breaking news updates. We’re regularly given new infection and death rates that often lack any context or nuance. Did people die from COVID-19 alone, or with COVID-19 and from underlying health conditions? It’s hard to figure this out from the daily coverage. In my own country, it’s necessary to scroll down to the bottom of an article to learn that the average coronavirus victim is 86 years old.
The lockdown measures are based on very questionable foundations and have had palpable effects on interactions between people. Public shaming has become a routine online phenomenon. #StayHome has become #StayTheFuckHome, with outraged people posting pictures of those who dare to go to public parks:
Just been out for my walk. Park was absolutely packed with people in groups &/or sunbathing… Police turned up (good) & people were actually annoyed at being asked to move on & angry at them. I bet loads of these people are the same ones who stand & clap for the NHS…??♀ pic.twitter.com/h2ZK1CGMPr — Michelle Dewberry (@MichelleDewbs) April 4, 2020
British TV celebrity Piers Morgan reacted to the same picture by labeling the park-goers as “traitors.” A comment calling for the death penalty for such violators received over 200 likes.
Similar examples can be found all across Europe, not least Italy where mayors are incentivizing the shaming by calling out people in their public livestreams. In an effort to foster mob-like behavior, snitching hotlines are being set up. Eight hundred emails and phone calls came into the City of London’s own snitch line in just one weekend. Denunciation has become a hobby. In Germany, social scientists are worried as thousands of snitch calls pile up per day. In France, law enforcement is overwhelmed with cases that clearly stem out of resentment and revenge.
Sociologist Patrick Bergemann, author of Judge Thy Neighbor, and an assistant professor of organizations and strategy at the University of Chicago, says: “In Nazi Germany, an estimated 42 percent of the denunciations were false. Authorities debated changing the system, but they ultimately decided to keep it because it was great for keeping everyone in line.”
Establishing snitch lines is an opportunistic and reckless method of law enforcement, feeding on people’s worst instincts to impose a set of rules. Is it worth shredding the social fiber for the sake of laws that aren’t scientifically sound or practically enforceable or even coherent? What sense is there in allowing people to visit supermarkets—which inevitably become hotspots, including those who are infected—but barring them from visiting public parks?
The lockdown measures and law enforcement are ill-advised, but more than that, they have created lasting societal damage. Has the lockdown exposed those who are snitches in the first place or created new ones? Arguably both. Power attracts the corrupted, and corrupts those who wield it.
Most of all, the use of nurses and doctors for public messaging has given the impression that those who argue in favor of government measures are actually sitting on a high horse. It is comparable to the use of gun violence victims in order to push for stricter public policy on firearms, the use of vaping illnesses to push for restrictions on e-cigarettes, the use of tragic cases of alcoholism to push for booze bans, and the use of terrorism victims to justify never-ending wars. All of them lead to rushed decision-making, public shaming, and mob-like behavior. None of them are rooted in sound policies.
All this snitching is likely to go even further than is currently anticipated. If the lockdown continues, we will soon be looking at the creation of a black market: underground parties, secret barbers, fake documents. As the government makes social interaction and mobility scarce, those unwilling to follow the rules will find a way to do so. I’ll have to plead the Fifth as to whether I support this. What is certain is that as this shadow economy develops, authorities will encourage citizens to check on their own neighbors, family, and friends.
On the question of lockdowns, a lot will be said about tradeoffs. Is a complete economic collapse and sovereign debt crisis (which will make us even less likely to fund public services) preferable to the hunch that lockdowns might be effective? Yet an even more fundamental tradeoff is that of our social fiber. How are the behaviors of the moment not proof that we are creating a monster?
Those who advocate in favor of these emergency measures are willingly ignoring the effects of the erosion of our social life and accepting the sowing of mistrust. Much like those who acted in bad faith following other crises in our lifetimes, they need to be held accountable for their choices.
Bill Wirtz comments on European politics and policy in English, French, and German. His work has appeared in Newsweek, the Washington Examiner, CityAM, Le Monde, Le Figaro, and Die Welt.


theamericanconservative--2020-04-10--Are We Entering a New Era of State Nullification?

Map of the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States as of March 24 , 2020 .
( Wikimedia Commons ) When historians look back at “ the coronavirus crisis of 2020 , ” they ’ re likely to focus on the spread of the disease , the economic dislocation it caused and how the federal government responded to it .
Predictably , and depending on the depth and duration of the dislocation , the current moment will be labeled as either the “ end of an era ” or the beginning of a new one .
But at some point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure , more nuanced thinkers will likely adjudge our current crisis as a piece with those that preceded it : of how , when it comes to American history , the more things change the more they actually stay the same .
This was vividly displayed over the last two weeks , as a gaggle of state governors complained that the federal government had failed to provide a unified , coordinated and national response to the crisis .
“ It ’ s the wild west out there , ” Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back against federal guidelines on what policies they should adopt in dealing with Covid-19–with a chorus of southern states leading the way .
First among them was Alabama , where , on March 26 , Governor Kay Ivey dismissed the idea of a statewide stay-at-home order , emphasizing Alabama ’ s uniqueness , while channeling Lost Cause notions that the Enlightenment was hatched somewhere near Montgomery .
“ Y ’ all , ” Ivey pronounced , in an unmistakable drawl , “ we are not Louisiana , we are not New York state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could not have been more right : compared to Louisiana , New York and California , Alabama ’ s educational system is a shambles ( dead last on the U.S. News and World Report education rankings ) , its healthcare infrastructure among the worst in the nation ( 42nd according to one authoritative survey ) , and in the lower tier ( 45th of 50 ) in economic opportunity–with over 17 percent of its citizens living at or below the poverty line .
Compared to Alabama , New York is Xanadu .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adopt federal guidelines on Covid-19 to its ranking on education , health and economic indicators is a tricky business .
While Alabama , Mississippi , Georgia , Florida and South Carolina ( the heart of the Old Confederacy and the reddest of America ’ s red states ) , led the parade of skeptics on Washington ’ s vaunted social distancing guidelines , South Dakota , Wyoming , Iowa , Nebraska and Utah showed the same reticence .
In a better-late-than-never nod to the prospect of digging mass graves in downtown parks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more stringent social distancing policies , but disagreements over just how far the federal government ’ s writ extends has served as a reminder of America ’ s wobbly political arrangements .
As Douglas Egerton , a nationally known and prominent historian at LeMoyne College points out , the question is whether the United States is “ a patchwork quilt of sovereign states , ” or a single nation in which states are granted only those “ powers not delegated ” to the central government , as the Constitution ’ s Tenth Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump suggested on March 28 that he was considering quarantining New York and parts of New Jersey and Connecticut , the “ hotspots ” of the virus , New York Governor Andrew Cuomo responded with a pointed historical reference : “ This is a civil war kind of discussion , ” he told reporters .
“ I don ’ t believe that any administration could be serious about physical lockdowns of states.
” The New York governor ( who would likely recoil from being called a “ states righter ” ) went on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitute a “ federal declaration of war , ” thereby confirming that he knows his history–even if he didn ’ t cite the major “ nullification ” controversies that have provided a political petri dish for when states have defied federal orders .
The first such nullification controversy was sparked in 1832 , when the Congress passed a tariff that protected northern manufacturers at the expense ( southern states argued ) of planters and farmers .
South Carolina ’ s legislature responded by passing an Ordinance of Nullification that declared the tariff null @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Andrew Jackson struck back , threatening to send federal troops to enforce the tariff .
A conflict was avoided when the Congress passed a revised tariff that soothed South Carolina ’ s concerns .
But the American Civil War provided the ultimate nullification crisis that was only resolved by force .
“ In seceding , South Carolina and other states basically nullified the election of 1860 , ” Egerton says .
But even then , it seems , the issue of who governs remained unresolved .
In 1957 , Governor Orval Faubus ordered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ students from entering Little Rock ’ s Central High–nullifying the 1954 Supreme Court Brown v. Board of Education decision .
President Eisenhower responded by putting the Arkansas National Guard under federal control and sending 1,000 paratroopers of the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock to enforce the law .
Of course , the pandemic of 2020 is not the American Civil War .
But the question of “ who governs ” is as pertinent now as it was in 1860 .
In 2001 , during a one-and-a-half day simulation that tested federal responses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have written about elsewhere ) , the stand-in “ national security council ” nearly dissolved over the question of whether the president ( played by Senator Sam Nunn ) could enforce a quarantine of Oklahoma , where the outbreak was first detected .
In an amazingly prescient exchange , Tom Keating , playing Oklahoma ’ s governor at the same time he actually was its governor , turned on Nunn in an Andrew Cuomo-like moment : The simulation was now more than a simple exercise : “ We ’ re going to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between the federal government and the state government , ” Nunn observed .
A war between federal and state governments ?
Policymakers point out that states regularly practice nullification–in declaring sanctuary cities , in chipping away at Roe v. Wade , in legalizing marijuana .
But refusing to enforce federal laws is not always the same as defying them .
Donald Trump seems vaguely aware of this , promoting a federal guidance on social distancing without mandating it , perhaps out of fear that doing so would spark defiance among his core supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We have a thing called the Constitution , ” Trump says .
“ I want the governors to be running things.
” And so they are , with states like Alabama , Mississippi , Georgia and South Carolina ( the last of the South ’ s red states to announce a stay-at-home order ) , enforcing pretty-please policies that the federal government recommends , but will not require–a kind of nullification in reverse .
The result , according to the preponderance of medical officials , is that America is not waging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but is waging fifty different wars against a virus that knows no borders .
It ’ s because of that , the lack of coordination from a single authority , that the Disunited States of America could actually lose its coronavirus struggle .
“ Not having a national strategy where there is one policy for the country as opposed to a patchwork based on whomever the governor is , ” Michigan ’ s Gretchen Whitmer says , “ is something that I think is creating a more porous situation where Covid-19 will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sick.
” The inimitable , and now celebrated face of the administration ’ s fight against the virus , Dr. Anthony Fauci , has made it clear that he agrees .
“ Doesn ’ t everybody have to be on the same page with this stuff ?
” he asked .
The answer is “ no.
” And it is because of that that governors have taken matters into their own hands : traffic checkpoints have been erected between Texas and Louisiana , and between New York and Rhode Island ( until Andrew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down ) , and Florida law enforcement officials have been directed by the Governor Ron DeSantis to stop vehicles entering the state from New Yorkto urge Empire State natives to self-isolate .
The DeSantis order came even as he refused to put in place his own statewide lockdown .
Trump defended the action : “ He doesn ’ t want people coming in who are not to the liking of the doctors , ” he explained .
Perhaps , but many New Yorkers heard a different message : that Floridians believe that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ international ( which is what made New York a hotspot to begin with ) , is that you ’ re likely to end your life on a respirator .
And finally , and just last week , western governors , absent a coherent federal program , considered banding together to shape a regional response to the coronavirus threat–a kind of confederacy in waiting .
The truth of this , however , might be much more sobering .
It ’ s possible that the bitter sniping between the federal government and the states probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact that fifteen of the 21 states with the most stringent state-at-home orders are led by democratic governors .
In fact , the divide here is not between Republicans and Democrats , or red states and blue .
The divide is much deeper , and more disturbing .
It ’ s between empty streets and packed churches–between those who believe in science and those who don ’ t .
The result is plain for everyone to see : that after more than two centuries of constitutional governance , our national motto remains more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ E pluribus ?
Absolutely .
Unum ?
Not so much .

When historians look back at “the coronavirus crisis of 2020,” they’re likely to focus on the spread of the disease, the economic dislocation it caused and how the federal government responded to it. Predictably, and depending on the depth and duration of the dislocation, the current moment will be labeled as either the “end of an era” or the beginning of a new one.
But at some point in the future, you can be sure, more nuanced thinkers will likely adjudge our current crisis as a piece with those that preceded it: of how, when it comes to American history, the more things change the more they actually stay the same.
This was vividly displayed over the last two weeks, as a gaggle of state governors complained that the federal government had failed to provide a unified, coordinated and national response to the crisis. “It’s the wild west out there,” Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker said, while a second group pushed back against federal guidelines on what policies they should adopt in dealing with Covid-19–with a chorus of southern states leading the way.
First among them was Alabama, where, on March 26, Governor Kay Ivey dismissed the idea of a statewide stay-at-home order, emphasizing Alabama’s uniqueness, while channeling Lost Cause notions that the Enlightenment was hatched somewhere near Montgomery. “Y’all,” Ivey pronounced, in an unmistakable drawl, “we are not Louisiana, we are not New York state, we are not California.”
Ivey could not have been more right: compared to Louisiana, New York and California, Alabama’s educational system is a shambles (dead last on the U.S. News and World Report education rankings), its healthcare infrastructure among the worst in the nation (42nd according to one authoritative survey), and in the lower tier (45th of 50) in economic opportunity–with over 17 percent of its citizens living at or below the poverty line. Compared to Alabama, New York is Xanadu.
But comparing a state’s unwillingness to adopt federal guidelines on Covid-19 to its ranking on education, health and economic indicators is a tricky business. While Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida and South Carolina (the heart of the Old Confederacy and the reddest of America’s red states), led the parade of skeptics on Washington’s vaunted social distancing guidelines, South Dakota, Wyoming, Iowa, Nebraska and Utah showed the same reticence.
In a better-late-than-never nod to the prospect of digging mass graves in downtown parks, each of those states has since adopted more stringent social distancing policies, but disagreements over just how far the federal government’s writ extends has served as a reminder of America’s wobbly political arrangements. As Douglas Egerton, a nationally known and prominent historian at LeMoyne College points out, the question is whether the United States is “a patchwork quilt of sovereign states,” or a single nation in which states are granted only those “powers not delegated” to the central government, as the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment says.
For instance, when Donald Trump suggested on March 28 that he was considering quarantining New York and parts of New Jersey and Connecticut, the “hotspots” of the virus, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo responded with a pointed historical reference: “This is a civil war kind of discussion,” he told reporters. “I don’t believe that any administration could be serious about physical lockdowns of states.”
The New York governor (who would likely recoil from being called a “states righter”) went on to note that such a lockdown would constitute a “federal declaration of war,” thereby confirming that he knows his history–even if he didn’t cite the major “nullification” controversies that have provided a political petri dish for when states have defied federal orders.
The first such nullification controversy was sparked in 1832, when the Congress passed a tariff that protected northern manufacturers at the expense (southern states argued) of planters and farmers. South Carolina’s legislature responded by passing an Ordinance of Nullification that declared the tariff null and void in the state. President Andrew Jackson struck back, threatening to send federal troops to enforce the tariff. A conflict was avoided when the Congress passed a revised tariff that soothed South Carolina’s concerns.
But the American Civil War provided the ultimate nullification crisis that was only resolved by force. “In seceding, South Carolina and other states basically nullified the election of 1860,” Egerton says. But even then, it seems, the issue of who governs remained unresolved. In 1957, Governor Orval Faubus ordered the Arkansas National Guard to bar black students from entering Little Rock’s Central High–nullifying the 1954 Supreme Court Brown v. Board of Education decision. President Eisenhower responded by putting the Arkansas National Guard under federal control and sending 1,000 paratroopers of the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock to enforce the law.
Of course, the pandemic of 2020 is not the American Civil War. But the question of “who governs” is as pertinent now as it was in 1860. In 2001, during a one-and-a-half day simulation that tested federal responses to a bioweapons attack (which I have written about elsewhere), the stand-in “national security council” nearly dissolved over the question of whether the president (played by Senator Sam Nunn) could enforce a quarantine of Oklahoma, where the outbreak was first detected. In an amazingly prescient exchange, Tom Keating, playing Oklahoma’s governor at the same time he actually was its governor, turned on Nunn in an Andrew Cuomo-like moment:
“My fellow governors are not going to permit you to make our states leper colonies. We’ll determine the nature and extent of the isolation of our citizens…You’re going to say that people can’t gather. That’s not your [the federal government’s] function. That’s the function, if it’s the function of anybody, of state and local officials.”
The simulation was now more than a simple exercise: “We’re going to have absolute chaos if we start having war between the federal government and the state government,” Nunn observed.
A war between federal and state governments? Policymakers point out that states regularly practice nullification–in declaring sanctuary cities, in chipping away at Roe v. Wade, in legalizing marijuana. But refusing to enforce federal laws is not always the same as defying them. Donald Trump seems vaguely aware of this, promoting a federal guidance on social distancing without mandating it, perhaps out of fear that doing so would spark defiance among his core supporters, like red state governor Kay Ivey.
“We have a thing called the Constitution,” Trump says. “I want the governors to be running things.” And so they are, with states like Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina (the last of the South’s red states to announce a stay-at-home order), enforcing pretty-please policies that the federal government recommends, but will not require–a kind of nullification in reverse.
The result, according to the preponderance of medical officials, is that America is not waging a single war against a common enemy, but is waging fifty different wars against a virus that knows no borders. It’s because of that, the lack of coordination from a single authority, that the Disunited States of America could actually lose its coronavirus struggle.
“Not having a national strategy where there is one policy for the country as opposed to a patchwork based on whomever the governor is,” Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer says, “is something that I think is creating a more porous situation where Covid-19 will go longer and more people will get sick.” The inimitable, and now celebrated face of the administration’s fight against the virus, Dr. Anthony Fauci, has made it clear that he agrees. “Doesn’t everybody have to be on the same page with this stuff?” he asked.
The answer is “no.” And it is because of that that governors have taken matters into their own hands: traffic checkpoints have been erected between Texas and Louisiana, and between New York and Rhode Island (until Andrew Cuomo sweet-talked Rhode Island into taking them down), and Florida law enforcement officials have been directed by the Governor Ron DeSantis to stop vehicles entering the state from New York to urge Empire State natives to self-isolate. The DeSantis order came even as he refused to put in place his own statewide lockdown. Trump defended the action: “He doesn’t want people coming in who are not to the liking of the doctors,” he explained.
Perhaps, but many New Yorkers heard a different message: that Floridians believe that the price of being cosmopolitan, worldly and international (which is what made New York a hotspot to begin with), is that you’re likely to end your life on a respirator. And finally, and just last week, western governors, absent a coherent federal program, considered banding together to shape a regional response to the coronavirus threat–a kind of confederacy in waiting.
The truth of this, however, might be much more sobering. It’s possible that the bitter sniping between the federal government and the states probably has nothing to do with politics–despite the fact that fifteen of the 21 states with the most stringent state-at-home orders are led by democratic governors. In fact, the divide here is not between Republicans and Democrats, or red states and blue. The divide is much deeper, and more disturbing. It’s between empty streets and packed churches–between those who believe in science and those who don’t. The result is plain for everyone to see: that after more than two centuries of constitutional governance, our national motto remains more of a hope than a reality.
E pluribus? Absolutely. Unum? Not so much.
Mark Perry is a journalist, author, and contributing editor at The American Conservative. His latest book is The Pentagon’s Wars. He tweets @markperrydc.


theamericanconservative--2020-04-09--Bernie Got a Lot of Love, But He Failed to Grow

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) in Austin , Texas in February 2020 .
( Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images ) In his Pat Buchanan memoir The Crusader , journalist Timothy Stanley recalled the final moments of the eventual TAC founding editor ’ s 1996 presidential campaign .
On the eve of the Republican National Convention in San Diego , the Buchanan brigades had spent four years following him into battle against the GOP establishment and were loaded for bear .
They had come to hear their man speak at one last rally .
“ The mood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , dry afternoon and the rumor was that Buchanan was going to endorse Dole , ” Stanley wrote .
“ After four years of fighting , after coming so close to toppling the kings in their castles , the peasants weren ’ t ready to accept that.
” Pat took the stage and began to speak .
“ It seemed they would have done anything they asked at that moment , ” Stanley continued .
“ If he had told them to , they would have stormed the convention and taken Bob Dole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forgo third-party options and vote for Dole , predicting the GOP would one day be a “ Buchanan party.
” The crowd promptly turned on him .
That is the moment Bernie Sanders finds himself in right now , as he winds down the second of two insurgent presidential campaigns and attempts to rally the Bernie bros ( and sisters ) behind the uninspiring Joe Biden .
Even though in 2020 there are more reasons to believe the Democrats will eventually become the Bernie party than there were in 1996 to think the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 election of Donald Trump proved Pat was right , as usual ) , the septuagenarian socialist senator ’ s supporters will be no more forgiving .
“ He hasn ’ t just run a political campaign ; he ’ s created a movement , ” Biden declared of his vanquished rival .
In truth , Sanders ’ campaign had become less a run for the presidency than an exercise in movement-building by Super Tuesday .
Even that was too much for a Democratic establishment whose support is a mile long but an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even a futile attempt to accumulate delegates , give young socialists political experience and try to influence the Democratic platform in Milwaukee .
Yet the reason Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez chose Sanders over Elizabeth Warren is precisely because she thought he was better suited to perform that role .
“ For me , it wasn ’ t even about helping the senator .
It was a moment of clarity for me personally in saying , ‘ What role do I want to play ?
’ ” she once told NBC .
“ And I want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movement.
” As it happened , the movement Sanders started didn ’ t have enough mass .
He made inroads with Latinos but piled up Republican-like vote shares among blacks , especially in the South .
His coalition didn ’ t diversify enough while at least some of his 2016 white working class support was revealed to be anti-Hillary Clinton , just like all the blue-collar whites in West Virginia who voted for Hillary in 2008 were really anti-Barack Obama .
The Democratic Party of today looked at its future and recoiled , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bernie looked like he could snatch the nomination , even if that meant resuscitating Biden ’ s flatlining candidacy .
We all remember the stories of Barry Goldwater and George McGovern , once landslide losers who would go on to reshape their respective parties .
But in recent years , we have seen movements arise from campaigns that didn ’ t even get particularly close to the nomination .
The conservative Christian organizations that took over state Republican organizations in the 1990s sprang from Pat Robertson ’ s 1988 presidential bid , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Howard Dean gave life to antiwar progressives representing the “ Democratic wing of the Democratic Party , ” even though he bombed in the 2004 early states .
Ron Paul started the “ libertarian moment ” with spirited campaigns in 2008 and 2012 , despite never improving on his strong third-place performance in Iowa and running second in New Hampshire .
The Paul campaigns were only partly about the young libertarians they inspired to enter politics , though organizations like Young Americans for Liberty remain influential to this day .
They also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between the 1990s paleoconservatism of Buchanan and Trump ’ s less sophisticated but more electorally potent “ America First ” nationalism .
Sanders has good reason to hope that the young socialists following him will ultimately grow into the Democratic Party of tomorrow , even if progressives are increasingly animated by race , gender and identity politics rather than economics or class .
Even as their candidates prattled about Medicare coverage for illegal immigrants and free abortions for transgender men , rank-and-file Democrats almost across the board rejected performative wokeness .
Elizabeth Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and she failed to win her home state .
On the other hand , Tulsi Gabbard hated war , not conservatives , so the erstwhile Bernie backer gained little traction .
Her endorsement of Biden puzzled people .
Sanders has more clout but his movement could prove to be beyond his command in November .
Biden has his work cut out for him if he doesn ’ t want to be another Dole .
And Bernie might hear some boos from his own “ revolution.
” W. James Antle III is politics editor @ @ @ @ @

In his Pat Buchanan memoir The Crusader, journalist Timothy Stanley recalled the final moments of the eventual TAC founding editor’s 1996 presidential campaign. On the eve of the Republican National Convention in San Diego, the Buchanan brigades had spent four years following him into battle against the GOP establishment and were loaded for bear. They had come to hear their man speak at one last rally.
“The mood was ugly. It was a hot, dry afternoon and the rumor was that Buchanan was going to endorse Dole,” Stanley wrote. “After four years of fighting, after coming so close to toppling the kings in their castles, the peasants weren’t ready to accept that.” Pat took the stage and began to speak. “It seemed they would have done anything they asked at that moment,” Stanley continued. “If he had told them to, they would have stormed the convention and taken Bob Dole hostage.”
Instead Buchanan told them to forgo third-party options and vote for Dole, predicting the GOP would one day be a “Buchanan party.” The crowd promptly turned on him.
That is the moment Bernie Sanders finds himself in right now, as he winds down the second of two insurgent presidential campaigns and attempts to rally the Bernie bros (and sisters) behind the uninspiring Joe Biden. Even though in 2020 there are more reasons to believe the Democrats will eventually become the Bernie party than there were in 1996 to think the Republicans would go Buchananite (though the 2016 election of Donald Trump proved Pat was right, as usual), the septuagenarian socialist senator’s supporters will be no more forgiving.
“He hasn’t just run a political campaign; he’s created a movement,” Biden declared of his vanquished rival. In truth, Sanders’ campaign had become less a run for the presidency than an exercise in movement-building by Super Tuesday. Even that was too much for a Democratic establishment whose support is a mile long but an inch deep—they could not let Bernie continue even a futile attempt to accumulate delegates, give young socialists political experience and try to influence the Democratic platform in Milwaukee.
Yet the reason Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez chose Sanders over Elizabeth Warren is precisely because she thought he was better suited to perform that role. “For me, it wasn’t even about helping the senator. It was a moment of clarity for me personally in saying, ‘What role do I want to play?’” she once told NBC. “And I want to be a part of a mass movement.”
As it happened, the movement Sanders started didn’t have enough mass. He made inroads with Latinos but piled up Republican-like vote shares among blacks, especially in the South. His coalition didn’t diversify enough while at least some of his 2016 white working class support was revealed to be anti-Hillary Clinton, just like all the blue-collar whites in West Virginia who voted for Hillary in 2008 were really anti-Barack Obama. The Democratic Party of today looked at its future and recoiled, stampeding toward the exits as soon as Bernie looked like he could snatch the nomination, even if that meant resuscitating Biden’s flatlining candidacy.
We all remember the stories of Barry Goldwater and George McGovern, once landslide losers who would go on to reshape their respective parties. But in recent years, we have seen movements arise from campaigns that didn’t even get particularly close to the nomination. The conservative Christian organizations that took over state Republican organizations in the 1990s sprang from Pat Robertson’s 1988 presidential bid, which peaked with a second-place showing in Iowa. Howard Dean gave life to antiwar progressives representing the “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party,” even though he bombed in the 2004 early states. Ron Paul started the “libertarian moment” with spirited campaigns in 2008 and 2012, despite never improving on his strong third-place performance in Iowa and running second in New Hampshire.
The Paul campaigns were only partly about the young libertarians they inspired to enter politics, though organizations like Young Americans for Liberty remain influential to this day. They also represented politically homeless populists, a bridge between the 1990s paleoconservatism of Buchanan and Trump’s less sophisticated but more electorally potent “America First” nationalism.
Sanders has good reason to hope that the young socialists following him will ultimately grow into the Democratic Party of tomorrow, even if progressives are increasingly animated by race, gender and identity politics rather than economics or class. Even as their candidates prattled about Medicare coverage for illegal immigrants and free abortions for transgender men, rank-and-file Democrats almost across the board rejected performative wokeness. Elizabeth Warren came the closest to exciting this niche and she failed to win her home state.
On the other hand, Tulsi Gabbard hated war, not conservatives, so the erstwhile Bernie backer gained little traction. Her endorsement of Biden puzzled people. Sanders has more clout but his movement could prove to be beyond his command in November. Biden has his work cut out for him if he doesn’t want to be another Dole. And Bernie might hear some boos from his own “revolution.”
W. James Antle III is politics editor of the Washington Examiner.


theamericanconservative--2020-04-08--Will Pandemic Finally Unleash the American Populist Revolution?

McDonald 's employees and supporters protest outside a McDonald 's in Los Angeles , California , April 6 , 2020 demanding pay for quarantine time and healthcare for workers who get sick from the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 .
( Photo by ROBYN BECK/AFP via Getty Images ) We know what kind of threat the coronavirus poses to the health of America and the world .
We know it will ravage the global economy and unleash widespread financial hardship .
We are seeing the social disruption it creates and can discern prospects for much higher levels of disruption in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sufficiently contemplated is COVID-19 ’ s capacity to upend the political status quo in America .
This kind of scourge often generates political turmoil , and turmoil often unravels the status quo of a society or polity .
This is particularly true when the status quo already is under severe strain , as the American status quo has been for years .
What is the American status quo ?
It is the nation and its perceived global mission crafted after the end of the Cold War by America ’ s newly emergent meritocratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fundamental tenets of this vision were the intrinsic virtue of America ’ s “ benign ” hegemony , globalism , free trade , a commitment to spreading democracy around the world , and an abiding faith in the country ’ s ability to salve the hurts and wounds of humanity .
In domestic terms , the status quo has been characterized by relatively porous borders , the financialization of the U.S. economy , deindustrialization , anti-nationalism , a liberal political hegemony on social and cultural issues enforced through political correctness , and an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finance , Washington ’ s big government , big corporations throughout the country , big labor representing increasingly well-off public employees , and self-aggrandizing state and local governments .
This status quo is facing increasing hostility from vast numbers of ordinary Americans who feel that the elites and the big institutions they dominale have hijacked the American system for their own exploitation .
In his Wall Street Journal column the other day , Walter Russell Mead suggested a good way of assessing the magnitude of this anti-establishment sentiment would be to combine Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 43 percent of the electorate , by most assessments ) with Bernie Sanders ’ s base ( 36 percent of Democratic voters in the latest Real Clear Politics poll average ; hence , 13 percent of the electorate ) .
That , he said , suggests that fully 55 percent of U.S. voters “ now support politicians who openly despise the central assumptions of the political establishment.
” This knot of political hostility stems from the perceived follies perpetrated over the last half-century or so by the meritocratic elite–endless Middle East wars without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; immigration laxity to the point of serious assimilation challenges ; the outsourcing of our industrial capacity to the point where other nations , particularly China , control the distribution of goods and products that are crucial to U.S. military preparedness and citizen safety and health ; a student-debt crisis that thwarts upward mobility of the nation ’ s young ; a spree of fiscal irresponsibility that saddles cities and states with irrepressible pension debt while leaving untended massive infrastructure imperatives ; and financial disruption throughout Middle America stemming from the hollowing out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The central reality of American politics today is the gulf between , on one hand , the nation ’ s elites and their primary constituency groups ( minorities , academics , government employees , and well-off urban/suburbanites ) and , on the other hand , that 55 percent of the electorate characterized by Walter Russell Mead as being motivated primarily by an abiding hostility to what Mead calls “ the self-proclaimed expert class.
” This is an inherently unstable political environment .
As Mead points out , “ Populism arises when establishment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong strains of populism in the politics of both Trump and Sanders .
While populist sentiments are an inevitable and probably necessary strain of politics in times of voter despair and indignation , they can also generate characteristics of civic meanness and radicalism .
At the same time , the inevitable resolve of the national elites to counter the populist challenge and retain power can spawn irresponsible and even dangerous actions on the part of the powerful .
Since Trump ’ s inauguration , national Democrats have “ tried to stop his presidency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Street Journal ’ s Daniel Henninger , who adds that this “ irrefutably was the goal of the Russia collusion narrative , its attendant Mueller investigation and then the impeachment.
” These projects “ inflamed the normal workings of our politics , ” with the president ’ s adversaries attacking relentlessly and Trump counterattacking in his distinctively ugly style .
Henninger paints a picture of a baleful political syndrome in which politicians of both parties know they have entered a poisonous and malign environment but can ’ t break out of it because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue , ” writes Henninger , “ now defaults to the same petty level.
” Thus do we have the current governmental dysfunction in Washington , the passions of deadlock politics , the increasing political bellicosity , the growing desire to not just defeat the opposition but to destroy it .
This political environment is not sustainable .
When the elites can ’ t retain the fealty of a popular majority , something has to give .
And now comes the coronavirus global pandemic .
It ’ s difficult to imagine a more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vulnerable status quo .
We can ’ t know the full shape of what will emerge from the pandemic chaos–whether economic hard times will inject new vibrancy into Bernie Sanders ’ s “ democratic socialism ” ; whether populism will upend the elites ; whether the elites will manage to survive the populist assault ; whether Trump will survive or fall ; whether a leader will emerge to forge out of the chaos some kind of majority coalition .
But we do know that America ’ s current political status quo isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wave of adversity and difficulty that we ’ re likely to see as the COVID-19 pandemic runs its course through America and the world .
The standoff between the elites and the populists wasn ’ t sustainable as it was , much less so now .
Robert W. Merry , longtime Washington , D.C. , journalist and publishing executive , is the author most recently of President McKinley : Architect of the American Century ( Simon & Schuster ) .

We know what kind of threat the coronavirus poses to the health of America and the world. We know it will ravage the global economy and unleash widespread financial hardship. We are seeing the social disruption it creates and can discern prospects for much higher levels of disruption in the future.
What we have perhaps not sufficiently contemplated is COVID-19’s capacity to upend the political status quo in America. This kind of scourge often generates political turmoil, and turmoil often unravels the status quo of a society or polity. This is particularly true when the status quo already is under severe strain, as the American status quo has been for years.
What is the American status quo? It is the nation and its perceived global mission crafted after the end of the Cold War by America’s newly emergent meritocratic elite. In international relations, the fundamental tenets of this vision were the intrinsic virtue of America’s “benign” hegemony, globalism, free trade, a commitment to spreading democracy around the world, and an abiding faith in the country’s ability to salve the hurts and wounds of humanity.
In domestic terms, the status quo has been characterized by relatively porous borders, the financialization of the U.S. economy, deindustrialization, anti-nationalism, a liberal political hegemony on social and cultural issues enforced through political correctness, and an oligarchy of bigness–Wall Street’s big finance, Washington’s big government, big corporations throughout the country, big labor representing increasingly well-off public employees, and self-aggrandizing state and local governments.
This status quo is facing increasing hostility from vast numbers of ordinary Americans who feel that the elites and the big institutions they dominale have hijacked the American system for their own exploitation. In his Wall Street Journal column the other day, Walter Russell Mead suggested a good way of assessing the magnitude of this anti-establishment sentiment would be to combine Donald Trump’s political base (about 43 percent of the electorate, by most assessments) with Bernie Sanders’s base (36 percent of Democratic voters in the latest Real Clear Politics poll average; hence, 13 percent of the electorate). That, he said, suggests that fully 55 percent of U.S. voters “now support politicians who openly despise the central assumptions of the political establishment.”
This knot of political hostility stems from the perceived follies perpetrated over the last half-century or so by the meritocratic elite–endless Middle East wars without victory or even much of a point; immigration laxity to the point of serious assimilation challenges; the outsourcing of our industrial capacity to the point where other nations, particularly China, control the distribution of goods and products that are crucial to U.S. military preparedness and citizen safety and health; a student-debt crisis that thwarts upward mobility of the nation’s young; a spree of fiscal irresponsibility that saddles cities and states with irrepressible pension debt while leaving untended massive infrastructure imperatives; and financial disruption throughout Middle America stemming from the hollowing out of the country’s industrial base.
The central reality of American politics today is the gulf between, on one hand, the nation’s elites and their primary constituency groups (minorities, academics, government employees, and well-off urban/suburbanites) and, on the other hand, that 55 percent of the electorate characterized by Walter Russell Mead as being motivated primarily by an abiding hostility to what Mead calls “the self-proclaimed expert class.”
This is an inherently unstable political environment. As Mead points out, “Populism arises when establishment leadership fails.” And we certainly see strong strains of populism in the politics of both Trump and Sanders. While populist sentiments are an inevitable and probably necessary strain of politics in times of voter despair and indignation, they can also generate characteristics of civic meanness and radicalism.
At the same time, the inevitable resolve of the national elites to counter the populist challenge and retain power can spawn irresponsible and even dangerous actions on the part of the powerful. Since Trump’s inauguration, national Democrats have “tried to stop his presidency from functioning,” writes the Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Henninger, who adds that this “irrefutably was the goal of the Russia collusion narrative, its attendant Mueller investigation and then the impeachment.”
These projects “inflamed the normal workings of our politics,” with the president’s adversaries attacking relentlessly and Trump counterattacking in his distinctively ugly style. Henninger paints a picture of a baleful political syndrome in which politicians of both parties know they have entered a poisonous and malign environment but can’t break out of it because it has become addictive. “Every issue,” writes Henninger, “now defaults to the same petty level.”
Thus do we have the current governmental dysfunction in Washington, the passions of deadlock politics, the increasing political bellicosity, the growing desire to not just defeat the opposition but to destroy it. This political environment is not sustainable. When the elites can’t retain the fealty of a popular majority, something has to give.
And now comes the coronavirus global pandemic. It’s difficult to imagine a more disruptive political force converging upon a more vulnerable status quo. We can’t know the full shape of what will emerge from the pandemic chaos–whether economic hard times will inject new vibrancy into Bernie Sanders’s “democratic socialism”; whether populism will upend the elites; whether the elites will manage to survive the populist assault; whether Trump will survive or fall; whether a leader will emerge to forge out of the chaos some kind of majority coalition.
But we do know that America’s current political status quo isn’t likely to remain intact after the wave of adversity and difficulty that we’re likely to see as the COVID-19 pandemic runs its course through America and the world. The standoff between the elites and the populists wasn’t sustainable as it was, much less so now.
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is the author most recently of President McKinley:Architect of the American Century (Simon & Schuster).


theamericanconservative--2020-04-16--We Don’t Need to Live in a ‘Post-Coronavirus World’

President George W Bush addresses his National Security Council , including Vice President Dick Cheney , Secretary of State Colin Powell , Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield , and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz , in a meeting at Camp David , Thurmont Maryland , September 15 , 2001 .
( Photo via Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images ) .
I don ’ t want to live in a post-coronavirus world .
I don ’ t want sinister officials insisting that nothing can ever be the same again .
I don ’ t want a chorus of talk radio hosts accusing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” every time I raid the fridge without first hosing myself down in bleach .
I don ’ t want to conform my life to a color-coded public health scale that suddenly jumps from mauve to burnt sienna without explanation .
I don ’ t want to be exhorted to “ say something if I see something.
” I don ’ t want magnetic ribbons on the backs of cars .
I don ’ t want books with titles like Deliver Us From Illness .
I don ’ t want a new government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to live in a normal republic again .
These days , that ’ s asking a lot .
After 9/11 , we decided there was no going back to the way things were before .
We treated the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as a historical threshold , a wakeup call into a dangerous world through which we ’ d heretofore been sleepwalking .
The First Amendment and Fourth Amendment and Tenth Amendment might look nice on parchment , but they ’ d vanished into the shadow of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marched the TSA ’ s blue-clad elves , the NSA ’ s eavesdroppers , Department of Homeland Security employees looking lost .
Up went that rainbow terror scale and those yellow ribbons .
Prisoners abroad were tortured ; Dick Cheney tried to send the military to Lackawanna .
The entire world was suddenly our battlefield .
The ACLU might have objected , but Real Americans understood this was a war against evil , and that meant the bluntest tools in our kit needed to be utilized .
Now a new battle has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A climate of fear has taken hold , perhaps even darker than the one that prevailed after 9/11 .
Back then , we worried terrorists might be plotting behind the hedge rows ; now the threat is literally impossible to see , with every one of our friends and neighbors a potential COVID carrier .
This has given way to , among other things , a culture of snitching , with self-anointed hall monitors ratting out their fellow citizens for such depraved behavior as walking in parks .
In Connecticut , one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public after she saw people gathering on a golf course .
The snitch was so proud of herself that she gave the media her full name and hometown .
“ I threw some f-bombs , ” she assured everyone .
Such tattling , according to news reports , has been used not just to report social distancing scofflaws , but to exact revenge and settle scores .
And while the accused aren ’ t yet clattering on tumbrils off to the guillotine , the precedent we ’ re setting is ominous .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a baseline of trust and restraint .
It certainly can ’ t function if Janet can call in a SWAT team on her coughing neighbor who just so happens to have ditched her at the prom back in 1973 .
Following 9/11 , everything was subordinated to the singular value of national security ; now it ’ s public health that reigns supreme .
Before its mantle , our constitutional rights have given way .
Last week , Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear announced that anyone attending Easter services would have their license plate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were committing misdemeanors .
Orange County issued an order last month banning “ all public and private gatherings of any number of people ” ( isn ’ t one a number ? )
.
And Governor Gretchen Whitmer has prohibited Michiganders from visiting relatives and large stores from selling such hazardous goods as carpeting and garden furniture .
Freedom of movement is being curtailed .
States are working to keep outsiders out .
The most amusing example of this is in Rhode Island , where Governor Gina Raimondo recently commanded that all drivers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over and forced into quarantine .
It sounds like the kind of thing that was hatched up in a Boston bar after a fourth round of Sam Adams .
You know what we should do ?
Round up every one of them leaf-peepin ’ , pinstripe-wearin ’ bastihds and send them to that Cuban prison down theyeah .
Certainly every New England heart beats with a little fascism for the city to the southwest , but Raimondo ’ s order does seem like an overstep .
She did eventually back off her New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sense that she expanded it to include every other state in the union .
None of this is to dismiss the kind of careful health-minded regulations that we need in place right now .
Large public gatherings really have facilitated the virus ’ s spread , whether among worshippers at megachurches or morons on spring break .
And with Gotham the COVID epicenter ( and Aaron Judge looking healthy again ) , it makes sense that certain states would want to keep New Yorkers away for the time being .
Still , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facts , both of which call to mind the September 11 aftermath .
The first is that government authority is programmed to grow , never shrink .
I slightly depart here from the economist Robert Higgs , who ’ s been frequently cited since the pandemic began .
Higgs thought up what he called the ratchet effect , which holds that the state gains powers during a crisis , then surrenders only some of them afterwards , yielding a net growth in government .
Yet at least since 9/11 , the feds haven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all .
Instead an authorization for use of military force has become a permission slip for ever-expanding empire .
A gigantic surveillance apparatus has grown out of the NSA .
Fear begat action , which created precedent , which became the license for even more action .
Now we ’ re assured the current measures won ’ t beckon this way , that they ’ re only temporary .
Are we so sure ?
The second fact is that our responses to crises don ’ t arise inorganically .
That is to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat are things we ’ re inclined to do anyway .
Red Sox fans hauling away Yankees fans is only the cheekiest example of this .
Certainly the urge to snitch is deeply embedded within some of us , as so many totalitarian polities have demonstrated .
Rod Liddle expresses this well : “ There is a certain tranche of the population , ” he says , “ which yearns for its fellow citizens to be chastised , punished and , if possible , banged up.
” We ’ re also attracted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public health—if we must conform , we prefer the line to be simple .
And of course , everyone wants to feel safe .
Authoritarianism , in other words , isn ’ t something artificially imposed ; its pieces naturally interlock at a time like this .
Fortunately , there ’ s another impulse that can check all the others : our aversion to being ordered around by beady-eyed authorities .
The impetus of Everything Must Change does eventually give way to a craving for normal , for the liberty to exercise our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ snapback mechanism .
Other problems arise that make the previous crisis seem obsolete .
When today Nurse Ratched comes on the Washington Metro intercom and encourages passengers to “ see it , say it , ” it sounds like an audio artifact from another time .
The constant state of emergency required for a post-9/11 culture can ’ t endure forever , if only because its towering restrictions and imperatives are incompatible with the mundanities of daily life .
Yet that doesn ’ t mean these paradigms ever get rolled back completely .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the full-body scans that affect us only when we fly , the drone strikes we never see .
And that , I think , is the danger of a post-coronavirus world .
The restaurants will eventually reopen ; social distancing will end .
The snitches will go back to harassing smokers or whatever dreary things they otherwise do .
But in that invisible and unfelt space , something may be lost forever .
That could mean a more powerful presidency or a heightened health surveillance network or a clampdown on unhealthy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re just a little more atomized than we were before , unconsciously suspicious of the uncleanliness of others .
In a republic , the unseen and the seen both matter .
And the former especially has undergone more than enough radical transformation lately .
Yes , a return to normal will mean trusting Michigan residents to purchase lawn gnomes again .
But it sure beats another collective mental breakdown .

I don’t want to live in a post-coronavirus world. I don’t want sinister officials insisting that nothing can ever be the same again. I don’t want a chorus of talk radio hosts accusing me of a “March 10 mindset” every time I raid the fridge without first hosing myself down in bleach. I don’t want to conform my life to a color-coded public health scale that suddenly jumps from mauve to burnt sienna without explanation. I don’t want to be exhorted to “say something if I see something.” I don’t want magnetic ribbons on the backs of cars. I don’t want books with titles like Deliver Us From Illness. I don’t want a new government agency.
What I’d like is to live in a normal republic again. These days, that’s asking a lot.
After 9/11, we decided there was no going back to the way things were before. We treated the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as a historical threshold, a wakeup call into a dangerous world through which we’d heretofore been sleepwalking. The First Amendment and Fourth Amendment and Tenth Amendment might look nice on parchment, but they’d vanished into the shadow of the imperative to end terrorism. In marched the TSA’s blue-clad elves, the NSA’s eavesdroppers, Department of Homeland Security employees looking lost. Up went that rainbow terror scale and those yellow ribbons. Prisoners abroad were tortured; Dick Cheney tried to send the military to Lackawanna. The entire world was suddenly our battlefield. The ACLU might have objected, but Real Americans understood this was a war against evil, and that meant the bluntest tools in our kit needed to be utilized.
Now a new battle has been joined, this one against microbial imperialism. A climate of fear has taken hold, perhaps even darker than the one that prevailed after 9/11. Back then, we worried terrorists might be plotting behind the hedge rows; now the threat is literally impossible to see, with every one of our friends and neighbors a potential COVID carrier. This has given way to, among other things, a culture of snitching, with self-anointed hall monitors ratting out their fellow citizens for such depraved behavior as walking in parks. In Connecticut, one “mortified” woman bragged about alerting the public after she saw people gathering on a golf course. The snitch was so proud of herself that she gave the media her full name and hometown. “I threw some f-bombs,” she assured everyone.
Such tattling, according to news reports, has been used not just to report social distancing scofflaws, but to exact revenge and settle scores. And while the accused aren’t yet clattering on tumbrils off to the guillotine, the precedent we’re setting is ominous. Civil society can’t function without a baseline of trust and restraint. It certainly can’t function if Janet can call in a SWAT team on her coughing neighbor who just so happens to have ditched her at the prom back in 1973.
Following 9/11, everything was subordinated to the singular value of national security; now it’s public health that reigns supreme. Before its mantle, our constitutional rights have given way. Last week, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear announced that anyone attending Easter services would have their license plate numbers recorded and be notified that they were committing misdemeanors. Orange County issued an order last month banning “all public and private gatherings of any number of people” (isn’t one a number?). And Governor Gretchen Whitmer has prohibited Michiganders from visiting relatives and large stores from selling such hazardous goods as carpeting and garden furniture.
Freedom of movement is being curtailed. States are working to keep outsiders out. The most amusing example of this is in Rhode Island, where Governor Gina Raimondo recently commanded that all drivers with New York license plates be pulled over and forced into quarantine. It sounds like the kind of thing that was hatched up in a Boston bar after a fourth round of Sam Adams. You know what we should do? Round up every one of them leaf-peepin’, pinstripe-wearin’ bastihds and send them to that Cuban prison down theyeah. Certainly every New England heart beats with a little fascism for the city to the southwest, but Raimondo’s order does seem like an overstep. She did eventually back off her New Yorker profiling initiative, but only in the sense that she expanded it to include every other state in the union.
None of this is to dismiss the kind of careful health-minded regulations that we need in place right now. Large public gatherings really have facilitated the virus’s spread, whether among worshippers at megachurches or morons on spring break. And with Gotham the COVID epicenter (and Aaron Judge looking healthy again), it makes sense that certain states would want to keep New Yorkers away for the time being.
Still, we should bear in mind two stubborn facts, both of which call to mind the September 11 aftermath. The first is that government authority is programmed to grow, never shrink. I slightly depart here from the economist Robert Higgs, who’s been frequently cited since the pandemic began. Higgs thought up what he called the ratchet effect, which holds that the state gains powers during a crisis, then surrenders only some of them afterwards, yielding a net growth in government. Yet at least since 9/11, the feds haven’t relinquished much of anything at all. Instead an authorization for use of military force has become a permission slip for ever-expanding empire. A gigantic surveillance apparatus has grown out of the NSA. Fear begat action, which created precedent, which became the license for even more action. Now we’re assured the current measures won’t beckon this way, that they’re only temporary. Are we so sure?
The second fact is that our responses to crises don’t arise inorganically. That is to say, much of what we do under threat are things we’re inclined to do anyway. Red Sox fans hauling away Yankees fans is only the cheekiest example of this. Certainly the urge to snitch is deeply embedded within some of us, as so many totalitarian polities have demonstrated. Rod Liddle expresses this well: “There is a certain tranche of the population,” he says, “which yearns for its fellow citizens to be chastised, punished and, if possible, banged up.” We’re also attracted to those civic-minded catchphrases, national security and public health—if we must conform, we prefer the line to be simple. And of course, everyone wants to feel safe. Authoritarianism, in other words, isn’t something artificially imposed; its pieces naturally interlock at a time like this.
Fortunately, there’s another impulse that can check all the others: our aversion to being ordered around by beady-eyed authorities. The impetus of Everything Must Change does eventually give way to a craving for normal, for the liberty to exercise our habits again, a kind of human snapback mechanism. Other problems arise that make the previous crisis seem obsolete. When today Nurse Ratched comes on the Washington Metro intercom and encourages passengers to “see it, say it,” it sounds like an audio artifact from another time. The constant state of emergency required for a post-9/11 culture can’t endure forever, if only because its towering restrictions and imperatives are incompatible with the mundanities of daily life.
Yet that doesn’t mean these paradigms ever get rolled back completely. What lingers are the less tangible changes, the full-body scans that affect us only when we fly, the drone strikes we never see. And that, I think, is the danger of a post-coronavirus world. The restaurants will eventually reopen; social distancing will end. The snitches will go back to harassing smokers or whatever dreary things they otherwise do. But in that invisible and unfelt space, something may be lost forever. That could mean a more powerful presidency or a heightened health surveillance network or a clampdown on unhealthy and unpopular vices. Or it could mean we’re just a little more atomized than we were before, unconsciously suspicious of the uncleanliness of others.
In a republic, the unseen and the seen both matter. And the former especially has undergone more than enough radical transformation lately. Yes, a return to normal will mean trusting Michigan residents to purchase lawn gnomes again. But it sure beats another collective mental breakdown.


theamericanconservative--2020-01-07--Doom and Gloom Won’t Win Votes in the Heartland

Democratic presidential hopefuls US senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders ( L ) and US Senator from Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren ( BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images ) Just before the holidays , White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney explained that Trump ’ s 2020 reelection message will focus on the economy , immigration , and Democratic Party “ socialism.
” What the election will really turn on is whether voters think it ’ s Morning in America Again or Kristallnacht .
Some 76 percent of Americans rate economic conditions positively , up from 48 percent in 2016 .
Stocks just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wage growth continues , unemployment is at a half-century low , holiday spending was up 3.4 percent with an 18.8 percent rise in online sales , and the media-driven fears of recession and trade war apocalypse have yielded to reality .
History whispers that the guy in the White House on Election Day gets the credit .
The Democrats ’ rebuttal has been a blurry focus on economic inequality .
The drunks at Midwestern holiday parties actually agree in large part , but as sober voters they are unsure who Bernie Warren is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve been aware of inequality for a long time .
They ’ ve been through the weaker and weaker union contracts ( when they still had unions ) and plant downsizings ( when they still had plants ) .
In fact , financial equality in America peaked as far back as 1973 .
Middle America ’ s decline should not be inevitable , mind you , but many Democrats , citing changing demographics , are near gleeful in their treatment of it .
Joe Biden added to the festivities on New Year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anybody who can go down 3,000 feet in a mine can sure as hell learn to program as well.
” Yet free college isn ’ t much of a draw because there aren ’ t a lot of better jobs begging .
The places that have had training programs gifted like Scooby treats from presidential campaigns past have already learned the hard lesson that education , while a good thing , doesn ’ t create jobs .
Jobs create the need for education .
Otherwise it ’ s empty calories , changing underemployed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people .
Actually , if “ in a craphole of debt ” is an important demographic for Democrats , the people in these pink houses would welcome some attention to limits on the 24 percent interest rate they pay on credit cards , or the 391 percent interest rate on payday loans for those who can ’ t get credit anymore .
There are even more exhausted and drug-wracked towns down-county .
Those places don ’ t care about Medicare for All ; they already have Medicaid for All .
Now if a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan , he ’ d have these folks ’ ears , and if it were funded more intelligently than “ we ’ ll get rich people whose companies don ’ t pay taxes now to pay , ” he ’ d likely have their votes , too .
They know the same people promising them things are promising others slavery reparations , student loan forgiveness , and maybe free ponies .
Some even remember that the War on Poverty , which started Medicare and Medicaid , was aimed in part at the Midwest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to trust new and expensive government programs to fix everything .
Sure , there are paradoxical notes on meritocracy , whereby people accept food stamps but decry others who do the same as lazy .
But what makes sense and what is are not always the same .
In 2020 , the hint of new taxes to pay for things that aren ’ t likely to get them better jobs is enough to stick with what little the last four years handed over .
A job , or a better paying job , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tree .
Trump has not delivered as fully as he promised , but things do feel better .
More immigration is about as popular as less football .
Out here , they are not surprised to learn that 77 percent of Americans nationwide see illegal immigration as a “ critical/important ” threat .
They are wondering why fellow Midwesterner Pete Buttigieg wants to deport fewer illegal immigrants and other candidates stress the need for benefits to illegals and sanctuary cities .
They wonder what happened to the 2016 Bernie , who claimed open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. with cheap labor to depress wages .
Never mind the sepia documentaries : they know they ’ re the descendants of immigrants who weren ’ t warmly welcomed , who were called “ Hunkies ” or “ Polacks ” before being exploited as cheap labor by the “ whyte piople ” of the day .
Nobody this New Year ’ s said , “ Dang , our lives would be better if we had more immigrants moving in.
” But nobody said , “ I hate refugees , ” either .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ could help decide the election .
That brings us to Trump ’ s third campaign point , “ Democratic Socialism.
” What the Democrats are offering seems as popular as the burnt crescent rolls even the drunks leave alone on the table on New Year ’ s Eve .
An “ …and in other news ” story about how the Bernie Sanders campaign is worried that spending too much of their money on office supplies from Amazon is unethical raises the question : “ and these people represent who around here ?
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first-gen Bill Clinton—had a vision of Morning in America , of Hope , and of , well , also Hope .
Their voices were trumpets that spoke to the old , best dreams .
People vote their pocketbook , but they also vote on that vision of who they are and who they think they want to be .
Aspiration is an economic driver same as wages , and in America , it may be even more powerful .
Trump is good enough at this .
He tells people he ’ s rich @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can do anything he wants , and what he chooses to do is work for them for free .
Look at the faces at a Trump rally—same in 2008 with Obama and Reagan in 1984—and it becomes a conversation that ends almost organically with a vote .
Meanwhile , the story Democrats are telling is of a place dying under the wet weight of racism and homophobia .
It ’ s not Morning in America in 2020 ; it ’ s Kristallnacht .
Not people of hope and aspiration , we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for holding political opinions , but for being the kinds who hold such opinions .
These people are not even worthy of their vote—Dems say the popular vote , as expressed by the good states like New York and California , will allow a more righteous country to emerge over bodies of the rednecks .
In a New Year ’ s speech , Elizabeth Warren said , “ In a few hours , the dawn of a new year will break over America…now , it is normally a moment for optimism , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the chill of fear in the air .
People are afraid .
Afraid for their families and their neighbors .
Afraid for the children locked in detention centers , and the children on lock down in our schools .
Afraid for women , LGBTQ people , especially trans people.
” The ground truth is not hard to tease out .
The pundits from Brooklyn who write garbage about the heartland wouldn ’ t even need passports to visit .
They might realize they spend too much time reporting off social media without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves .
But they wouldn ’ t be comfortable at the cousins ’ homes .
When they ask where the coffee is sourced from and is it sustainable , the answer would be : “ Um , Kroger , and yeah , we got a whole pot on.
” They might learn that the majority of voters in purple states , the ones who likely will decide the election , don ’ t see America as a fearful place consumed by racism , homophobia , and white supremacy , and they don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and white supremacists .
A lot of these people voted for Obama when he won Ohio in 2008 and 2012 .
They know Facebook is where you post pictures of the kids , not receive marching orders from the Kremlin , and the implication that they ’ re too stupid to know even if Moscow is treating them like dupes hurts .
Their America hasn ’ t been taken away from them by minorities or whoevers because nobody really wants it .
“ Not Trump ” will be enough for the Whole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ places across Ohio and elsewhere down the food chain .
It ’ s messy out there , but these people understand they have made it three years without a new war taking their sons and daughters ( so far ) , without an economic collapse taking the jobs they do have .
They know that someone has started doing something about immigration , that the impeachment that ’ s been Democrats ’ near-sole focus for three years matters not a whit , and , hell , even that the Saturday Night Live everybody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
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 .

Just before the holidays, White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney explained that Trump’s 2020 reelection message will focus on the economy, immigration, and Democratic Party “socialism.” What the election will really turn on is whether voters think it’s Morning in America Again or Kristallnacht.
Some 76 percent of Americans rate economic conditions positively, up from 48 percent in 2016. Stocks just had their best year since 1997. Wage growth continues, unemployment is at a half-century low, holiday spending was up 3.4 percent with an 18.8 percent rise in online sales, and the media-driven fears of recession and trade war apocalypse have yielded to reality. History whispers that the guy in the White House on Election Day gets the credit.
The Democrats’ rebuttal has been a blurry focus on economic inequality. The drunks at Midwestern holiday parties actually agree in large part, but as sober voters they are unsure who Bernie Warren is lecturing to about that, as they’ve been aware of inequality for a long time. They’ve been through the weaker and weaker union contracts (when they still had unions) and plant downsizings (when they still had plants). In fact, financial equality in America peaked as far back as 1973. Middle America’s decline should not be inevitable, mind you, but many Democrats, citing changing demographics, are near gleeful in their treatment of it.
Joe Biden added to the festivities on New Year’s Eve by proclaiming that “anybody who can go down 3,000 feet in a mine can sure as hell learn to program as well.” Yet free college isn’t much of a draw because there aren’t a lot of better jobs begging. The places that have had training programs gifted like Scooby treats from presidential campaigns past have already learned the hard lesson that education, while a good thing, doesn’t create jobs. Jobs create the need for education. Otherwise it’s empty calories, changing underemployed, uneducated people into underemployed, educated people.
Actually, if “in a craphole of debt” is an important demographic for Democrats, the people in these pink houses would welcome some attention to limits on the 24 percent interest rate they pay on credit cards, or the 391 percent interest rate on payday loans for those who can’t get credit anymore.
There are even more exhausted and drug-wracked towns down-county. Those places don’t care about Medicare for All; they already have Medicaid for All. Now if a Democrat came up with a viable infrastructure plan, he’d have these folks’ ears, and if it were funded more intelligently than “we’ll get rich people whose companies don’t pay taxes now to pay,” he’d likely have their votes, too. They know the same people promising them things are promising others slavery reparations, student loan forgiveness, and maybe free ponies. Some even remember that the War on Poverty, which started Medicare and Medicaid, was aimed in part at the Midwest. This is not an audience quick to trust new and expensive government programs to fix everything.
Sure, there are paradoxical notes on meritocracy, whereby people accept food stamps but decry others who do the same as lazy. But what makes sense and what is are not always the same. In 2020, the hint of new taxes to pay for things that aren’t likely to get them better jobs is enough to stick with what little the last four years handed over. A job, or a better paying job, is what everyone wanted under the Christmas tree. Trump has not delivered as fully as he promised, but things do feel better.
More immigration is about as popular as less football. Out here, they are not surprised to learn that 77 percent of Americans nationwide see illegal immigration as a “critical/important” threat. They are wondering why fellow Midwesterner Pete Buttigieg wants to deport fewer illegal immigrants and other candidates stress the need for benefits to illegals and sanctuary cities. They wonder what happened to the 2016 Bernie, who claimed open borders were a right-wing plot to flood the U.S. with cheap labor to depress wages.
Never mind the sepia documentaries: they know they’re the descendants of immigrants who weren’t warmly welcomed, who were called “Hunkies” or “Polacks” before being exploited as cheap labor by the “whyte piople” of the day. Nobody this New Year’s said, “Dang, our lives would be better if we had more immigrants moving in.” But nobody said, “I hate refugees,” either. Understanding the difference between the two statements could help decide the election.
That brings us to Trump’s third campaign point, “Democratic Socialism.” What the Democrats are offering seems as popular as the burnt crescent rolls even the drunks leave alone on the table on New Year’s Eve. An “…and in other news” story about how the Bernie Sanders campaign is worried that spending too much of their money on office supplies from Amazon is unethical raises the question: “and these people represent who around here?”
The great campaigners—Reagan, 2008 Obama, first-gen Bill Clinton—had a vision of Morning in America, of Hope, and of, well, also Hope. Their voices were trumpets that spoke to the old, best dreams. People vote their pocketbook, but they also vote on that vision of who they are and who they think they want to be. Aspiration is an economic driver same as wages, and in America, it may be even more powerful. Trump is good enough at this. He tells people he’s rich, he’s powerful, he can do anything he wants, and what he chooses to do is work for them for free. Look at the faces at a Trump rally—same in 2008 with Obama and Reagan in 1984—and it becomes a conversation that ends almost organically with a vote.
Meanwhile, the story Democrats are telling is of a place dying under the wet weight of racism and homophobia. It’s not Morning in America in 2020; it’s Kristallnacht. Not people of hope and aspiration, we’re bitter and hateful, despised not just for holding political opinions, but for being the kinds who hold such opinions. These people are not even worthy of their vote—Dems say the popular vote, as expressed by the good states like New York and California, will allow a more righteous country to emerge over bodies of the rednecks.
In a New Year’s speech, Elizabeth Warren said, “In a few hours, the dawn of a new year will break over America…now, it is normally a moment for optimism, but let’s face it. There is the chill of fear in the air. People are afraid. Afraid for their families and their neighbors. Afraid for the children locked in detention centers, and the children on lock down in our schools. Afraid for women, LGBTQ people, especially trans people.”
Really? No.
The ground truth is not hard to tease out. The pundits from Brooklyn who write garbage about the heartland wouldn’t even need passports to visit. They might realize they spend too much time reporting off social media without knowing they’re just talking to themselves. But they wouldn’t be comfortable at the cousins’ homes. When they ask where the coffee is sourced from and is it sustainable, the answer would be: “Um, Kroger, and yeah, we got a whole pot on.”
They might learn that the majority of voters in purple states, the ones who likely will decide the election, don’t see America as a fearful place consumed by racism, homophobia, and white supremacy, and they don’t see themselves as racists, homophobes, and white supremacists. A lot of these people voted for Obama when he won Ohio in 2008 and 2012. They know Facebook is where you post pictures of the kids, not receive marching orders from the Kremlin, and the implication that they’re too stupid to know even if Moscow is treating them like dupes hurts. Their America hasn’t been taken away from them by minorities or whoevers because nobody really wants it.
“Not Trump” will be enough for the Whole Foods/Trader Joe’s base, but not for places across Ohio and elsewhere down the food chain. It’s messy out there, but these people understand they have made it three years without a new war taking their sons and daughters (so far), without an economic collapse taking the jobs they do have. They know that someone has started doing something about immigration, that the impeachment that’s been Democrats’ near-sole focus for three years matters not a whit, and, hell, even that the Saturday Night Live everybody all watched was sort of funny again.
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.