theamericanconservative--2020-11-14--What the Federalist Says About Conspiracies

Since President Trump ’ s lead in the voting of several key states began to dwindle last week , many on social media and elsewhere have suggested that a grand conspiracy was to blame .
For that to be true , however , a number of other things would have to be true simultaneously , each of them unlikely .
It goes to the heart of what it means to be an American and what is at stake in the election .
As on so many other issues , Americans could do far worse than to turn for guidance to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end of Federalist 10 , Publius writes , “ Besides other impediments , it may be remarked that , where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes , communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
” Publius is talking here about why an extended republic will not necessarily fall victim to the worst tendencies of the republics of history , namely , majority faction and the evils it brings .
But I always think about this line when I hear anything about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the twin possibilities built into human nature are often magnified—both the best features and the worst .
Publius ’ s thinking attempts to account for both of these .
In this passage , he admits the likelihood , under the Constitution or any government , of attempts by those in office to “ put one over ” on the public , to mislead for personal advantage , or even to conspire against the country ’ s good .
While he is no abject cynic , his general views would suggest that , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can count on such lying to occur ( “ If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide , we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control.
” ) .
But in his point about communication of conspirators he is also arguing that , to the extent that the conspirators are aware of their own dishonor , there is a natural , human check built in .
The more people you have “ in ” on a conspiracy , the more likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discovery means its likely failure .
Why is this ?
There ’ s an unstated premise in this account that has to do with the basic decency or , dare I say , virtue of the American people .
Publius is arguing in part that “ daylight is the best disinfectant.
” Whether or not that ’ s true scientifically , it ’ s certainly a view that animates some of the ways we have chosen to govern ourselves .
The move toward an open primary system and public committee hearings in Congress—the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” —is a manifestation of this .
The ultimate wisdom of these moves is perhaps debatable .
If they make sense , it is because to some degree you can rely upon the soundness of the judgment of the American people .
If a cadre of politicians or fellow citizens are discovered to be setting themselves up for personal advantage and against the public good , then that would be objectionable to American citizens .
It would , presumably , be both objectionable and enough people would act on those objections to stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ light .
I take it that even those currently agitating for the withholding of judgment about the Trump-Biden election would not dispute this .
For them , perhaps , there are higher-order considerations I haven ’ t yet named .
For conspiracies to succeed , you have to keep them secret—it is baked into the venture itself .
If the nefarious task undertaken is of a grand scale , its success is more difficult to the extent it requires co-conspirators .
To this extent , the conspiracy relies on , in the chests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discipline needed to maintain secrecy .
In those chests there is bound to be a battle between the desire to be powerful , on the one hand , and the desire to be viewed as powerful , on the other .
The former comes from the libido dominandi .
The latter comes from vanity .
But if that is true , then Publius suggests that vanity might undercut the ability to dominate others .
Remember , Publius is talking about plots involving “ consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes , ” which suggests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ characters who may be unable to resist the temptation to gloat and may not possess strong moral fiber .
The desire to be perceived as powerful may lead to a temptation to spill the beans .
I don ’ t think Publius would think that a conspiracy elaborate enoughto succeed could succeed under these circumstances .
He ’ s not naïve .
He understands the darker side of human nature and the human capacity for vice and falsehood .
Yet he is convinced that this is only part of the story : Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-government ?
As Willmoore Kendall and George Carey observed 50 years ago , the American political order is premised on the self-government of a “ virtuous people.
” If true , then a degradation of the moral quality of society at large might be supposed to justify any number of drastic measures ( like charging the cockpit ) .
This seems to be the place from which disputes are now being justified .
Under this conviction , working to reestablish a sound public order—to reestablish law—becomes the priority ; merely procedural concerns ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ norms and commitments ( about decency and honest dealing with others ) are waved away .
Such a line of thinking seems , however , to decouple the necessary connection between means and ends .
In the hands of one who is corruptible or already corrupt ( presumably all of us mortals ) , this thinking is dangerous .
Taken to an extreme , the argument might justify a move away from popular government itself .
It ’ s true that there are more figures these days advocating a move away from republicanism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not necessarily synonymous with despotism .
Whatever the premises , the implication is that Americans no longer have the capacity for self-government on which Publius relies and which might be more needed than ever .
Add to all this the self-conscious minority status that contemporary conservatives tend to carry with them ( whether justified or not ) , and you ’ ve got a recipe for conspiracy theories coming from the right .
Conspiratorial thinking animates a lot of public discourse right now around the election and it did in the closing days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are to be guided by Publius , it ought to be rejected .
For it to be true , election workers in several states must themselves be “ in on ” the conspiracy to steal the election , or be its dupes .
Counting and reporting votes is a process involving a lot of hands and eyes .
That ’ s by design .
It involves monitors and judges from across our political spectrum and across the world .
Seeing a conspiracy in the outcome of the presidential election might be distasteful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one very salient one is what it necessarily suggests about all of the ordinary people involved in the process .
They are either witless dupes or horrible criminals .
I don ’ t know many people like that .
And I don ’ t think there are enough of them for such a gargantuan task as “ stealing ” this election .
Many among us are people of goodwill .
And I still think there are enough of those to have confidence in the process even if the results , at any level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would prefer .
Conservatives ought always to bring to the public discourse an awareness of the duality of human nature .
I have no objection to pursuing leads , rooting out inconsistencies , or following up on red flags , and no one should .
People are capable of both nobility and baseness and there is no reason to assume that either one is absent from the process .
But if there really is a conspiracy afoot , then those who work the polls every few years , or procure voting systems in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them , order supplies , or tabulate results , would have to be particularly terrible examples of vice .
Unless their nefariousness was so deep , their cunning so well developed , their “ unjust or dishonorable purposes ” so deeply ingrained , and their skills to execute their purposes so impeccably honed that a widespread plot could succeed on a national and grand scale , then it simply wouldn ’ t work .
I don ’ t think Publius would buy it .
And neither should you .
Justin Litke is Assistant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Center for the Study of Statesmanship at the Catholic University of America .
He is currently at work on a book about the Federalist and the statesmanship and leadership of Henry Clay .

Since President Trump’s lead in the voting of several key states began to dwindle last week, many on social media and elsewhere have suggested that a grand conspiracy was to blame. For that to be true, however, a number of other things would have to be true simultaneously, each of them unlikely. It goes to the heart of what it means to be an American and what is at stake in the election. As on so many other issues, Americans could do far worse than to turn for guidance to the author of the Federalist.
Near the end of Federalist 10, Publius writes, “Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.”
Publius is talking here about why an extended republic will not necessarily fall victim to the worst tendencies of the republics of history, namely, majority faction and the evils it brings. But I always think about this line when I hear anything about conspiracies.
In a popular government, the twin possibilities built into human nature are often magnified—both the best features and the worst. Publius’s thinking attempts to account for both of these. In this passage, he admits the likelihood, under the Constitution or any government, of attempts by those in office to “put one over” on the public, to mislead for personal advantage, or even to conspire against the country’s good. While he is no abject cynic, his general views would suggest that, if there is an advantage to lying, you can count on such lying to occur (“If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control.”). But in his point about communication of conspirators he is also arguing that, to the extent that the conspirators are aware of their own dishonor, there is a natural, human check built in. The more people you have “in” on a conspiracy, the more likely it is to be discovered. Its discovery means its likely failure. Why is this?
There’s an unstated premise in this account that has to do with the basic decency or, dare I say, virtue of the American people. Publius is arguing in part that “daylight is the best disinfectant.” Whether or not that’s true scientifically, it’s certainly a view that animates some of the ways we have chosen to govern ourselves. The move toward an open primary system and public committee hearings in Congress—the general move away from “smoke-filled rooms”—is a manifestation of this. The ultimate wisdom of these moves is perhaps debatable. If they make sense, it is because to some degree you can rely upon the soundness of the judgment of the American people. If a cadre of politicians or fellow citizens are discovered to be setting themselves up for personal advantage and against the public good, then that would be objectionable to American citizens. It would, presumably, be both objectionable and enough people would act on those objections to stop the plot once it was brought to light. I take it that even those currently agitating for the withholding of judgment about the Trump-Biden election would not dispute this. For them, perhaps, there are higher-order considerations I haven’t yet named.
For conspiracies to succeed, you have to keep them secret—it is baked into the venture itself. If the nefarious task undertaken is of a grand scale, its success is more difficult to the extent it requires co-conspirators. To this extent, the conspiracy relies on, in the chests of each one of them, the discipline needed to maintain secrecy.
In those chests there is bound to be a battle between the desire to be powerful, on the one hand, and the desire to be viewed as powerful, on the other. The former comes from the libido dominandi. The latter comes from vanity. But if that is true, then Publius suggests that vanity might undercut the ability to dominate others. Remember, Publius is talking about plots involving “consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes,” which suggests we are already in the realm of characters who may be unable to resist the temptation to gloat and may not possess strong moral fiber. The desire to be perceived as powerful may lead to a temptation to spill the beans.
I don’t think Publius would think that a conspiracy elaborate enough to succeed could succeed under these circumstances. He’s not naïve. He understands the darker side of human nature and the human capacity for vice and falsehood. Yet he is convinced that this is only part of the story:
As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be, that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.
Is there sufficient virtue in human nature—in general—for self-government? As Willmoore Kendall and George Carey observed 50 years ago, the American political order is premised on the self-government of a “virtuous people.” If true, then a degradation of the moral quality of society at large might be supposed to justify any number of drastic measures (like charging the cockpit). This seems to be the place from which disputes are now being justified. Under this conviction, working to reestablish a sound public order—to reestablish law—becomes the priority; merely procedural concerns (laws on the books) or prior norms and commitments (about decency and honest dealing with others) are waved away. Such a line of thinking seems, however, to decouple the necessary connection between means and ends. In the hands of one who is corruptible or already corrupt (presumably all of us mortals), this thinking is dangerous. Taken to an extreme, the argument might justify a move away from popular government itself.
It’s true that there are more figures these days advocating a move away from republicanism, though they would argue this is not necessarily synonymous with despotism. Whatever the premises, the implication is that Americans no longer have the capacity for self-government on which Publius relies and which might be more needed than ever. Add to all this the self-conscious minority status that contemporary conservatives tend to carry with them (whether justified or not), and you’ve got a recipe for conspiracy theories coming from the right.
Conspiratorial thinking animates a lot of public discourse right now around the election and it did in the closing days of the campaign, too. If we are to be guided by Publius, it ought to be rejected.
For it to be true, election workers in several states must themselves be “in on” the conspiracy to steal the election, or be its dupes. Counting and reporting votes is a process involving a lot of hands and eyes. That’s by design. It involves monitors and judges from across our political spectrum and across the world. Seeing a conspiracy in the outcome of the presidential election might be distasteful for any number of reasons, but one very salient one is what it necessarily suggests about all of the ordinary people involved in the process. They are either witless dupes or horrible criminals. I don’t know many people like that. And I don’t think there are enough of them for such a gargantuan task as “stealing” this election. Many among us are people of goodwill. And I still think there are enough of those to have confidence in the process even if the results, at any level, are different from what we ourselves would prefer.
Conservatives ought always to bring to the public discourse an awareness of the duality of human nature. I have no objection to pursuing leads, rooting out inconsistencies, or following up on red flags, and no one should. People are capable of both nobility and baseness and there is no reason to assume that either one is absent from the process.
But if there really is a conspiracy afoot, then those who work the polls every few years, or procure voting systems in the meantime, or administer updates to them, order supplies, or tabulate results, would have to be particularly terrible examples of vice. Unless their nefariousness was so deep, their cunning so well developed, their “unjust or dishonorable purposes” so deeply ingrained, and their skills to execute their purposes so impeccably honed that a widespread plot could succeed on a national and grand scale, then it simply wouldn’t work.
I don’t think Publius would buy it. And neither should you.
Justin Litke is Assistant Professor of Politics and Fellow at the Center for the Study of Statesmanship at the Catholic University of America. He is currently at work on a book about the Federalist and the statesmanship and leadership of Henry Clay.


theamericanconservative--2020-11-16--The Extremist at Dominion Voting Systems

WASHINGTON , DC - JANUARY 09 : ( L-R ) President and CEO of Election Systems & Software Tom Burt , President and CEO of Dominion Voting Systems John Poulos , President and CEO of Hart InterCivic Julie Mathis testify during a hearing before the House Administration Committee January 9 , 2020 on Capitol Hill in Washington , DC .
( Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images ) It is unlikely that many of the 73 million people who cast ballots for Donald Trump in 2020 will ever accept the legitimacy of his loss .
Who could convince them ?
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concession held any sway with Trump ’ s voters , they would not have been his voters .
They do not know for sure that the election was stolen , but they do know with apodictic certainty that the media would lie to them if it was .
So if Donald Trump says the election was stolen , that ’ s good enough for the Deplorables .
Yet even the President ’ s most faithful must have flinched at his recent tweet accusing a leading manufacturer of voting machines of committing election fraud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard to overstate the irresponsibility of broadcasting such a serious accusation without proof .
It shocked me , and my startle response has become pretty desensitized over the last four years .
Sure , it turned out Trump was right when he accused the Obama administration of spying on his 2016 campaign , but this is different .
Dominion Voting Systems is not staffed with Obama appointees , after all .
I decided to poke around a bit to see what , if anything , could possibly be behind Trump ’ s wild @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oltmann had tweeted a few screenshots of a Facebook user posting Antifa manifestos and songs about killing police .
The Facebook account belonged to Eric Coomer , and Oltmann claimed it was the same Eric Coomer who is the Director of Product Strategy and Security for Dominion Voting Systems .
Within hours of Oltmann posting the information , however , the Facebook page of Eric Coomer was taken down , so I was unable to verify that Antifa Coomer and Dominion Coomer were the same person .
By the end of the day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was suspended as well .
I had followed his feed throughout the day .
I can say with certainty that he posted nothing remotely offensive or provocative .
I have no doubt whatsoever that Twitter suspended him for posting the screenshots of Coomer ’ s Facebook page .
Interesting .
Searching around some more , I found that Dominion Coomer is an avid climber who used to post frequently on climbing message boards under his own name .
He confirmed it himself in a post where he mentioned getting his nuclear physics Ph.D @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Eric Coomer received his nuclear physics Ph.D from Berkeley in 1997 .
In another post on the same message board , Coomer gave out his email address .
It was his old campus address from the Berkeley nuclear physics department .
I plugged that email address into the Google machine , and things got weird .
I found Eric Coomer had a long history of posting on websites for skinheads .
He was a heavy user of a Google Group for skinheads , and seems to have possibly been a content moderator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t the neo-Nazis our mothers warned us about .
These skinheads call themselves SHARPs , or Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice .
Think of them as a sort of punk rock Antifa .
In 2012 , roughly 18 SHARPs attacked a smaller group of suspected racists in a Chicago restaurant with bats and batons .
That same year , three neo-Nazis were charged for the 1998 double murder of two SHARPs in Nevada .
Given that Dominion ’ s Director of Security and Strategy , Eric Coomer , was an enthusiast of a street @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least into the 1990s , it seems very likely that Joe Oltmann was correct in identifying him as the Facebook user recently endorsing Antifa and posting anti-police rhetoric .
I shared this information on a few message boards to let other people run with it .
Within hours , Papa Skin , a skinhead website which had been up for over 20 years , was taken offline .
( Whoever took it down missed the FAQ page , you can find it here http : //www.papaskin.com/faq/faqs.html ) .
Of course none of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we deserve some answers .
One need only imagine if it was Joe Biden contesting the election results , and the Director for Strategy & Security at a major voting machine provider turned out to be a Proud Boy with decades of involvement in extremist , even violent , right wing political groups .
Democrats would rightly point out that this person endorses engaging in illegal behavior to achieve political goals .
They would ask how such a person ended up in such an important position of public trust , and what it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ensure Dominion ’ s responsibilities are handled in good faith .
Another reality of the Dominion fiasco , whether or not there was any fraud using its machines , is the structural risk created by having the same company run machines in more than two dozen states .
If there were glitchy machines causing a dispute in one state , like Democrats ’ claims about Diebold machines in Ohio in 2004 , and even if that dispute led to competing slates of electors , that is something the American political system has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tens of millions of people doubting results in a half-dozen different states thanks to the same company running machines in all of them is an unprecedentedly serious problem , whether or not their doubts are well-founded .
Moreover , platforms like Twitter and WordPress would do well to consider that censorship of people discussing Dominion and its employees is likely to have the opposite effect that they think it will : Twitter bans , site removals , and wiping of bios from websites are only going to make Trump ’ s hardcore supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You can ’ t make disagreements go away by banning one side and pretending there is unanimity .
Darryl Cooper is the host of the MartyrMade podcast .

It is unlikely that many of the 73 million people who cast ballots for Donald Trump in 2020 will ever accept the legitimacy of his loss. Who could convince them? If the media sources demanding Trump’s concession held any sway with Trump’s voters, they would not have been his voters. They do not know for sure that the election was stolen, but they do know with apodictic certainty that the media would lie to them if it was. So if Donald Trump says the election was stolen, that’s good enough for the Deplorables.
Yet even the President’s most faithful must have flinched at his recent tweet accusing a leading manufacturer of voting machines of committing election fraud on a mass scale.
“REPORT: DOMINION DELETED 2.7 MILLION TRUMP VOTES NATIONWIDE. DATA ANALYSIS FINDS 221,000 PENNSYLVANIA VOTES SWITCHED FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP TO BIDEN. 941,000 TRUMP VOTES DELETED. STATES USING DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS SWITCHED 435,000 VOTES FROM TRUMP TO BIDEN.” @ChanelRion @OANN — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 12, 2020
It is hard to overstate the irresponsibility of broadcasting such a serious accusation without proof. It shocked me, and my startle response has become pretty desensitized over the last four years. Sure, it turned out Trump was right when he accused the Obama administration of spying on his 2016 campaign, but this is different. Dominion Voting Systems is not staffed with Obama appointees, after all. I decided to poke around a bit to see what, if anything, could possibly be behind Trump’s wild accusation.
A Twitter user named Joe Oltmann had tweeted a few screenshots of a Facebook user posting Antifa manifestos and songs about killing police. The Facebook account belonged to Eric Coomer, and Oltmann claimed it was the same Eric Coomer who is the Director of Product Strategy and Security for Dominion Voting Systems. Within hours of Oltmann posting the information, however, the Facebook page of Eric Coomer was taken down, so I was unable to verify that Antifa Coomer and Dominion Coomer were the same person. By the end of the day, Joe Oltmann’s Twitter account was suspended as well. I had followed his feed throughout the day. I can say with certainty that he posted nothing remotely offensive or provocative. I have no doubt whatsoever that Twitter suspended him for posting the screenshots of Coomer’s Facebook page. Interesting.
Searching around some more, I found that Dominion Coomer is an avid climber who used to post frequently on climbing message boards under his own name. He confirmed it himself in a post where he mentioned getting his nuclear physics Ph.D from Berkeley in 1997. Dominion’s Eric Coomer received his nuclear physics Ph.D from Berkeley in 1997. In another post on the same message board, Coomer gave out his email address. It was his old campus address from the Berkeley nuclear physics department. I plugged that email address into the Google machine, and things got weird.
I found Eric Coomer had a long history of posting on websites for skinheads. He was a heavy user of a Google Group for skinheads, and seems to have possibly been a content moderator for papaskin.com. Only these aren’t the neo-Nazis our mothers warned us about. These skinheads call themselves SHARPs, or Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice. Think of them as a sort of punk rock Antifa. In 2012, roughly 18 SHARPs attacked a smaller group of suspected racists in a Chicago restaurant with bats and batons. That same year, three neo-Nazis were charged for the 1998 double murder of two SHARPs in Nevada.
Given that Dominion’s Director of Security and Strategy, Eric Coomer, was an enthusiast of a street fighting anti-racist skinhead culture going back at least into the 1990s, it seems very likely that Joe Oltmann was correct in identifying him as the Facebook user recently endorsing Antifa and posting anti-police rhetoric. I shared this information on a few message boards to let other people run with it. Within hours, Papa Skin, a skinhead website which had been up for over 20 years, was taken offline. (Whoever took it down missed the FAQ page, you can find it here https://www.papaskin.com/faq/faqs.html).
Of course none of this proves any fraud took place, but we deserve some answers. One need only imagine if it was Joe Biden contesting the election results, and the Director for Strategy & Security at a major voting machine provider turned out to be a Proud Boy with decades of involvement in extremist, even violent, right wing political groups. Democrats would rightly point out that this person endorses engaging in illegal behavior to achieve political goals. They would ask how such a person ended up in such an important position of public trust, and what it might say about the procedures in place to ensure Dominion’s responsibilities are handled in good faith.
Another reality of the Dominion fiasco, whether or not there was any fraud using its machines, is the structural risk created by having the same company run machines in more than two dozen states. If there were glitchy machines causing a dispute in one state, like Democrats’ claims about Diebold machines in Ohio in 2004, and even if that dispute led to competing slates of electors, that is something the American political system has seen and withstood before. Having potentially tens of millions of people doubting results in a half-dozen different states thanks to the same company running machines in all of them is an unprecedentedly serious problem, whether or not their doubts are well-founded.
Moreover, platforms like Twitter and WordPress would do well to consider that censorship of people discussing Dominion and its employees is likely to have the opposite effect that they think it will: Twitter bans, site removals, and wiping of bios from websites are only going to make Trump’s hardcore supporters think Dominion has something to hide. You can’t make disagreements go away by banning one side and pretending there is unanimity.
Darryl Cooper is the host of the MartyrMade podcast.


theamericanconservative--2020-11-16--How to Help Joe Biden Win

How to Help Joe Biden Win

We ’ ve become lousy at democracy .
What everyone missed while Googling “ What is the Reichstag fire ?
” for the last four years is that because the guy they voted for won by fractions of a percent , roughly half of us now think the voting system is just fine .
The other half invoke fraud this time instead of the Russians to explain the “ mistake ” voters made .
Half the country ’ s love-hate relationship with the Electoral College just flipped .
But we know if the percents were reversed then so will the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and those that do not .
We have surrendered to the end we prefer justifying the means .
We have given up trying for fairness in lieu of looking the other way when it is going our way .
One of the loudest anti-concession voices – Hillary advising Biden – flipped her position completely when the count put her side ahead .
The people demanding unity now seemingly forgot they drove a four year disunity campaign of Russiagate and impeachment .
It is concerning how one party is very worried about suppression and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other very worried about miscounts and not so much about suppression .
This is not to say fraud decided the 2020 election .
It is to say the problem is it is all too possible for fraud to have taken place and that is what crushes faith in the system when we need it most .
We really need to trust elections because we no longer trust each other .
We no longer have honest differences of opinion .
We are only certain not only that our side is right , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immoral , wrong on an absolute level once held back save for Nazis , Pol Pot , and djiin .
In fact , people who disagree with us are Nazis , or maybe feminazis .
Information which disagrees with us is fake news and not entitled to the 1A , or if you speak Orwellian , misinformation and deplatforming .
There ’ s profit , political and otherwise , in encouraging these feelings so don ’ t expect things to change soon .
A vote tally is not a fact but merely a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A NYT columnist wrote “ Like many Americans demoralized by the softness of the spanking that voters just gave President Trump , I spent the past few days in search of answers .
Why were so many of my fellow citizens so content to continue spoiling him ?
And what happened to the comeuppance due Republican lawmakers for not giving him timeouts ?
” Another pundit wrote “ Many Dems bought the polls because they could not imagine that half the country was not as disgusted by Trump and his Republican ‘ enablers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years of branding Trump a bigot , they had trouble understanding how the president succeeded in actually expanding his Black and Latino support in 2020.
” So what do we call ourselves now — a democracy ?
a republic ?
an association ?
— when the fundamental system underlying what we are creates such feelings , leaves open so many doors to cheats , and requires a heavy application of partisan media lipstick-on-a-pig to convince us it is all OK as long as it ends our way ?
And which clause of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Associated Press anyway ?
During my 24 years at the Department of State , when I worked on visa issues which could have been subject to bribery and manipulation , the standard was “ avoid the appearance of impropriety.
” Even if that big discount you got buying a car was because you really are a helluva guy , it might not look that way .
We not only had to be clean to avoid people losing faith in our work , we had to look clean .
If people questioned our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in us and our process .
This was especially true when working in parts of the world where payoffs were almost always expected and we as Americans were supposed to be showing them a better way .
Dismissing peoples ’ questions as unsubstantiated does nothing to restore their faith , and for everything fueling questions to be dismissed as conspiracy theories brings us to the point where the other guy somehow winning becomes a “ coup.
” Dismissing concerns as “ yes , but too little fraud to matter ” does not restore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
An election that takes five days to a muddled conclusion with tens of thousands of ballots left uncounted , where critical numbers of votes seemed to appear on demand , where software glitches and undelivered mail even in small quantities keep entering the story , where fusses and fights over procedures focused on Democratic machine run cities like Philly , that is the very definition of an appearance of impropriety .
Now overlay all that stink on a voting system involving one-party state legislatures gerrymandering voting districts , 50 different and increasing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a controlling census with its own set of problems done only once every ten years .
Mix in a ridiculously complicated menu of rules to allow for a flood of partisan court challenges , with everyone accepting , counting , and verifying votes differently , all backed up by a broken postal system .
It should not matter what kind of pen one uses to mark a ballot , but we had challenges over Sharpies .
This is a dysfunctional system designed for manipulation .
It was an embassy tradition to have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country dignitaries , hold a mock vote , and then a toast to whomever the actual winner back home was , with both sides coming together .
Some years it was more acrimonious , some more fun ( I may never have been drunker in a suit than the night First Obama won ) but it was an important way to demonstrate how America more or less worked .
Sure , a lot of the smiles were false — we were diplomats after all — but tomorrow we ’ d be back at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s throats , because that ’ s how it was done .
We did it to show the foreigners , we said , but I suspect we also did it in part for ourselves , we who served regardless of who was president for a couple of years .
Nobody talked of Resistance ; what were we , WWII French saboteurs ?
I served from Reagan through Obama , a lot of political ground .
It was not always easy to explain America , but it was usually possible .
Now I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retired from that job .
Ignore Trump ’ s hyperbole ( though if you still can ’ t see past it by now it ’ s too late ) but don ’ t ignore the underlying concern .
Prove it wrong not by faux “ fact checking ” or simply declaring it invalid as was done with Hunter Biden ’ s laptop , censored by Big Tech platforms as insurance .
As my colleague wrote , “ the fundamental reason all these claims remain ‘ unsubstantiated ’ is that the very people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ones who are supposed to be substantiating them — and they have absolutely , entirely abandoned this basic duty.
” What ’ s in it for Joe ?
Didn ’ t he already win ?
Yes , but he ’ s still going to need all the help he can get .
Even as science sorts out the virus , Biden will have to wrestle with a weakened Democratic House and what will likely be a Republican Senate .
So it will be Executive Orders , again , with the Supreme Court , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adjudicative body left in America .
So the Court alone is pressed to sort the things which divide us out , from abortion to immigration .
It takes an accepted leader then to make everyone accept that .
If you ’ re still adamant the election is already over enough , try it this way : Me : Doctor , I think I have cancer .
Me : Um , no , but I don ’ t feel well .
Doc : Sorry , I can only run tests if you already have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply a medical conspiracy theory .
Relax , it ’ s only an analogy , so it is supposed to be helpful illustrating a broader point without being 100 percent identical .
The idea is the doctor doesn ’ t take your word you have cancer and start chemo , nor does he kick you out of the office .
He checks , does tests .
Maybe the tests find a lump .
Maybe the tests turn up negative and you go home feeling better knowing it was nothing .
Not being allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hypocritically labeled sore losers just for asking , is how we got the last four years of chaotic illegitimacy .
To help America ( and for Biden to govern legitimately ) we need to run tests .
We need to rule out cancer .
Call it a recount , call it an audit or an DOJ investigation , but send America home knowing that nagging pain in the neck is really nothing to worry about .
Peter Van Buren is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iraqi People , Hooper ’ s War : A Novel of WWII Japan , and Ghosts of Tom Joad : A Story of the 99 Percent .

We’ve become lousy at democracy. What everyone missed while Googling “What is the Reichstag fire?” for the last four years is that because the guy they voted for won by fractions of a percent, roughly half of us now think the voting system is just fine. The other half invoke fraud this time instead of the Russians to explain the “mistake” voters made. Half the country’s love-hate relationship with the Electoral College just flipped.
But we know if the percents were reversed then so will the people who think the system is fair and those that do not. We have surrendered to the end we prefer justifying the means. We have given up trying for fairness in lieu of looking the other way when it is going our way. One of the loudest anti-concession voices – Hillary advising Biden – flipped her position completely when the count put her side ahead. The people demanding unity now seemingly forgot they drove a four year disunity campaign of Russiagate and impeachment. It is concerning how one party is very worried about suppression and not so much about miscounts, and the other very worried about miscounts and not so much about suppression.
This is not to say fraud decided the 2020 election. It is to say the problem is it is all too possible for fraud to have taken place and that is what crushes faith in the system when we need it most.
We really need to trust elections because we no longer trust each other. We no longer have honest differences of opinion. We are only certain not only that our side is right, but that the other side is evil, immoral, wrong on an absolute level once held back save for Nazis, Pol Pot, and djiin. In fact, people who disagree with us are Nazis, or maybe feminazis. Information which disagrees with us is fake news and not entitled to the 1A, or if you speak Orwellian, misinformation and deplatforming. There’s profit, political and otherwise, in encouraging these feelings so don’t expect things to change soon.
A vote tally is not a fact but merely a component of a system of belief. A NYT columnist wrote “Like many Americans demoralized by the softness of the spanking that voters just gave President Trump, I spent the past few days in search of answers. Why were so many of my fellow citizens so content to continue spoiling him? And what happened to the comeuppance due Republican lawmakers for not giving him timeouts?”
Another pundit wrote “Many Dems bought the polls because they could not imagine that half the country was not as disgusted by Trump and his Republican ‘enablers’ as they were. After four years of branding Trump a bigot, they had trouble understanding how the president succeeded in actually expanding his Black and Latino support in 2020.”
So what do we call ourselves now — a democracy? a republic? an association? — when the fundamental system underlying what we are creates such feelings, leaves open so many doors to cheats, and requires a heavy application of partisan media lipstick-on-a-pig to convince us it is all OK as long as it ends our way? And which clause of the Constitution grants “calling power” to the Associated Press anyway?
During my 24 years at the Department of State, when I worked on visa issues which could have been subject to bribery and manipulation, the standard was “avoid the appearance of impropriety.” Even if that big discount you got buying a car was because you really are a helluva guy, it might not look that way. We not only had to be clean to avoid people losing faith in our work, we had to look clean.
If people questioned our honesty, they had already lost faith in us and our process. This was especially true when working in parts of the world where payoffs were almost always expected and we as Americans were supposed to be showing them a better way. Dismissing peoples’ questions as unsubstantiated does nothing to restore their faith, and for everything fueling questions to be dismissed as conspiracy theories brings us to the point where the other guy somehow winning becomes a “coup.” Dismissing concerns as “yes, but too little fraud to matter” does not restore faith, it just confirms fraud exists.
An election that takes five days to a muddled conclusion with tens of thousands of ballots left uncounted, where critical numbers of votes seemed to appear on demand, where software glitches and undelivered mail even in small quantities keep entering the story, where fusses and fights over procedures focused on Democratic machine run cities like Philly, that is the very definition of an appearance of impropriety.
Now overlay all that stink on a voting system involving one-party state legislatures gerrymandering voting districts, 50 different and increasing complex sets of voting laws, and a controlling census with its own set of problems done only once every ten years. Mix in a ridiculously complicated menu of rules to allow for a flood of partisan court challenges, with everyone accepting, counting, and verifying votes differently, all backed up by a broken postal system. It should not matter what kind of pen one uses to mark a ballot, but we had challenges over Sharpies. This is a dysfunctional system designed for manipulation.
It was an embassy tradition to have a big party election night, invite host country dignitaries, hold a mock vote, and then a toast to whomever the actual winner back home was, with both sides coming together. Some years it was more acrimonious, some more fun (I may never have been drunker in a suit than the night First Obama won) but it was an important way to demonstrate how America more or less worked. Sure, a lot of the smiles were false — we were diplomats after all — but tomorrow we’d be back at our desks, not at each other’s throats, because that’s how it was done.
We did it to show the foreigners, we said, but I suspect we also did it in part for ourselves, we who served regardless of who was president for a couple of years. Nobody talked of Resistance; what were we, WWII French saboteurs? I served from Reagan through Obama, a lot of political ground. It was not always easy to explain America, but it was usually possible. Now I have never been more glad to have retired from that job.
Ignore Trump’s hyperbole (though if you still can’t see past it by now it’s too late) but don’t ignore the underlying concern. Prove it wrong not by faux “fact checking” or simply declaring it invalid as was done with Hunter Biden’s laptop, censored by Big Tech platforms as insurance. As my colleague wrote, “the fundamental reason all these claims remain ‘unsubstantiated’ is that the very people who reject them on this basis are the ones who are supposed to be substantiating them — and they have absolutely, entirely abandoned this basic duty.”
What’s in it for Joe? Didn’t he already win? Yes, but he’s still going to need all the help he can get. Even as science sorts out the virus, Biden will have to wrestle with a weakened Democratic House and what will likely be a Republican Senate. So it will be Executive Orders, again, with the Supreme Court, again, the only real deliberative, adjudicative body left in America. So the Court alone is pressed to sort the things which divide us out, from abortion to immigration. It takes an accepted leader then to make everyone accept that.
If you’re still adamant the election is already over enough, try it this way:
Me: Doctor, I think I have cancer.
Doc: Got any proof?
Me: Um, no, but I don’t feel well.
Doc: Sorry, I can only run tests if you already have proof. Otherwise, your pain is simply a medical conspiracy theory.
Relax, it’s only an analogy, so it is supposed to be helpful illustrating a broader point without being 100 percent identical. The idea is the doctor doesn’t take your word you have cancer and start chemo, nor does he kick you out of the office. He checks, does tests. Maybe the tests find a lump. Maybe the tests turn up negative and you go home feeling better knowing it was nothing.
Not being allowed to ask questions, with the questioners hypocritically labeled sore losers just for asking, is how we got the last four years of chaotic illegitimacy. To help America (and for Biden to govern legitimately) we need to run tests. We need to rule out cancer. Call it a recount, call it an audit or an DOJ investigation, but send America home knowing that nagging pain in the neck is really nothing to worry about.
Peter Van Buren 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--2020-11-17--The Roots and Reach of Critical Race Theory

There ’ s a lesson I ’ ve learned : if it ’ s a fad , be wary .
The tulip craze in Holland in the 1500s led to one of the first economic bubbles .
The internet replicated the problem in 2000 , as did cryptocurrency in 2019 .
At one time , the hula hoop was all the rage .
Today , there ’ s a social philosophy that ’ s building up a bubble of its own : critical race theory ( CRT ) .
CRT has been around since the 1970s , but has blown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms like microaggression , white guilt , white privilege , and white supremacy have come to dominate the popular lexicon .
All of it is rooted in CRT .
CRT—though it ’ s known to most as a potent political force , and the ideological underpinning of the Black Lives Matter organization—has always been , first and foremost , a legal philosophy .
It starts with the premise that the United States is rooted in white supremacy and that this white supremacy is written into the law .
This inherent racism is presented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outcome , such as that drug convictions and death penalty sentences are more likely to be rendered on minorities .
Mari Matsuda , a CRT luminary , described it as “ the work of progressive legal scholars of color who are attempting to develop a jurisprudence that accounts for the role of racism in American law and that works toward the elimination of racism as part of a larger goal of eliminating all forms of subordination.
” Far from being a grassroots philosophy formulated by radicals on the streets , it can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our nation ’ s most elite law schools .
From Critical Race Theory : An Introduction : Critical race theory sprang up in the mid-1970s , as a number of lawyers , activists , and legal scholars across the country realized , more or less simultaneously , that the heady advances of the civil rights era of the 1960s had stalled and , in many respects , were being rolled back .
Realizing that new theories and strategies were needed to combat the subtler forms of racism that were gaining ground , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alan Freeman , and Richard Delgado ( coauthor of this primer ) put their minds to the task .
They were soon joined by others , and the group held its first conference at a convent outside Madison , Wisconsin , in the summer of 1989 .
All three—Bell , Delgado , and Freeman—were law school professors .
Derrick Bell was teaching at Harvard Law School when he published the seminal CRT treatise Race , Racism , and American Law .
Freeman taught at the University of Minnesota , the University of Buffalo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ teaching at the University of Alabama , and has previously taught at UCLA , the University of Colorado , and elsewhere .
“ The Law as Microaggression , ” another pioneering work on CRT , was written by NYU Law professor Peggy Davis and published in the Yale Law Journal in 1989 .
One especially successful CRT practitioner is Patricia Williams , who currently holds the title of Director of Law , Technology , and Ethics at Northeastern University .
From 2000-2005 , she was the recipient of a $ 500,000 MacArthur Grant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heavyweight , is the Isidor and Seville Sulzbacher Professor of Law at Columbia Law School .
Crenshaw , in addition to her professorial duties at Columbia , heads up the university ’ s Center for Intersectionality and Interpolicy Studies .
That center advertises : It ’ s a good gig , if you can get it .
But it ’ s far from her only one .
Crenshaw is also the founder of a 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) , the African American Policy Forum , which promotes CRT to both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s mission statement : Among other AAPF activities , Professor Crenshaw hosts a regular webinar , Intersectionality Matters .
One recent webinar , released shortly before the election , was entitled , “ Black Men for Trump ?
The Overdue Conversation on Patriarchy and Misogynoir in Black Politics.
” This election ’ s result , with the greatest share of black voters breaking for a Republican since 1960 , is clearly seen by CRT advocates as a problem to rectify , rooted in internalized racism or misogyny .
Another webinar which AAPF @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Politics , Power , & the Struggle Against Black Precarity ” —gives a good idea of the influence CRT is gaining .
It ’ s not so much the topic that ’ s interesting here as the guests .
Perhaps the most recognizable speaker was Ayanna Pressley , a Massachusetts congresswoman and member of “ The Squad.
” Pressley , as so many CRT advocates do , presented the legal movement and the activist movement as inextricably linked : “ If you believe that Black Lives Matter , then you believe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Joining Pressley were Rep. Barbara Lee ( D-CA ) and Kim Foxx , the Cook County State ’ s Attorney who let off Jussie Smollett .
During the webinar , Foxx made it clear that she drew no lines between her racial identity and her legal duties , professing , “ I ’ m unapologetic that I come to this role as a black woman.
” Foxx is a leading figure in the recent national wave of progressive local prosecutors who came to power by playing race politics .
She campaigned on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminal-justice system is endemically biased .
She inveighed against the so-called school-to-prison pipeline and promised to reduce racial disparities in prosecutions .
Last month , she dismissed aggravated battery charges against a 16-year-old student who had attacked two Chicago police officers ; the Chicago police union argued that her dismissal of the charges fit a pattern of favoring offenders over police officers .
Foxx operates in a cultural milieu that holds that the fact that a hate crime is a hoax is less important than the fact that it could have been true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no mean collection of power and influence .
Even still , the devotees of CRT are far from attaining any kind of governing consensus in Congress or in the criminal justice system .
But radical progressive prosecutors like Foxx are sweeping into offices across the country , and all four members of the Squad won reelection—these ideas , and their radical proponents , are on the rise .
The only question is , how much bigger will the bubble get before it bursts ?

There’s a lesson I’ve learned: if it’s a fad, be wary. The tulip craze in Holland in the 1500s led to one of the first economic bubbles. The internet replicated the problem in 2000, as did cryptocurrency in 2019. At one time, the hula hoop was all the rage.
Today, there’s a social philosophy that’s building up a bubble of its own: critical race theory (CRT). CRT has been around since the 1970s, but has blown up in the past few years as terms like microaggression, white guilt, white privilege, and white supremacy have come to dominate the popular lexicon. All of it is rooted in CRT.
CRT—though it’s known to most as a potent political force, and the ideological underpinning of the Black Lives Matter organization—has always been, first and foremost, a legal philosophy. It starts with the premise that the United States is rooted in white supremacy and that this white supremacy is written into the law. This inherent racism is presented as the explanation for any disparity in outcome, such as that drug convictions and death penalty sentences are more likely to be rendered on minorities.
Mari Matsuda, a CRT luminary, described it as “the work of progressive legal scholars of color who are attempting to develop a jurisprudence that accounts for the role of racism in American law and that works toward the elimination of racism as part of a larger goal of eliminating all forms of subordination.”
Far from being a grassroots philosophy formulated by radicals on the streets, it can be traced back to the faculties of some of our nation’s most elite law schools. From Critical Race Theory: An Introduction:
Critical race theory sprang up in the mid-1970s, as a number of lawyers, activists, and legal scholars across the country realized, more or less simultaneously, that the heady advances of the civil rights era of the 1960s had stalled and, in many respects, were being rolled back. Realizing that new theories and strategies were needed to combat the subtler forms of racism that were gaining ground, early writers such as Derrick Bell, Alan Freeman, and Richard Delgado (coauthor of this primer) put their minds to the task. They were soon joined by others, and the group held its first conference at a convent outside Madison, Wisconsin, in the summer of 1989.
All three—Bell, Delgado, and Freeman—were law school professors. Derrick Bell was teaching at Harvard Law School when he published the seminal CRT treatise Race, Racism, and American Law. Freeman taught at the University of Minnesota, the University of Buffalo, and others. Delgado is currently teaching at the University of Alabama, and has previously taught at UCLA, the University of Colorado, and elsewhere.
“The Law as Microaggression,” another pioneering work on CRT, was written by NYU Law professor Peggy Davis and published in the Yale Law Journal in 1989. One especially successful CRT practitioner is Patricia Williams, who currently holds the title of Director of Law, Technology, and Ethics at Northeastern University. From 2000-2005, she was the recipient of a $500,000 MacArthur Grant. Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, another CRT heavyweight, is the Isidor and Seville Sulzbacher Professor of Law at Columbia Law School.
Crenshaw, in addition to her professorial duties at Columbia, heads up the university’s Center for Intersectionality and Interpolicy Studies. That center advertises:
The Center for Intersectionality and Social Policy Studies was established to examine how social structures and related identity categories such as gender, race, and class interact on multiple levels to create social inequality. The first such center of its kind, the Center’s research projects and initiatives will bring together scholars and practitioners from law, sociology, feminist and gender studies, human rights, social justice, and other fields to explore the relationship of intersectionality to their work, to shape more effective remedies, and to promote greater collaboration between and across social movements.
It’s a good gig, if you can get it. But it’s far from her only one. Crenshaw is also the founder of a 501(c)(3), the African American Policy Forum, which promotes CRT to both popular and academic audiences. The forum’s mission statement:
Founded in 1996, The African American Policy Forum (AAPF) is an innovative think tank that connects academics, activists and policy-makers to promote efforts to dismantle structural inequality. We utilize new ideas and innovative perspectives to transform public discourse and policy. We promote frameworks and strategies that address a vision of racial justice that embraces the intersections of race, gender, class, and the array of barriers that disempower those who are marginalized in society. AAPF is dedicated to advancing and expanding racial justice, gender equality, and the indivisibility of all human rights, both in the U.S. and internationally.
Among other AAPF activities, Professor Crenshaw hosts a regular webinar, Intersectionality Matters. One recent webinar, released shortly before the election, was entitled, “Black Men for Trump? The Overdue Conversation on Patriarchy and Misogynoir in Black Politics.” This election’s result, with the greatest share of black voters breaking for a Republican since 1960, is clearly seen by CRT advocates as a problem to rectify, rooted in internalized racism or misogyny.
Another webinar which AAPF put on recently—“Under the Blacklight: Politics, Power, & the Struggle Against Black Precarity”—gives a good idea of the influence CRT is gaining. It’s not so much the topic that’s interesting here as the guests.
Perhaps the most recognizable speaker was Ayanna Pressley, a Massachusetts congresswoman and member of “The Squad.” Pressley, as so many CRT advocates do, presented the legal movement and the activist movement as inextricably linked: “If you believe that Black Lives Matter, then you believe that Black healing matters and Black justice matters.”
Joining Pressley were Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Kim Foxx, the Cook County State’s Attorney who let off Jussie Smollett. During the webinar, Foxx made it clear that she drew no lines between her racial identity and her legal duties, professing, “I’m unapologetic that I come to this role as a black woman.”
Heather MacDonald looked closer at Foxx’s identity prosecuting in City Journal:
Foxx is a leading figure in the recent national wave of progressive local prosecutors who came to power by playing race politics. She campaigned on the Critical Race Theory credo that the criminal-justice system is endemically biased. She inveighed against the so-called school-to-prison pipeline and promised to reduce racial disparities in prosecutions. Last month, she dismissed aggravated battery charges against a 16-year-old student who had attacked two Chicago police officers; the Chicago police union argued that her dismissal of the charges fit a pattern of favoring offenders over police officers. Foxx operates in a cultural milieu that holds that the fact that a hate crime is a hoax is less important than the fact that it could have been true.
Two congresswomen and a district attorney is no mean collection of power and influence. Even still, the devotees of CRT are far from attaining any kind of governing consensus in Congress or in the criminal justice system. But radical progressive prosecutors like Foxx are sweeping into offices across the country, and all four members of the Squad won reelection—these ideas, and their radical proponents, are on the rise.
The only question is, how much bigger will the bubble get before it bursts?


theamericanconservative--2020-11-17--They Came For Jones Day — And You’re Next

If Joe Biden is claiming the mantle of president-elect , he should at least act to stop his allies ' harassment campaigns .
On Saturday , former Vice President Joe Biden delivered an acceptance speech promising to “ work as hard for those who didn ’ t vote for me as those who did.
” By Tuesday , ‘ those who did ’ began hunting down ‘ those who didn ’ t ’ like rabid boar .
It wasn ’ t a week after Democrats scolded their opponents for refusing to accept defeat that their pleas for hand-holding and national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The latest salvo comes from the Lincoln Project , which raised $ 67.3 million over the past year to defeat President Donald Trump “ and his enablers.
” But the group wasn ’ t finished on Election Day .
Its most recent move , a personal harassment campaign , should make all Americans sick .
The super PAC on Tuesday urged its 2.7 million Twitter followers to track down employees of Jones Day and Porter Wright — two law firms that it feels are in cahoots with the Trump campaign — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overturn the will of the American people.
” Soon after , the group published employees ’ personal , private information online for those eager to do so .
Co-founder Rick Wilson said the Lincoln Project also plans to “ target some of Jones Day ’ s largest clients , ” such as General Motors , as retribution for the firm daring to represent Republicans .
This harassment campaign , while grotesque , was anticipated .
It became clear soon after Election Day that Democrats were going to take their apparent victory as graciously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In mere days following November 3 , Mr. Biden ’ s campaign bragged that the federal government was “ perfectly capable of escorting trespassers ” like Mr. Trump “ out of the White House.
” Former First Lady Michelle Obama condemned the “ tens of millions of people ” who voted for “ lies , hate , chaos , and division.
” Social justice activists taunted Republican parents , including one activist who gloated that , under a Biden administration , “ your children ” will be “ forced to read my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax dollars.
” Then came the unthinkable commentary juxtaposing the election results with the defeat of the Axis Powers .
Online , users described the streets of liberal strongholds as “ like VDay after WWII , ” with Labour Party loyalist Andrew Adonis comparing them to the “ joyful celebrations at the end of WWII.
” The Lincoln Project itself declared that “ the mission of this Allied Force was fulfilled.
” These statements may sound shocking to some , but not to Mr. Trump ’ s supporters , who have now endured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And , in a year during which Speaker Nancy Pelosi called Republicans “ domestic enemies ” and “ enemies of the state , ” it is no surprise what came next .
Senior operatives from Democrat Pete Buttigieg ’ s presidential campaign , including his deputy campaign manager and national surrogates director , launched a public ‘ enemies ’ list called the “ Trump Accountability Project ” aimed at destroying the social and professional lives of anyone “ who took a paycheck to help Trump undermine America.
” It is rumored that Mr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Top figures aligned with the Democratic Party approved , and promoted , such tactics .
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez instructed her political circle to archive the names of “ Trump sycophants for when they try to downplay or deny their complicity in the future.
” New York Times contributing writer Wajahat Ali insisted that , “ when Biden is in power , ” Republicans should be treated “ like the active threats to democracy they are.
” Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin warned that “ we have a list ” and that allies of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office , join a corporate board , find a faculty position or be accepted into ‘ polite ’ society ” again .
Mr. Wilson , the Lincoln Project co-founder , concluded recently that “ pain is the only teacher ” and that some Republicans “ don ’ t understand that yet .
But you will.
” His group ’ s sick , ongoing campaign against Jones Day is what these operatives ’ tirades look like in practice .
While the election results are not official , Mr. Biden has claimed the mantle of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to condemn and deter this threatening behavior from his allies , lest his inauguration will not be the end of the “ grim era of demonization in America , ” as his acceptance speech pledged , but the beginning .
Brian Anderson is founder of the Saguaro Group , an Arizona-based research firm .

On Saturday, former Vice President Joe Biden delivered an acceptance speech promising to “work as hard for those who didn’t vote for me as those who did.” By Tuesday, ‘those who did’ began hunting down ‘those who didn’t’ like rabid boar.
It wasn’t a week after Democrats scolded their opponents for refusing to accept defeat that their pleas for hand-holding and national unity to turn into something much darker.
The latest salvo comes from the Lincoln Project, which raised $67.3 million over the past year to defeat President Donald Trump “and his enablers.” But the group wasn’t finished on Election Day. Its most recent move, a personal harassment campaign, should make all Americans sick.
The super PAC on Tuesday urged its 2.7 million Twitter followers to track down employees of Jones Day and Porter Wright — two law firms that it feels are in cahoots with the Trump campaign — and to confront them for “trying to overturn the will of the American people.” Soon after, the group published employees’ personal, private information online for those eager to do so.
Co-founder Rick Wilson said the Lincoln Project also plans to “target some of Jones Day’s largest clients,” such as General Motors, as retribution for the firm daring to represent Republicans.
This harassment campaign, while grotesque, was anticipated. It became clear soon after Election Day that Democrats were going to take their apparent victory as graciously as they took their loss in 2016.
In mere days following November 3, Mr. Biden’s campaign bragged that the federal government was “perfectly capable of escorting trespassers” like Mr. Trump “out of the White House.” Former First Lady Michelle Obama condemned the “tens of millions of people” who voted for “lies, hate, chaos, and division.” Social justice activists taunted Republican parents, including one activist who gloated that, under a Biden administration, “your children” will be “forced to read my book on anti-racism in school on your tax dollars.”
Then came the unthinkable commentary juxtaposing the election results with the defeat of the Axis Powers. Online, users described the streets of liberal strongholds as “like VDay after WWII,” with Labour Party loyalist Andrew Adonis comparing them to the “joyful celebrations at the end of WWII.” The Lincoln Project itself declared that “the mission of this Allied Force was fulfilled.”
These statements may sound shocking to some, but not to Mr. Trump’s supporters, who have now endured years being compared to Nazi collaborators. And, in a year during which Speaker Nancy Pelosi called Republicans “domestic enemies” and “enemies of the state,” it is no surprise what came next.
Senior operatives from Democrat Pete Buttigieg’s presidential campaign, including his deputy campaign manager and national surrogates director, launched a public ‘enemies’ list called the “Trump Accountability Project” aimed at destroying the social and professional lives of anyone “who took a paycheck to help Trump undermine America.” It is rumored that Mr. Buttigieg will join a Biden administration.
Top figures aligned with the Democratic Party approved, and promoted, such tactics.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez instructed her political circle to archive the names of “Trump sycophants for when they try to downplay or deny their complicity in the future.” New York Times contributing writer Wajahat Ali insisted that, “when Biden is in power,” Republicans should be treated “like the active threats to democracy they are.” Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin warned that “we have a list” and that allies of Mr. Trump “should never serve in office, join a corporate board, find a faculty position or be accepted into ‘polite’ society” again.
Mr. Wilson, the Lincoln Project co-founder, concluded recently that “pain is the only teacher” and that some Republicans “don’t understand that yet. But you will.” His group’s sick, ongoing campaign against Jones Day is what these operatives’ tirades look like in practice.
While the election results are not official, Mr. Biden has claimed the mantle of president-elect. It is up to him to condemn and deter this threatening behavior from his allies, lest his inauguration will not be the end of the “grim era of demonization in America,” as his acceptance speech pledged, but the beginning.
Brian Anderson is founder of the Saguaro Group, an Arizona-based research firm.


theamericanconservative--2020-11-18--Why Google Didn’t Challenge the DOJ’s Antitrust Charges

Google is curiously upping the ante in their long history of legal challenges by taking the DOJ head-on .
Like the biggest of bruising fullbacks , Google seemed to decide last week that it can take the tackler head-on , because it can overpower any defender .
The impact could be something to watch .
In October , the Department of Justice and 11 state attorneys general filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against Google , charging the search engine and data giant with “ unlawfully maintain [ ing ] monopolies through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices in the search and search @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harms.
” The Department of Justice referenced the breakups of AT & T in 1974 and Microsoft in 1998 – actions that fractured those companies into smaller competing parts .
It said Google , which accounts for almost 90 percent all search queries in the U.S. , has used anticompetitive tactics to maintain and extend its monopolies .
It said Google uses exclusionary agreements that , in essence , prevent or heavily curb access to all other search engines by requiring that Google be the preset default search engine on billions of mobile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases , Google has agreements that prevent computer makers from preinstalling any competing search engine .
For instance , it pays Apple $ 9 billion per year to make it the exclusive default search engine for Safari – the tool most of us use to search on our phones .
The deal – unavailable to any company that doesn ’ t have $ 9 billion a year available to pay Apple – nets Google $ 25 billion per year .
The Department of Justice suggested in its press release that Google ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ antitrust laws forbid anticompetitive agreements by high-technology monopolists to require preinstalled default status , to shut off distribution channels to rivals and to make software undeletable.
” At the beginning of this type of litigation , most firms in Google ’ s position will file a motion to dismiss the case .
They typically say that the court lacks jurisdiction , there was an error in the pleading , there is no viable claim stated for which courts can provide relief , or that the suit is not yet “ ripe.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fight , and allows courts to dismiss obviously frivolous suits .
But last Friday , Google chose not to take this step , instead telling the court it intends to answer the complaint by Dec. 21 .
It could be that Google did not want to start out this battle by taking a loss .
Headlines would say “ Judge denies Google motion to dismiss , ” which would give credence to the case .
But a more likely explanation is that it sees itself as that bruising fullback , ready to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victoriously .
Google has appeared to deploy this strategy for years on the theory , as expressed by its executives , that government is not good at enforcing its orders , in part due to confusion since the lanes Google operates in are relatively new , emerging , and poorly understood .
It deployed this strategy in defense of the lawsuit filed against it by Oracle .
In a case that finally made it to the Supreme Court last month after over 10 years in the courts , Google admitted it took 11,500 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , its mobile operating system , but unconvincingly argued that the coding shouldn ’ t be copyrightable .
Taking the code Oracle had spent millions to develop enabled Google to develop a mobile platform that enabled it to stay atop the online search and search advertising market .
It ’ s unclear how the Supreme Court will rule , of course , but Justice Samuel Alito said during oral arguments that if Google ’ s argument that the code it took from Oracle was not proprietary is allowed to stand , virtually no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protections .
Google , in other words , single-handedly would have wiped out copywriting of computer code – providing a powerful disincentive to innovation for everyone outside of the company .
No one knows if Google has a play up its sleeve featuring its bruising fullback or perhaps plans for a trick play , or whether it simply has made peace with being broken up by court order .
And no one can say that its strategy , whatever it is , won ’ t work – it has made billions of dollars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oracle case with no indication of slowing down .
What we do know , however , is that the courts are about to take two serious looks at Google ’ s business models and practices .
And if they find what the Department of Justice says it has found , that bruising fullback will have met a line he can ’ t bulldoze over , and his team will find itself in an entirely new situation .
Matt Mackowiak is president of Potomac Strategy Group , LLC .
He ’ s a Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re-election campaign veteran and former press secretary to two U.S. senators .

Like the biggest of bruising fullbacks, Google seemed to decide last week that it can take the tackler head-on, because it can overpower any defender. The impact could be something to watch.
In October, the Department of Justice and 11 state attorneys general filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against Google, charging the search engine and data giant with “unlawfully maintain[ing] monopolies through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices in the search and search advertising markets and to remedy the competitive harms.”
The Department of Justice referenced the breakups of AT&T in 1974 and Microsoft in 1998 – actions that fractured those companies into smaller competing parts. It said Google, which accounts for almost 90 percent all search queries in the U.S., has used anticompetitive tactics to maintain and extend its monopolies.
It said Google uses exclusionary agreements that, in essence, prevent or heavily curb access to all other search engines by requiring that Google be the preset default search engine on billions of mobile devices and computers worldwide. In many cases, Google has agreements that prevent computer makers from preinstalling any competing search engine.
For instance, it pays Apple $9 billion per year to make it the exclusive default search engine for Safari – the tool most of us use to search on our phones. The deal – unavailable to any company that doesn’t have $9 billion a year available to pay Apple – nets Google $25 billion per year.
The Department of Justice suggested in its press release that Google’s practices mirrored those of Microsoft in that “antitrust laws forbid anticompetitive agreements by high-technology monopolists to require preinstalled default status, to shut off distribution channels to rivals and to make software undeletable.”
At the beginning of this type of litigation, most firms in Google’s position will file a motion to dismiss the case. They typically say that the court lacks jurisdiction, there was an error in the pleading, there is no viable claim stated for which courts can provide relief, or that the suit is not yet “ripe.” It is typically a first salvo in the fight, and allows courts to dismiss obviously frivolous suits.
But last Friday, Google chose not to take this step, instead telling the court it intends to answer the complaint by Dec. 21.
It could be that Google did not want to start out this battle by taking a loss. Headlines would say “Judge denies Google motion to dismiss,” which would give credence to the case.
But a more likely explanation is that it sees itself as that bruising fullback, ready to bulldoze through the legal process and emerge victoriously.
Google has appeared to deploy this strategy for years on the theory, as expressed by its executives, that government is not good at enforcing its orders, in part due to confusion since the lanes Google operates in are relatively new, emerging, and poorly understood.
It deployed this strategy in defense of the lawsuit filed against it by Oracle. In a case that finally made it to the Supreme Court last month after over 10 years in the courts, Google admitted it took 11,500 lines of proprietary code to make Android, its mobile operating system, but unconvincingly argued that the coding shouldn’t be copyrightable. Taking the code Oracle had spent millions to develop enabled Google to develop a mobile platform that enabled it to stay atop the online search and search advertising market.
It’s unclear how the Supreme Court will rule, of course, but Justice Samuel Alito said during oral arguments that if Google’s argument that the code it took from Oracle was not proprietary is allowed to stand, virtually no code will be subject to intellectual property protections. Google, in other words, single-handedly would have wiped out copywriting of computer code – providing a powerful disincentive to innovation for everyone outside of the company.
No one knows if Google has a play up its sleeve featuring its bruising fullback or perhaps plans for a trick play, or whether it simply has made peace with being broken up by court order.
And no one can say that its strategy, whatever it is, won’t work – it has made billions of dollars off the technology at dispute in the Oracle case with no indication of slowing down.
What we do know, however, is that the courts are about to take two serious looks at Google’s business models and practices. And if they find what the Department of Justice says it has found, that bruising fullback will have met a line he can’t bulldoze over, and his team will find itself in an entirely new situation.
Matt Mackowiak is president of Potomac Strategy Group, LLC. He’s a Republican consultant, a Bush administration and Bush-Cheney re-election campaign veteran and former press secretary to two U.S. senators.


theamericanconservative--2020-11-19--No U-Turns to Bushism

No U-Turns to Bushism

Former US Vice President Dick Cheney ( C ) sits with his daughter US Congresswoman Liz Cheney ( R ) , R-Wyoming , during the opening of the 115th US Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington , DC .
( JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images ) I ’ m stealing the title of this column from David Brooks .
I ’ m doing so because I ’ m slowly turning into one of those “ bourgeois bohemians ” he warned us about , and among the signs of BoBo decadence is low-grade plagiarism .
All the way back in 2007 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Times called “ No U-Turns ” in which he exhorted conservatives not to return to what recently hadn ’ t worked .
And by that he meant…Barry Goldwater .
As Iraq burned , as the federal government shoveled money into an incinerator , Brooks was worried the damned libertarians might start getting ideas .
“ The Republican Party , which still talks as if government were the biggest threat to choice , has lost touch with independent voters , ” he pronounced .
Three years later , the Tea Party would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a message of government being the biggest threat to choice in health care .
And given that these days there ’ s an inverse relationship between how interesting a writer is and how much time he spends leering at the libertarian gremlins in his head , my “ no U-turn ” sign is not going to point to a vanishingly small speed bump of fiscal responsibility in the rear-view .
It ’ s going to point instead at the ideology once associated with David Brooks : Bushism .
Donald Trump might be on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t mean George W. Bush gets to come back in .
It feels strange we even have to say this .
Certainly conservatives have been invoking Ronald Reagan ’ s presidency since practically before Ronald Reagan became president , but Bush has always been a less settled figure .
The MAGA crowd outright hates him , viewing his oeuvre of wars and globalization as everything Trump was elected to stop .
The average Republican probably takes a more charitable view , though still haunted by the sense that something went terribly wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be that Bush himself feels this way .
Anyone who spends that much time painting war veterans has to have his own Dorian Gray picture stashed in a closet somewhere .
Yet there ’ s a third group at work here , a front of diehard Bushies who , like the Japanese soldiers stranded in the Pacific , never got the memo that the world had moved on .
Now they ’ re hoping to fill whatever post-Trump vacuum might open up in the GOP .
The most prominent among them is Liz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former acting president Dick Cheney , who has inherited her father ’ s foreign policy exactly .
Cheney first blipped on the radar back in 2014 when she mounted a seemingly random primary challenge to Wyoming Senator Mike Enzi ( she dropped out before the election ) .
Given that a handful of relatively dovish lawmakers like Rand Paul were then ascendant , a tempting explanation was that she was trying to provide a hawkish counterbalance .
Cheney was later elected to the House in 2016 where she often found herself at odds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ withdrawal of troops from Syria a “ catastrophic mistake ” ( a Cheney knows one when she sees one ) and challenged him when he tried to end the war in Afghanistan .
This led Trump to call her out on Twitter , while Congressman Matt Gaetz tried to remove her as the Republican House conference chair .
Yet that was then—the Age of Trump is over now , and Cheney ’ s admirers seem to think it ’ s about to be succeeded by the Second Age of Thatcher .
“ She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or somebody like that in history , ” one Republican congressman said of Cheney to Politico , which then took the comparison and ran .
The Politico piece noted that Cheney has aspirations to be speaker of the House and could one day aim even higher .
If your goal is to take the GOP back to its most unpopular and discredited policies , then I suppose Thatcherism is one way to gift-wrap it ( “ the lady ’ s not for learning ” ? )
.
Yet Liz Cheney also isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U-turn to the Bush years .
There are perhaps almost four others .
Bill Kristol has emerged from his Twitter gopher hole , quoting Winston Churchill ’ s wisdom on mail-in ballots and demanding that Trump supporters pay a price ( presumably they can do so with oil revenues ) .
Tom Cotton , the most hawkish member of the Senate , who ’ s attempted to fuse support for Bushist wars with Trumpian nationalism , was spotted crunching around New Hampshire last month , where he didn ’ t even bother to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential run .
The Bushies are aiming to influence the incoming Biden administration as well , though it remains to be seen whether he ’ ll listen to them .
Biden ’ s own foreign policy record is mixed : it hit a nadir back in 2006 when he emerged Caesar-like to demand that all Iraq be divided into three parts , an insane act of “ soft ” partitioning that would have heightened sectarian violence rather than tamping it down .
Yet he also claims to have advised Barack Obama not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on how he responds to the European Union ’ s renewed calls for intervention in Libya , which are unlikely to go ahead without American support .
Keep an eye , too , on Azerbaijan and Armenia , between which a peace deal has just been signed that ’ s boosted Russia , a Biden bogey .
So far , about the best that can be said is that Biden hasn ’ t personally involved Darth Vader himself .
It is not true , as CNN allegedly reported , that one of Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to bring in Dick Cheney as an advisor on foreign policy .
That rumor flew around Twitter last week , prompting every realist and restrainer to reach for the antacid .
Fortunately it ’ s been shot down…or has it ?
I just spoke to an intelligence source codenamed Curveball…or Absinthe or Rutabaga—it doesn ’ t matter , really—who told me Cheney actually is advising Biden .
And shouldn ’ t we pressure the CIA to take another look ?
What if Cheney ’ s involvement is really a slam dunk ?
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump ’ s falsehoods are like stars , a million points of light that taken together can be blinding .
But before that , there was the big lie , Iraq ’ s weapons of mass destruction , the mobile biological weapons labs , the chemical decontamination trucks , the titanium death ray tugboats , the whole ridiculous list .
This was not the same as Thatcherism whose cardinal military effort was to kick an Argentine junta out of an island chain full of sheep farms .
Thatcher opposed sanctions against apartheid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the grounds that it wasn ’ t in Britain ’ s national interest .
Bushism was several million swings of the handbag beyond that , so extreme and idealistic that an equally jarring correction was inevitable , and so it came .
The real smoking gun wasn ’ t a mushroom cloud , as it turned out ; it was an orange and toupeed cruise missile pointed at the heart of our political system .
It wasn ’ t that Bushism was overtaken by Trumpism as two ideologies in competition .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanting in Afghanistan and then again in Iraq and then one more time for good measure in Libya .
So back to the original metaphor : what lies ahead on the road for conservatives ?
Lots of post-Trump potholes and uneven pavement , surely , along with a little indulgent rubbernecking at the pileup on the left side of the highway .
( Picture AOC behind the wheel of a big rig filled with propane . )
Yet one thing is clear : there can be no U-turn to Bushism .
There can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might appear statesmanlike yet was really dishonest and grandiose .
There can be no gauzy nostalgia for what ’ s best left in the past .

I’m stealing the title of this column from David Brooks. I’m doing so because I’m slowly turning into one of those “bourgeois bohemians” he warned us about, and among the signs of BoBo decadence is low-grade plagiarism.
All the way back in 2007, Brooks wrote a piece for the New York Times called “No U-Turns” in which he exhorted conservatives not to return to what recently hadn’t worked. And by that he meant…Barry Goldwater. As Iraq burned, as the federal government shoveled money into an incinerator, Brooks was worried the damned libertarians might start getting ideas. “The Republican Party, which still talks as if government were the biggest threat to choice, has lost touch with independent voters,” he pronounced.
Three years later, the Tea Party would sweep the GOP back into power on a message of government being the biggest threat to choice in health care. And given that these days there’s an inverse relationship between how interesting a writer is and how much time he spends leering at the libertarian gremlins in his head, my “no U-turn” sign is not going to point to a vanishingly small speed bump of fiscal responsibility in the rear-view. It’s going to point instead at the ideology once associated with David Brooks: Bushism.
Donald Trump might be on his way out, but that doesn’t mean George W. Bush gets to come back in.
It feels strange we even have to say this. Certainly conservatives have been invoking Ronald Reagan’s presidency since practically before Ronald Reagan became president, but Bush has always been a less settled figure. The MAGA crowd outright hates him, viewing his oeuvre of wars and globalization as everything Trump was elected to stop. The average Republican probably takes a more charitable view, though still haunted by the sense that something went terribly wrong during his presidency. It may even be that Bush himself feels this way. Anyone who spends that much time painting war veterans has to have his own Dorian Gray picture stashed in a closet somewhere.
Yet there’s a third group at work here, a front of diehard Bushies who, like the Japanese soldiers stranded in the Pacific, never got the memo that the world had moved on. Now they’re hoping to fill whatever post-Trump vacuum might open up in the GOP. The most prominent among them is Liz Cheney, the congresswoman and daughter of former acting president Dick Cheney, who has inherited her father’s foreign policy exactly. Cheney first blipped on the radar back in 2014 when she mounted a seemingly random primary challenge to Wyoming Senator Mike Enzi (she dropped out before the election). Given that a handful of relatively dovish lawmakers like Rand Paul were then ascendant, a tempting explanation was that she was trying to provide a hawkish counterbalance.
Cheney was later elected to the House in 2016 where she often found herself at odds with Trump. She called his non-withdrawal withdrawal of troops from Syria a “catastrophic mistake” (a Cheney knows one when she sees one) and challenged him when he tried to end the war in Afghanistan. This led Trump to call her out on Twitter, while Congressman Matt Gaetz tried to remove her as the Republican House conference chair. Yet that was then—the Age of Trump is over now, and Cheney’s admirers seem to think it’s about to be succeeded by the Second Age of Thatcher. “She kind of reminds you of Margaret Thatcher or somebody like that in history,” one Republican congressman said of Cheney to Politico, which then took the comparison and ran. The Politico piece noted that Cheney has aspirations to be speaker of the House and could one day aim even higher.
If your goal is to take the GOP back to its most unpopular and discredited policies, then I suppose Thatcherism is one way to gift-wrap it (“the lady’s not for learning”?). Yet Liz Cheney also isn’t the only one who wants a U-turn to the Bush years. There are perhaps almost four others. Bill Kristol has emerged from his Twitter gopher hole, quoting Winston Churchill’s wisdom on mail-in ballots and demanding that Trump supporters pay a price (presumably they can do so with oil revenues). Tom Cotton, the most hawkish member of the Senate, who’s attempted to fuse support for Bushist wars with Trumpian nationalism, was spotted crunching around New Hampshire last month, where he didn’t even bother to hide that he was plotting a 2024 presidential run.
The Bushies are aiming to influence the incoming Biden administration as well, though it remains to be seen whether he’ll listen to them. Biden’s own foreign policy record is mixed: it hit a nadir back in 2006 when he emerged Caesar-like to demand that all Iraq be divided into three parts, an insane act of “soft” partitioning that would have heightened sectarian violence rather than tamping it down. Yet he also claims to have advised Barack Obama not to invade Libya. Keep an eye now on how he responds to the European Union’s renewed calls for intervention in Libya, which are unlikely to go ahead without American support. Keep an eye, too, on Azerbaijan and Armenia, between which a peace deal has just been signed that’s boosted Russia, a Biden bogey.
So far, about the best that can be said is that Biden hasn’t personally involved Darth Vader himself. It is not true, as CNN allegedly reported, that one of Biden’s first acts as president-elect was to bring in Dick Cheney as an advisor on foreign policy. That rumor flew around Twitter last week, prompting every realist and restrainer to reach for the antacid. Fortunately it’s been shot down…or has it? I just spoke to an intelligence source codenamed Curveball…or Absinthe or Rutabaga—it doesn’t matter, really—who told me Cheney actually is advising Biden. And shouldn’t we pressure the CIA to take another look? What if Cheney’s involvement is really a slam dunk?
And that’s just it right there. Trump’s falsehoods are like stars, a million points of light that taken together can be blinding. But before that, there was the big lie, Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, the mobile biological weapons labs, the chemical decontamination trucks, the titanium death ray tugboats, the whole ridiculous list. This was not the same as Thatcherism whose cardinal military effort was to kick an Argentine junta out of an island chain full of sheep farms. Thatcher opposed sanctions against apartheid South Africa, for goodness sake, on the grounds that it wasn’t in Britain’s national interest. Bushism was several million swings of the handbag beyond that, so extreme and idealistic that an equally jarring correction was inevitable, and so it came. The real smoking gun wasn’t a mushroom cloud, as it turned out; it was an orange and toupeed cruise missile pointed at the heart of our political system.
It wasn’t that Bushism was overtaken by Trumpism as two ideologies in competition. It was that it was tried and found wanting in Afghanistan and then again in Iraq and then one more time for good measure in Libya. So back to the original metaphor: what lies ahead on the road for conservatives? Lots of post-Trump potholes and uneven pavement, surely, along with a little indulgent rubbernecking at the pileup on the left side of the highway. (Picture AOC behind the wheel of a big rig filled with propane.) Yet one thing is clear: there can be no U-turn to Bushism. There can be no going back to what now might appear statesmanlike yet was really dishonest and grandiose. There can be no gauzy nostalgia for what’s best left in the past.