theamericanconservative--2020-02-19--Tulsi’s Populist ‘Country-First’ Anti-War Crusade

She 's hitting all the right notes for many Americans and plans to take her campaign all the way to the convention .
Tulsi Gabbard and supporters at a Presidents Day campaign event in Fairfax , Virginia .
( Hunter DeRensis ) Is there a better time for a presidential townhall than on President ’ s Day ?
And is there a better place than the Old Town Hall in the heart of Fairfax , Virginia ?
Built in 1900 , this small , neoclassical-styled building , with wood pillars sprouting from floor to ceiling in the middle of its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same communal assemblies that the Old Dominion was founded on 400 years ago .
It was here that Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii spoke Monday to over 200 supporters gathered ahead of the March 3 Democratic primary .
And gather they did .
An hour before she was supposed to speak , a line was already forming down the sidewalk .
A man near the front door held a “ Tulsi 2020 ” sign out towards the road .
When asked if he was on her staff , he responded that he wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ event ; he had brought the sign from home .
The other attendees were similarly clad in Tulsi gear , holding signs , wearing shirts , and sporting “ Veterans for Gabbard ” hats .
These were not undecided voters on a curiosity trip , but the enthusiastic base of a candidate most of the people driving past wouldn ’ t even recognize .
A combat veteran and major in the U.S. National Guard , Gabbard has made ending America ’ s policy of “ regime change wars ” the core of her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over war profiteering , ” said Carl Holland , introducing the candidate to unanimous applause .
But on this occasion , foreign policy was not the focus of her stump speech .
“ What is it that makes people hate politics ?
” she asked the crowd after her customary “ aloha ” greeting .
She believes it ’ s the same reasons that she finds it off-putting : “ I hate the pay-to-play politics that rules the day in Washington.
” She hates the hyper-partisanship , the politicians “ who love to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ listen , ” and the leaders who carelessly “ send our nation ’ s sons and daughters off to fight in wars that have nothing to do with our country ’ s national security.
” Taking advantage of the holiday , she spoke about being inspired by Abraham Lincoln and his 1858 “ House Divided ” speech .
She described a country still divided today , on matters of politics , race , gender , and even “ what cable news channel you watch.
” Briefly contrasting what she hates with what she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I love our country .
I love the people of this country.
” Multiple times she used the phrase “ Country First ” to describe her policies and her movement .
The difference in intentions between her slogan and Donald Trump ’ s “ America First ” would be hard to parse .
Gabbard ’ s example of putting Country First was the First Step Act , a criminal justice bill passed by large bipartisan majorities in December 2018 .
The law enacted new dignity provisions for prisoners and resulted in the release @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of her party who “ did not want to give Trump a win , who stood in the way of this legislation passing.
” To those legislators who “ put politics ahead of people , shame on you , ” she said .
For Gabbard , the corruption in the system doesn ’ t stop with her fellow elected officials or the “ high-powered lobbyists… [ who ] stack the odds against the people.
” It includes those in “ the corporate media trying to silence our voices because we dare speak the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Like clockwork , when a woman in the audience asked about the OPCW whistleblower who has challenged the United Nations ’ conclusions about the alleged Douma chemical attack in Syria , members of the print media darted their heads up and scurried closer to the stage to try to get a potentially scandalous soundbite .
Gabbard responded by saying she has sent multiple letters to the OPCW inquiring about the whistleblower situation , but had not yet received satisfactory answers .
She promised to keep trying .
The candidate closed her speech by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my personal commitment that as your president , my sole mission every single day will be serving you and only you.
” Her strategy for winning the White House would be “ not taking people for granted , reaching out , and treating every American with respect.
” After answering questions about health care , small business , and climate change , Gabbard stepped away from the podium and her fans lined up for pictures and a handshake .
Meanwhile , her husband Abraham walked the room , chatting with people and recording @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the unscientific poll of raised hands , the attendees were one third Democrat , one third Republican , and one third “ independent , Libertarian , or Green.
” They were overwhelmingly from Northern Virginia or Maryland , with very few from Washington , D.C .
Multiple families attended , some of whose kids presented Tulsi with homemade drawings .
One family , with their two adolescent children present and husky dog tied up outside , drove all the way from West Virginia .
When everyone had dispersed , The American Conservative was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Gabbard has been explicit in her condemnations of “ radical Islam , ” and she ’ s referred to the war on terror as an ideological war as much as a military one .
When asked to specify whether she believes the terrorism against the West is the result of religious extremism or if it ’ s a consequence of foreign military interventions and their subsequent blowback , she appeared to lean more to the latter .
“ It ’ s a combination of the radical , Wahhabi-Salafist ideology that serves as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrorist organizations like ISIS and al-Qaeda , that motivates them in their terror actions.
” Gabbard told TAC , “ But it ’ s also when you see how our regime change wars have had a direct impact .
Not in going in and defeating terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda , but actually serving to only strengthen them.
” A Monmouth poll released the day after her townhall listed Gabbard ’ s support in Virginia at 1 percent .
This is similar to the national polls where she places last among the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nomination .
Gabbard has previously announced that she ’ s declining to run for reelection to the House ( after four terms ) and that she ’ s taking her presidential campaign all the way to the Democratic convention in June .
Where this will put the 38-year-old come January 2021 is anyone ’ s guess .
But whether in the White House or retired from politics , Tulsi Gabbard plans to continue putting Country First .
Hunter DeRensis is a reporter with The National Interest and a regular contributor to The American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HunterDeRensis .

Is there a better time for a presidential townhall than on President’s Day? And is there a better place than the Old Town Hall in the heart of Fairfax, Virginia? Built in 1900, this small, neoclassical-styled building, with wood pillars sprouting from floor to ceiling in the middle of its main room, brings to mind the same communal assemblies that the Old Dominion was founded on 400 years ago.
It was here that Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii spoke Monday to over 200 supporters gathered ahead of the March 3 Democratic primary.
And gather they did. An hour before she was supposed to speak, a line was already forming down the sidewalk. A man near the front door held a “Tulsi 2020” sign out towards the road. When asked if he was on her staff, he responded that he wasn’t even a volunteer for the event; he had brought the sign from home. The other attendees were similarly clad in Tulsi gear, holding signs, wearing shirts, and sporting “Veterans for Gabbard” hats. These were not undecided voters on a curiosity trip, but the enthusiastic base of a candidate most of the people driving past wouldn’t even recognize.
A combat veteran and major in the U.S. National Guard, Gabbard has made ending America’s policy of “regime change wars” the core of her campaign platform. “She puts peace over war profiteering,” said Carl Holland, introducing the candidate to unanimous applause. But on this occasion, foreign policy was not the focus of her stump speech.
“What is it that makes people hate politics?” she asked the crowd after her customary “aloha” greeting. She believes it’s the same reasons that she finds it off-putting: “I hate the pay-to-play politics that rules the day in Washington.” She hates the hyper-partisanship, the politicians “who love to talk a lot but refuse to actually listen,” and the leaders who carelessly “send our nation’s sons and daughters off to fight in wars that have nothing to do with our country’s national security.”
Taking advantage of the holiday, she spoke about being inspired by Abraham Lincoln and his 1858 “House Divided” speech. She described a country still divided today, on matters of politics, race, gender, and even “what cable news channel you watch.”
Briefly contrasting what she hates with what she loves, Gabbard said unreservedly, “I love our country. I love the people of this country.” Multiple times she used the phrase “Country First” to describe her policies and her movement. The difference in intentions between her slogan and Donald Trump’s “America First” would be hard to parse.
Gabbard’s example of putting Country First was the First Step Act, a criminal justice bill passed by large bipartisan majorities in December 2018. The law enacted new dignity provisions for prisoners and resulted in the release of 7,000 people. Gabbard described members of her party who “did not want to give Trump a win, who stood in the way of this legislation passing.” To those legislators who “put politics ahead of people, shame on you,” she said.
For Gabbard, the corruption in the system doesn’t stop with her fellow elected officials or the “high-powered lobbyists…[who] stack the odds against the people.” It includes those in “the corporate media trying to silence our voices because we dare speak the truth” about regime change wars. Like clockwork, when a woman in the audience asked about the OPCW whistleblower who has challenged the United Nations’ conclusions about the alleged Douma chemical attack in Syria, members of the print media darted their heads up and scurried closer to the stage to try to get a potentially scandalous soundbite.
Gabbard responded by saying she has sent multiple letters to the OPCW inquiring about the whistleblower situation, but had not yet received satisfactory answers. She promised to keep trying.
The candidate closed her speech by telling the crowd, “You have my personal commitment that as your president, my sole mission every single day will be serving you and only you.” Her strategy for winning the White House would be “not taking people for granted, reaching out, and treating every American with respect.”
After answering questions about health care, small business, and climate change, Gabbard stepped away from the podium and her fans lined up for pictures and a handshake. Meanwhile, her husband Abraham walked the room, chatting with people and recording the event on his phone.
In the unscientific poll of raised hands, the attendees were one third Democrat, one third Republican, and one third “independent, Libertarian, or Green.” They were overwhelmingly from Northern Virginia or Maryland, with very few from Washington, D.C. Multiple families attended, some of whose kids presented Tulsi with homemade drawings. One family, with their two adolescent children present and husky dog tied up outside, drove all the way from West Virginia.
When everyone had dispersed, The American Conservative was given an opportunity to ask a question. Gabbard has been explicit in her condemnations of “radical Islam,” and she’s referred to the war on terror as an ideological war as much as a military one. When asked to specify whether she believes the terrorism against the West is the result of religious extremism or if it’s a consequence of foreign military interventions and their subsequent blowback, she appeared to lean more to the former.
“It’s a combination of the radical, Wahhabi-Salafist ideology that serves as the fuel and the recruiting ground for terrorist organizations like ISIS and al-Qaeda, that motivates them in their terror actions.” Gabbard told TAC, “But it’s also when you see how our regime change wars have had a direct impact. Not in going in and defeating terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda, but actually serving to only strengthen them.”
A Monmouth poll released the day after her townhall listed Gabbard’s support in Virginia at 1 percent. This is similar to the national polls where she places last among the eight candidates still running for the Democratic nomination. Gabbard has previously announced that she’s declining to run for reelection to the House (after four terms) and that she’s taking her presidential campaign all the way to the Democratic convention in July. Where this will put the 38-year-old come January 2021 is anyone’s guess. But whether in the White House or retired from politics, Tulsi Gabbard plans to continue putting Country First.
Hunter DeRensis is a reporter with The National Interest and a regular contributor to The American Conservative. Follow him on Twitter @HunterDeRensis.


theamericanconservative--2020-02-21--Michael Bloomberg Gets Stopped and Frisked

He came up short in the Nevada debate .
But he might still be the Democrats ' best shot at stopping Sanders .
Democratic presidential candidate former New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg speaks during the Democratic presidential primary debate at Paris Las Vegas on February 19 , 2020 in Las Vegas , Nevada .
( Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images ) Wednesday night in Las Vegas , Mayor Mike Bloomberg learned what it is like to be thrown up against a wall and frisked .
At the opening of the Democratic debate , his first , Mayor Mike was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Senator Elizabeth Warren , with this warm welcome : “ We ’ re running against…a billionaire who calls women ‘ fat broads ’ and ‘ horse-faced lesbians.
’ And , no , I ’ m not talking about Donald Trump .
I ’ m talking about Mayor Bloomberg.
” Bloomberg was not only charged with misogyny and sexism but racism for his stop-and-frisk policy , which the NYPD pursued during his three terms as mayor .
By Bloomberg ’ s own admission , stop and frisk singled out black men between the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were the positive results of the policy .
Gun homicides in New York fell to levels below those attained by his predecessor , Rudy Giuliani .
And if those most often frisked were black and Hispanic men , the lives saved and the woundings prevented were also mostly those of people of color .
Yet a question that remains after this debate was one that was puzzling even before the debate .
Why did he do it ?
Why did Bloomberg , who is not on the Nevada or South Carolina ballot , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contests ?
Today the mayor ’ s campaign is probably buying tens of millions of dollars in ads to undo the damage done to him under the remorseless fire on his character , campaign , and record from his rivals Wednesday night .
These attacks were predictable and predicted .
Why did he submit to this ?
Who counseled Bloomberg to climb into the ring ?
By investing $ 350 million in ads in primary states since November and crafting scheduled appearances while avoiding adversarial talk shows and candidate debates , Bloomberg had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tier of candidates in every state on Super Tuesday .
Why did he abandon a winning strategy to walk out , unprepared , onto a stage full of enraged and exasperated rivals who think he is buying and stealing a nomination for which they have fought for a year ?
Why did he volunteer to enter a forum where he had to know his rivals would become a flash mob before he answered his first question ?
This was campaign malpractice of historic dimensions .
It is going to take hundreds of millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the damage done to Bloomberg ’ s reputation among the millions of voters who got their first impression of the mayor from the debate .
Where does the race stand before Saturday ’ s caucuses in Nevada ?
Senator Bernie Sanders , his energy restored after his heart attack a few months back , his lines honed by a year ’ s repetition , was at the top of his game Wednesday night , fending off attacks and fighting back with a passion and ferocity that Bloomberg never exhibited .
With his popular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , five national polls showing him taking the lead from Joe Biden , and contributions pouring in from his huge army of small donors , Sanders is the favorite to win in Nevada and the man to stop .
And after Super Tuesday , March 3 , he may be unstoppable .
A new Washington Post poll Wednesday showed Sanders with a huge lead among young voters and in a statistical tie with Joe Biden among African Americans .
And he is flush with cash .
March 4 could see Sanders with an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enter the Milwaukee convention with a majority of delegates or a plurality so huge as to make it politically impossible for his adversaries to gang up on him and take the nomination away .
For who would be the beneficiary of such a robbery on the convention floor ?
The same Bloomberg his rivals described Wednesday night as a misogynist , sexist , and racist .
Bloomberg ’ s campaign is sounding the alarm that Sanders could soon amass an insurmountable delegate lead if the Democratic field stays split , and is urging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mayor Pete Buttigieg , Senator Amy Klobuchar , and Vice President Biden are being told that if they do not get out of the race and clear the lane for the mayor , they will get a socialist as their nominee , and the party will deserve the fate November will bring—a second term for Trump .
Bloomberg ’ s strategist Kevin Sheekey was pointedly warned by staffers on Thursday : “ If Biden , Buttigieg , and Klobuchar remain in the race despite having no path to appreciably collecting delegates on Super @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will propel Sanders to a seemingly insurmountable delegate lead by siphoning votes away from ( Bloomberg ) .
” As the other candidates can not beat Sanders , Bloomberg ’ s campaign is saying , they should step aside and clear the field for Mayor Mike .
This would call for a spirit of self-sacrifice and measure of esteem for the mayor not evident on that stage Wednesday night .
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon ’ s White House Wars : The Battles That Made and Broke a President and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists , visit the Creators website at www.creators.com .

Wednesday night in Las Vegas, Mayor Mike Bloomberg learned what it is like to be thrown up against a wall and frisked.
At the opening of the Democratic debate, his first, Mayor Mike was greeted by his nearest neighbor on stage, Senator Elizabeth Warren, with this warm welcome: “We’re running against…a billionaire who calls women ‘fat broads’ and ‘horse-faced lesbians.’ And, no, I’m not talking about Donald Trump. I’m talking about Mayor Bloomberg.”
Bloomberg was not only charged with misogyny and sexism but racism for his stop-and-frisk policy, which the NYPD pursued during his three terms as mayor. By Bloomberg’s own admission, stop and frisk singled out black men between the ages of 16 and 25.
Undiscussed were the positive results of the policy.
Gun homicides in New York fell to levels below those attained by his predecessor, Rudy Giuliani. And if those most often frisked were black and Hispanic men, the lives saved and the woundings prevented were also mostly those of people of color.
Yet a question that remains after this debate was one that was puzzling even before the debate.
Why did he do it? Why did Bloomberg, who is not on the Nevada or South Carolina ballot, decide to join the debates before these contests?
Today the mayor’s campaign is probably buying tens of millions of dollars in ads to undo the damage done to him under the remorseless fire on his character, campaign, and record from his rivals Wednesday night.
These attacks were predictable and predicted. Why did he submit to this? Who counseled Bloomberg to climb into the ring?
By investing $350 million in ads in primary states since November and crafting scheduled appearances while avoiding adversarial talk shows and candidate debates, Bloomberg had propelled himself from nowhere into the top tier of candidates in every state on Super Tuesday.
Why did he abandon a winning strategy to walk out, unprepared, onto a stage full of enraged and exasperated rivals who think he is buying and stealing a nomination for which they have fought for a year?
Why did he volunteer to enter a forum where he had to know his rivals would become a flash mob before he answered his first question? This was campaign malpractice of historic dimensions.
It is going to take hundreds of millions of dollars in new ads to undo the damage done to Bloomberg’s reputation among the millions of voters who got their first impression of the mayor from the debate.
Where does the race stand before Saturday’s caucuses in Nevada?
Senator Bernie Sanders, his energy restored after his heart attack a few months back, his lines honed by a year’s repetition, was at the top of his game Wednesday night, fending off attacks and fighting back with a passion and ferocity that Bloomberg never exhibited.
With his popular vote victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, five national polls showing him taking the lead from Joe Biden, and contributions pouring in from his huge army of small donors, Sanders is the favorite to win in Nevada and the man to stop.
And after Super Tuesday, March 3, he may be unstoppable.
A new Washington Post poll Wednesday showed Sanders with a huge lead among young voters and in a statistical tie with Joe Biden among African Americans. And he is flush with cash.
March 4 could see Sanders with an almost insurmountable lead that could have him enter the Milwaukee convention with a majority of delegates or a plurality so huge as to make it politically impossible for his adversaries to gang up on him and take the nomination away.
For who would be the beneficiary of such a robbery on the convention floor? The same Bloomberg his rivals described Wednesday night as a misogynist, sexist, and racist.
Bloomberg’s campaign is sounding the alarm that Sanders could soon amass an insurmountable delegate lead if the Democratic field stays split, and is urging the other candidates to drop out.
Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Senator Amy Klobuchar, and Vice President Biden are being told that if they do not get out of the race and clear the lane for the mayor, they will get a socialist as their nominee, and the party will deserve the fate November will bring—a second term for Trump.
Bloomberg’s strategist Kevin Sheekey was pointedly warned by staffers on Thursday: “If Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar remain in the race despite having no path to appreciably collecting delegates on Super Tuesday (and beyond), they will propel Sanders to a seemingly insurmountable delegate lead by siphoning votes away from (Bloomberg).”
As the other candidates cannot beat Sanders, Bloomberg’s campaign is saying, they should step aside and clear the field for Mayor Mike. This would call for a spirit of self-sacrifice and measure of esteem for the mayor not evident on that stage Wednesday night.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.


theamericanconservative--2020-02-21--Which One of These Candidates Can Beat Trump?

On a Tuesday night in New Hampshire in February , Peter Buttigieg , the 38-year-old , former mayor of South Bend , Indiana , congratulated his principal rival on “ a strong showing.
” Buttigieg had essentially just finished second in a consecutive contest , edged out again by a Vermont socialist , Bernie Sanders , more than twice his age and quadruply as popular among Buttigieg ’ s own age demographic .
Buttigieg shrewdly pretended it wasn ’ t so .
“ I admired Senator Sanders when I was a high school [ student ] , I respect him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neoliberal valiance remarked , all but explicitly saying that unlike his septuagenarian foe , he ’ d put childish things away , as he attempted to meme himself into the presidency , results be damned .
Because of the Democrats ’ proportional , not winner-take-all voting system , the Left is poised to embark upon a brutal slog of a primary .
Add in the mysterious superdelegate system , and Buttigieg is not over-imaginative to think he ’ s holding three of a kind : raw personal and campaign intelligence ; the young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He has serious limitations : a paucity of support among African Americans , the party ’ s foundation , and limp national numbers .
But chaos is his ace in the hole , which is why Buttigieg often speaks as if he ’ s about to preside over a neoliberal coup d ’ etat .
Maybe he is .
The Democratic Party , and America , is in the primaveral months of a new decade .
There is a spooky lack of clarity , a canvas seemingly wide open for painting .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ will have either ratified or rejected Trumpist nationalism , and some days , both sides seem almost trying to lose .
Pick your poison : the Democrats ’ labyrinth election system and zealous proceduralism , or the administration ’ s policy nihilism .
If America elects Pete Buttigieg , Michael Bloomberg , or Amy Klobuchar , it will have shown an electorate thirsty for technocratic restoration .
If it taps Bernie Sanders , expect a run on the bookstores : volumes on Karl Marx and treatises on “ accelerationism ” will be in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points , so too will most other consumer goods .
As Congressman Matt Gaetz puts it , get ready for “ the Venezuela wing ” of the Democratic Party .
If Elizabeth Warren sneaks in there , it will have shown that the time for a woman has come , and not just because , unlike in 2016 , the woman in question said that the time for a woman had come .
And if Joe Biden celebrates his 80th birthday in the White House , America will have shown itself ready for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Will the Trump era hold , cohere , and move forward into the new decade ?
With the president now acquitted of high crimes and misdemeanors , it ’ s a prospect that seems to have grown more likely by the week , despite the principal ’ s unusual behavior , underwhelming delivery on key items ( the wall ? )
, and national exhaustion .
In what would make for painful viewing , a Trump rout over a somnolent Joe Biden no longer sounds implausible .
Unlike a year ago , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ barreling towards the last station of his career , a stinging , brutal third presidential defeat .
Those in personal contact with the president have long assured me the White House prefers to face the former vice president , an idea that seemed fanciful in the summer , if the president ’ s hijinks in Ukraine were any indication .
But the mother of all negative indicators , former House speaker Paul Ryan , recently gave the flagging pol the kiss of death , saying his old debate foe from 2012 would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firewall in the Democratic South is fearsome and could prolong the agony , but the left seems poised to , eventually , crib a line from Donald Trump : “ You ’ re fired.
” A haze of unease dominates the zeitgeist in Washington and on the trail .
Sanders is winning , but not galloping to the nomination .
Turnout appears uneven , not electric .
For the Right , what if the “ Clinton corruption ” playbook from 2016 can ’ t be recycled , at least effectively ?
And if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what exactly is “ the Left ” anymore , anyway , and how would it govern ?
If you believe the pages of some right-wing rags , “ the Left , ” historically dedicated to ameliorating inequality , is the country ’ s rich and beautiful people : Big Tech , Wall Street , and Hollywood .
That definition is incomplete and elides the prospect of a major , serious socialist lurch .
The rhetoric of the Right in America has taken on an acidic tone , I submit , not just because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but because it no longer fully understands its foe .
A fear and loathing permeates the president ’ s base .
As a former senior administration official told me in his offices recently when asked about the president ’ s re-election chances : “ I simply do not know.
” One tension , and the biggest wild card , is generational .
The complaints of the young—about housing , about healthcare , about education , about war , about , yes , gender fluidity—seem a world away from the crystallizing crises of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some , not all , of Trump ’ s rump .
Writing in First Things , Peter Thiel argues , paraphrasing Ross Douthat , that we are in a “ boomer culture loop.
” Thiel , who has made a career betting big money on young people , says : “ Now the old family structure has been smashed , religion is in decline , patriotism is passé , and the cultural marketplace is fragmented .
Because there is no longer a healthy dominant culture , would-be rebels have nothing to resist .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ previous age.
” Are Wall Street—which has priced in Trump ’ s victory—and the White House also miscalculating ?
Is America in 2020 about to witness an unexpected , revolutionary changing of the guard ?
Millennials and Gen Z , or the zoomers , are projected to be over a third of the electorate in 2020 , according to Pew Research .
What if the overclass is missing the trend ?
Bernie Sanders , the rapturous favorite of young people , is not George McGovern in 1972 or Jeremy Corbyn in 2019 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have posited , closer to Ronald Reagan in 1980 .
An ancien regime , in this rendering , is ripe for obliteration .
The collapse of America ’ s international prestige ( the Iraq war and its cousins ) , internal stability ( the financial crisis ) , and political guardrails ( the ascension of Trump ) has quietly radicalized young people , the furthest , most consistently left-wing generation in the country ’ s history , if you believe polling , which many on the Right , unwisely , do not .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be the preoccupation with oil shocks , inflation , and the mullahs of Tehran , and in will be concerns around family formation ( a concern which will find rightist allies ) , heinous inequality , a defeated empire ( an issue set which will find restrainer allies ) , and environmental apocalypse .
This is the issue set of the Millennial generation and its cousins .
The gas lines of 1979 are the Great Lakes Borrowing Company of 2020 .
The hostages in Tehran are the horrors America itself is poised to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if no one is making any money at all .
The fourth plank of the Boomer issue set , urban crime , as the cities again teem with the upwardly mobile , may have a singular shelf life .
There are early signs of a monstrous comeback for midtown mania .
It is , sadly , unmasked on the streets of San Francisco .
For the Trump re-election , fighting Biden versus fighting Bernie would be two radically different projects .
The team is all but officially helmed by Trump ’ s most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you know The Godfather , he ’ s the family ’ s Tom Hagen , unrelated by blood and untested in bloodsport .
The time has come for him to prove himself a wartime consigliere .
Kushner ’ s man , campaign manager Brad Parscale , frequently points to a strategy : consolidate the “ Blue Wall ” —Wisconsin , Michigan , and Pennsylvania—as a working class holdout for the Right , stretch the map into America ’ s sunshine , Virginia , Colorado and New Mexico , and court African Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and he says it all the time .
Clinton lost four years ago because of a sneak attack .
The Dems know Republicans are coming for Wisconsin , Michigan , and Pennsylvania this time—states not previously won since 1988—and they ’ ll be prepared .
They ’ ll peel back the tens of thousands , a relatively small number in electoral terms , that defected .
And they ’ ll do so with middle class Joe , with union Joe , with a white figure beloved by African Americans in a manner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a drink with Democratic operatives—or Republican ones—and they ’ ll note that many of the key Republican voters in the Blue Wall in 2016 are dead .
Studies of 2016 consistently show that some skeptical African Americans stayed home in 2016 ; they also thought the election was in the bag .
Parscale and Kushner have their work cut out for them , as some studies find that as many as eight in 10 black Americans think the president is a racist .
Biden ’ s strategy for success in the general is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary , as it heads south and west : union power , raw machine politics , and black enthusiasm .
Former Senate leader Harry Reid , a quiet Biden enthusiast , still runs Nevada .
Eric Garcetti , the powerful mayor of Los Angeles , is a johnny-come-lately to camp Biden .
He can ’ t be fully discounted , especially in the face of a panic attack from the Democratic establishment over Sanders .
Sanders ’ early success is overt but overcomeable .
Sanders would be a different animal .
He ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Left .
In one rendering , he regales the Rust Belt with tales of Trump ’ s unkept promises , overcomes suburban anxieties with a youthful show of force , and delivers a plucky performance with African Americans .
That goes doubly for the general .
Trump is confident , but anxious about Sanders .
I ’ m told directly that the president has fears over how to address Sanders ’ promises to wipe out student loan debt ; his instinct is to fight fire with fire , promising the same and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders could point out the cognitive dissonance between Trump and his own administration .
For every nice word about European healthcare , Americans have gotten a formal legislative proposal for Ryancare .
For every salvo toward negotiation with Iran , we ’ ve witnessed sanctions on the regime ’ s “ space program.
” For every Trump campaign promise not to cut the safety net , America has borne witness to budget proposals that say the opposite .
Or Sanders gets waxed .
The economy is simply too good , the demographics , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ woke ” cultural aspects of Sanders ’ repeat bid simply too tailor-made for too narrow a constituency .
There would be wacky , unexpected X-factors .
A Trump campaign official recently boasted to me that they could carry New Mexico , not in Republican sights since the days of George W. Bush , uniquely popular with Hispanics .
“ New Mexico just proposed free college ” for residents , the official told me .
Ordinarily New Mexico is awash in fracking wealth , sitting on “ a sea of money.
” Bernie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal ban on fracking .
The leading female candidates , to say nothing of the valiant but doomed effort by Tulsi Gabbard , have an opening .
But likely for vice president .
The hundred-year hope of a female executive in the White House will likely , though not certainly , have to wait at least another four-year cycle .
Warren staying in the race particularly harms Sanders and makes the possibility of a brokered convention less of a pipe dream and the parlance of political reporters than it usually is .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems plausible : putting the moderate Minnesotan on the ticket would be a double-barreled shotgun in the fight to retake the Midwest .
But maybe the answer to a brash billionaire is another brash billionaire .
Michael Bloomberg and his “ death star , ” as some are calling it , referring to his titanic fundraising and endorsement apparatus , can ’ t be ruled out .
The mayor of Trump ’ s town , Washington , D.C. , and his bete noire , San Francisco , have both endorsed Bloomberg , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s befriended and bestowed money upon over the years in political advocacy .
In some ways , he ’ s like Trump : a New York rockstar unafraid to offend .
Recently resurfaced comments about working with Russia sound just like Trump , much to establishment howls and shrieks .
Bloomberg seems to know the topography : America is an oligarchy , and let ’ s stop lying about it .
A New York Times profile in 2009 from his days as New York mayor captures the unsentimental , if uncritical , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Bloomberg asks for the best bottle of red wine in the house .
The restaurant manager seeks to elaborate on the wine and the billionaire stops him cold .
“ Is this your best bottle ?
” Bloomberg asked .
The restaurateur says yes .
“ OK , then , pour it.
” America , too , may be tired of picking wines .

On a Tuesday night in New Hampshire in February, Peter Buttigieg, the 38-year-old, former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, congratulated his principal rival on “a strong showing.” Buttigieg had essentially just finished second in a consecutive contest, edged out again by a Vermont socialist, Bernie Sanders, more than twice his age and quadruply as popular among Buttigieg’s own age demographic.
Buttigieg shrewdly pretended it wasn’t so. “I admired Senator Sanders when I was a high school [student], I respect him greatly to this day,” the neoliberal valiance remarked, all but explicitly saying that unlike his septuagenarian foe, he’d put childish things away, as he attempted to meme himself into the presidency, results be damned. Because of the Democrats’ proportional, not winner-take-all voting system, the Left is poised to embark upon a brutal slog of a primary.
Add in the mysterious superdelegate system, and Buttigieg is not over-imaginative to think he’s holding three of a kind: raw personal and campaign intelligence; the young, gay angle; and establishment enthusiasm. He has serious limitations: a paucity of support among African Americans, the party’s foundation, and limp national numbers. But chaos is his ace in the hole, which is why Buttigieg often speaks as if he’s about to preside over a neoliberal coup d’etat. Maybe he is.
The Democratic Party, and America, is in the primaveral months of a new decade. There is a spooky lack of clarity, a canvas seemingly wide open for painting. By New Year’s, America will have either ratified or rejected Trumpist nationalism, and some days, both sides seem almost trying to lose. Pick your poison: the Democrats’ labyrinth election system and zealous proceduralism, or the administration’s policy nihilism.
If America elects Pete Buttigieg, Michael Bloomberg, or Amy Klobuchar, it will have shown an electorate thirsty for technocratic restoration. If it taps Bernie Sanders, expect a run on the bookstores: volumes on Karl Marx and treatises on “accelerationism” will be in high demand—and if you believe GOP talking points, so too will most other consumer goods. As Congressman Matt Gaetz puts it, get ready for “the Venezuela wing” of the Democratic Party.
If Elizabeth Warren sneaks in there, it will have shown that the time for a woman has come, and not just because, unlike in 2016, the woman in question said that the time for a woman had come. And if Joe Biden celebrates his 80th birthday in the White House, America will have shown itself ready for somebody, anybody not named Donald Trump.
Will the Trump era hold, cohere, and move forward into the new decade? With the president now acquitted of high crimes and misdemeanors, it’s a prospect that seems to have grown more likely by the week, despite the principal’s unusual behavior, underwhelming delivery on key items (the wall?), and national exhaustion.
In what would make for painful viewing, a Trump rout over a somnolent Joe Biden no longer sounds implausible. Unlike a year ago, the Amtrak veteran now seems to be barreling towards the last station of his career, a stinging, brutal third presidential defeat. Those in personal contact with the president have long assured me the White House prefers to face the former vice president, an idea that seemed fanciful in the summer, if the president’s hijinks in Ukraine were any indication.
But the mother of all negative indicators, former House speaker Paul Ryan, recently gave the flagging pol the kiss of death, saying his old debate foe from 2012 would be strongest against Trump. Biden’s firewall in the Democratic South is fearsome and could prolong the agony, but the left seems poised to, eventually, crib a line from Donald Trump: “You’re fired.”
A haze of unease dominates the zeitgeist in Washington and on the trail. Sanders is winning, but not galloping to the nomination. Turnout appears uneven, not electric. For the Right, what if the “Clinton corruption” playbook from 2016 can’t be recycled, at least effectively? And if it were not a Trumpian triumph, what exactly is “the Left” anymore, anyway, and how would it govern?
If you believe the pages of some right-wing rags, “the Left,” historically dedicated to ameliorating inequality, is the country’s rich and beautiful people: Big Tech, Wall Street, and Hollywood. That definition is incomplete and elides the prospect of a major, serious socialist lurch. The rhetoric of the Right in America has taken on an acidic tone, I submit, not just because of the style of its standard-bearer, but because it no longer fully understands its foe. A fear and loathing permeates the president’s base.
As a former senior administration official told me in his offices recently when asked about the president’s re-election chances: “I simply do not know.”
One tension, and the biggest wild card, is generational. The complaints of the young—about housing, about healthcare, about education, about war, about, yes, gender fluidity—seem a world away from the crystallizing crises of the Baby Boomer generation that now serves as some, not all, of Trump’s rump.
Writing in First Things, Peter Thiel argues, paraphrasing Ross Douthat, that we are in a “boomer culture loop.” Thiel, who has made a career betting big money on young people, says: “Now the old family structure has been smashed, religion is in decline, patriotism is passé, and the cultural marketplace is fragmented. Because there is no longer a healthy dominant culture, would-be rebels have nothing to resist. So they playact the battles of a previous age.”
Are Wall Street—which has priced in Trump’s victory—and the White House also miscalculating? Is America in 2020 about to witness an unexpected, revolutionary changing of the guard? Millennials and Gen Z, or the zoomers, are projected to be over a third of the electorate in 2020, according to Pew Research. What if the overclass is missing the trend?
Bernie Sanders, the rapturous favorite of young people, is not George McGovern in 1972 or Jeremy Corbyn in 2019, but, as Ross Douthat and others have posited, closer to Ronald Reagan in 1980. An ancien regime, in this rendering, is ripe for obliteration.
The collapse of America’s international prestige (the Iraq war and its cousins), internal stability (the financial crisis), and political guardrails (the ascension of Trump) has quietly radicalized young people, the furthest, most consistently left-wing generation in the country’s history, if you believe polling, which many on the Right, unwisely, do not.
Were Sanders to succeed, gone will be the preoccupation with oil shocks, inflation, and the mullahs of Tehran, and in will be concerns around family formation (a concern which will find rightist allies), heinous inequality, a defeated empire (an issue set which will find restrainer allies), and environmental apocalypse. This is the issue set of the Millennial generation and its cousins. The gas lines of 1979 are the Great Lakes Borrowing Company of 2020. The hostages in Tehran are the horrors America itself is poised to visit on Tehran. Stagflation is irrelevant if no one is making any money at all.
The fourth plank of the Boomer issue set, urban crime, as the cities again teem with the upwardly mobile, may have a singular shelf life. There are early signs of a monstrous comeback for midtown mania. It is, sadly, unmasked on the streets of San Francisco.
For the Trump re-election, fighting Biden versus fighting Bernie would be two radically different projects. The team is all but officially helmed by Trump’s most senior counselor, son-in-law Jared Kushner. If you know The Godfather, he’s the family’s Tom Hagen, unrelated by blood and untested in bloodsport. The time has come for him to prove himself a wartime consigliere.
Kushner’s man, campaign manager Brad Parscale, frequently points to a strategy: consolidate the “Blue Wall”—Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania—as a working class holdout for the Right, stretch the map into America’s sunshine, Virginia, Colorado and New Mexico, and court African Americans.
Biden’s strategy is simple, and he says it all the time. Clinton lost four years ago because of a sneak attack. The Dems know Republicans are coming for Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania this time—states not previously won since 1988—and they’ll be prepared. They’ll peel back the tens of thousands, a relatively small number in electoral terms, that defected. And they’ll do so with middle class Joe, with union Joe, with a white figure beloved by African Americans in a manner not seen since Bill Clinton. Get a drink with Democratic operatives—or Republican ones—and they’ll note that many of the key Republican voters in the Blue Wall in 2016 are dead.
Studies of 2016 consistently show that some skeptical African Americans stayed home in 2016; they also thought the election was in the bag. Parscale and Kushner have their work cut out for them, as some studies find that as many as eight in 10 black Americans think the president is a racist. Biden’s strategy for success in the general is now his strategy for survival in the primary, as it heads south and west: union power, raw machine politics, and black enthusiasm. Former Senate leader Harry Reid, a quiet Biden enthusiast, still runs Nevada. Eric Garcetti, the powerful mayor of Los Angeles, is a johnny-come-lately to camp Biden. He can’t be fully discounted, especially in the face of a panic attack from the Democratic establishment over Sanders. Sanders’ early success is overt but overcomeable.
Sanders would be a different animal. He’s the high-risk, high-reward play for the Left. In one rendering, he regales the Rust Belt with tales of Trump’s unkept promises, overcomes suburban anxieties with a youthful show of force, and delivers a plucky performance with African Americans. That goes doubly for the general. Trump is confident, but anxious about Sanders. I’m told directly that the president has fears over how to address Sanders’ promises to wipe out student loan debt; his instinct is to fight fire with fire, promising the same and more. It could work, or Sanders could point out the cognitive dissonance between Trump and his own administration. For every nice word about European healthcare, Americans have gotten a formal legislative proposal for Ryancare. For every salvo toward negotiation with Iran, we’ve witnessed sanctions on the regime’s “space program.” For every Trump campaign promise not to cut the safety net, America has borne witness to budget proposals that say the opposite.
Or Sanders gets waxed. The economy is simply too good, the demographics, crudely, too Boomer, and the “woke” cultural aspects of Sanders’ repeat bid simply too tailor-made for too narrow a constituency. There would be wacky, unexpected X-factors. A Trump campaign official recently boasted to me that they could carry New Mexico, not in Republican sights since the days of George W. Bush, uniquely popular with Hispanics. “New Mexico just proposed free college” for residents, the official told me. Ordinarily New Mexico is awash in fracking wealth, sitting on “a sea of money.” Bernie Sanders? He’s proposed a federal ban on fracking.
The leading female candidates, to say nothing of the valiant but doomed effort by Tulsi Gabbard, have an opening. But likely for vice president. The hundred-year hope of a female executive in the White House will likely, though not certainly, have to wait at least another four-year cycle. Warren staying in the race particularly harms Sanders and makes the possibility of a brokered convention less of a pipe dream and the parlance of political reporters than it usually is. A consensus figure could reward her. Sanders-Klobuchar seems plausible: putting the moderate Minnesotan on the ticket would be a double-barreled shotgun in the fight to retake the Midwest.
But maybe the answer to a brash billionaire is another brash billionaire. Michael Bloomberg and his “death star,” as some are calling it, referring to his titanic fundraising and endorsement apparatus, can’t be ruled out. The mayor of Trump’s town, Washington, D.C., and his bete noire, San Francisco, have both endorsed Bloomberg, as have a slew of local officials he’s befriended and bestowed money upon over the years in political advocacy. In some ways, he’s like Trump: a New York rockstar unafraid to offend. Recently resurfaced comments about working with Russia sound just like Trump, much to establishment howls and shrieks. Bloomberg seems to know the topography: America is an oligarchy, and let’s stop lying about it.
A New York Times profile in 2009 from his days as New York mayor captures the unsentimental, if uncritical, but explosively decisive Bloomberg.
Over dinner, Bloomberg asks for the best bottle of red wine in the house. The restaurant manager seeks to elaborate on the wine and the billionaire stops him cold.
“Is this your best bottle?” Bloomberg asked. The restaurateur says yes. “OK, then, pour it.”
America, too, may be tired of picking wines.


theamericanconservative--2020-02-19--Attacks on Trump’s Fed Nominee Reveals the Central Bank’s Fatal Bias

Judy Shelton testifies before the Senate Banking , Housing and Urban Affairs Committee during a hearing on her nomination to be member-designate on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors on February 13 , 2020 in Washington , DC .
( Photo by Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images ) Last week , the Senate Banking Committee met to consider the nomination of Dr. Judy Shelton to the Federal Reserve Board .
The hostility toward Dr. Shelton was bipartisan—senators challenged her independence from President Donald Trump and characterized her thinking as too far outside the mainstream to trust with the nation ’ s economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is “ independent ” of Trump is a red herring .
The Fed is the most political and politicized agency in Washington , as evidenced by the work of its Washington staff to vilify Dr. Shelton .
Moreover , the Fed ’ s willingness to facilitate the Treasury ’ s massive fiscal imbalances seems to be without limit .
The biggest threat to Fed independence is the increasing tendency by Congress to treat the agency as a piggy bank whose resources can be tapped to fund pet projects , seemingly at zero cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Dr. Shelton is that she is a conservative who believes in free markets and , yes , has good things to say about gold as a monetary asset .
Since FDR did away with the gold standard in 1933 , the U.S. economy has been on a relative currency standard based on , well , nothing .
For this reason , it is possible to compare the dollar favorably to fraudulent “ crypto currencies ” such as bitcoin .
The only difference between the dollar and the bitcoin as a means of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declared legal tender in the United States and has gained a huge following offshore .
The Fed ’ s Board of Governors in Washington , which was created two decades after the advent of the central bank , is a decidedly New Deal institution where only left-of-center views are tolerated .
Some brave souls working at the regional reserve banks manage to pursue a relatively conservative line , but ideas like the gold standard and , more importantly , holding the Federal Reserve Board accountable for its actions are unwelcome .
As Walker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The Federal Reserve Board and the Rise of the Corporate State , ” the Fed has a long history as a proponent of economic policies that are antithetical to democratic , free markets : Not only did the Fed actively assist the FDR administration during the 1930s with its confiscation of gold , it became the guardian of liberal economic orthodoxy .
Within the administrative state , the Fed exists as the analog of the Soviet-era economic planning agency GOSPLAN , exercising control over the government ’ s economic research budget and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when it comes to monetary policy .
The anti-conservative tendencies of the Federal Reserve Board are well known within the system .
Paul Volcker , for example , led the rescue of the big banks in the 1980s by allowing an expansion of off-balance sheet lending .
He took extraordinary measures to prevent the nominations or appointments of respected economists and free market advocates like W. Lee Hoskins and Jerry L. Jordan to head other Reserve Banks .
Both Hoskins and later Jordan were appointed to the Cleveland Reserve Bank ’ s presidency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Hoskins in particular was the antithesis of Volcker , an unrepentant exponent of conservative , sound money theory who advocated making zero inflation a national goal .
He eventually left the Cleveland Fed to become president of the solid Huntington Bank in Columbus , which interestingly was among the last institutions to approve new bank loans for Chrysler in 1992 .
In the 1990s , Hoskins and other free market exponents believed that ill-managed banks should be allowed to fail and that federal deposit insurance was hurting rather than protecting the financial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risks that were in effect subsidized by the American taxpayer .
Dr. Shelton agrees with these views .
But this perspective , which represented mainstream American economic thought before the New Deal , is at odds with the Volcker view of avoiding “ systemic risk ” via public subsidies for large banks and other more generalized types of government intervention in the marketplace .
Dr. Shelton represents a breath of fresh air in an institution that for too long has been in the grip of a strange , neo-Keynesian , socialist tendency that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The malady affecting the Fed today is its consistency in following failed policies such as “ quantitative easing ” and other types of direct market intervention .
The unwarranted and poorly argued attacks on Dr. Judy Shelton are typical of the faulty reasoning and intellectual bias that seems to infect the media and Congress , particularly the Republicans , on the topic of Fed independence .
Members of the Senate , for example , take issue with the fact that Dr. Shelton might change her mind after considering new data .
The bigger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fed of New York during the Volcker and Corrigan eras , I can speak from first-hand experience—is that conservative views on matters of money and political economy remain unwelcome .
So bravo to President Trump for nominating an intelligent and thoughtful conservative woman to the Fed Board of Governors .
And shame on the media and Senators Richard Shelby and Pat Toomey for not defending this courageous lady .
When asked to respond to written questions for this article , neither Toomey nor Shelby responded .
Is this really the same Pat Toomey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Why does he now believe that a candidate for the Fed can not have views that diverge from the mainstream ?
In the world of central banking and economics , the tyranny of the consensus has become unbearable .
The world is currently held hostage by a group of unelected central bankers who have decided that they must save the world from deflation via hyperinflation and open market purchases of private stocks and bonds .
Despite the accumulating evidence that these policies are not helpful and may in fact be damaging to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fed ’ s monetary gospel is tolerated—even by Republicans , who in theory should know better .
Christopher Whalen is an investment banker and chairman of Whalen Global Advisors LLC .
He is the author of three books , including Ford Men : From Inspiration to Enterprise ( 2017 ) and Inflated : How Money and Debt Built the American Dream ( 2010 ) .
He edits The Institutional Risk Analyst , and appears regularly on such media outlets as CNBC , Bloomberg , Fox News , and Business News Network .
Follow @ @ @ @ @ @

Last week, the Senate Banking Committee met to consider the nomination of Dr. Judy Shelton to the Federal Reserve Board. The hostility toward Dr. Shelton was bipartisan—senators challenged her independence from President Donald Trump and characterized her thinking as too far outside the mainstream to trust with the nation’s economy.
Yet whether or not Dr. Shelton is “independent” of Trump is a red herring. The Fed is the most political and politicized agency in Washington, as evidenced by the work of its Washington staff to vilify Dr. Shelton. Moreover, the Fed’s willingness to facilitate the Treasury’s massive fiscal imbalances seems to be without limit. The biggest threat to Fed independence is the increasing tendency by Congress to treat the agency as a piggy bank whose resources can be tapped to fund pet projects, seemingly at zero cost to the budget.
The real objection to Dr. Shelton is that she is a conservative who believes in free markets and, yes, has good things to say about gold as a monetary asset. Since FDR did away with the gold standard in 1933, the U.S. economy has been on a relative currency standard based on, well, nothing. For this reason, it is possible to compare the dollar favorably to fraudulent “crypto currencies” such as bitcoin. The only difference between the dollar and the bitcoin as a means of exchange is that the former has been declared legal tender in the United States and has gained a huge following offshore.
The Fed’s Board of Governors in Washington, which was created two decades after the advent of the central bank, is a decidedly New Deal institution where only left-of-center views are tolerated. Some brave souls working at the regional reserve banks manage to pursue a relatively conservative line, but ideas like the gold standard and, more importantly, holding the Federal Reserve Board accountable for its actions are unwelcome. As Walker Todd noted in his classic 1995 monograph “The Federal Reserve Board and the Rise of the Corporate State,” the Fed has a long history as a proponent of economic policies that are antithetical to democratic, free markets:
The Federal Reserve Board led the way in Hoover’s rethinking of liberal orthodoxy in the crucial year running from the summer of 1931 through the spring of 1932. The outcome of the Board’s endeavors was an astonishing array of economic recovery initiatives that scholars have classified, retrospectively, as corporate statist in nature, involving direct Federal Government assistance to private industry and business-labor cooperation enforced by governmental intervention. These changes persisted and generally were amplified during the Roosevelt administration’s first year (the “First New Deal”); the departure of Eugene Meyer as governor of the Board in early 1933 apparently did not diminish the Board’s willingness to pursue the planning initiatives undertaken during the First New Deal.
Not only did the Fed actively assist the FDR administration during the 1930s with its confiscation of gold, it became the guardian of liberal economic orthodoxy. Within the administrative state, the Fed exists as the analog of the Soviet-era economic planning agency GOSPLAN, exercising control over the government’s economic research budget and thereby stifling a free exchange of ideas when it comes to monetary policy.
The anti-conservative tendencies of the Federal Reserve Board are well known within the system. Paul Volcker, for example, led the rescue of the big banks in the 1980s by allowing an expansion of off-balance sheet lending. He took extraordinary measures to prevent the nominations or appointments of respected economists and free market advocates like W. Lee Hoskins and Jerry L. Jordan to head other Reserve Banks. Both Hoskins and later Jordan were appointed to the Cleveland Reserve Bank’s presidency after Volcker’s departure in 1987.
Hoskins in particular was the antithesis of Volcker, an unrepentant exponent of conservative, sound money theory who advocated making zero inflation a national goal. He eventually left the Cleveland Fed to become president of the solid Huntington Bank in Columbus, which interestingly was among the last institutions to approve new bank loans for Chrysler in 1992.
In the 1990s, Hoskins and other free market exponents believed that ill-managed banks should be allowed to fail and that federal deposit insurance was hurting rather than protecting the financial system by allowing banks to take excessive risks that were in effect subsidized by the American taxpayer. Dr. Shelton agrees with these views. But this perspective, which represented mainstream American economic thought before the New Deal, is at odds with the Volcker view of avoiding “systemic risk” via public subsidies for large banks and other more generalized types of government intervention in the marketplace.
Dr. Shelton represents a breath of fresh air in an institution that for too long has been in the grip of a strange, neo-Keynesian, socialist tendency that is far from the American mainstream. The malady affecting the Fed today is its consistency in following failed policies such as “quantitative easing” and other types of direct market intervention. The unwarranted and poorly argued attacks on Dr. Judy Shelton are typical of the faulty reasoning and intellectual bias that seems to infect the media and Congress, particularly the Republicans, on the topic of Fed independence.
Members of the Senate, for example, take issue with the fact that Dr. Shelton might change her mind after considering new data. The bigger issue—and as someone who worked at the Fed of New York during the Volcker and Corrigan eras, I can speak from first-hand experience—is that conservative views on matters of money and political economy remain unwelcome.
So bravo to President Trump for nominating an intelligent and thoughtful conservative woman to the Fed Board of Governors. And shame on the media and Senators Richard Shelby and Pat Toomey for not defending this courageous lady. When asked to respond to written questions for this article, neither Toomey nor Shelby responded. Is this really the same Pat Toomey who chaired the Club for Growth? Why does he now believe that a candidate for the Fed cannot have views that diverge from the mainstream?
In the world of central banking and economics, the tyranny of the consensus has become unbearable. The world is currently held hostage by a group of unelected central bankers who have decided that they must save the world from deflation via hyperinflation and open market purchases of private stocks and bonds. Despite the accumulating evidence that these policies are not helpful and may in fact be damaging to the global economy, no dissent from the Fed’s monetary gospel is tolerated—even by Republicans, who in theory should know better.
Christopher Whalen is an investment banker and chairman of Whalen Global Advisors LLC. He is the author of three books, including Ford Men: From Inspiration to Enterprise (2017) and Inflated: How Money and Debt Built the American Dream (2010). He edits The Institutional Risk Analyst, and appears regularly on such media outlets as CNBC, Bloomberg, Fox News, and Business News Network. Follow him on Twitter @rcwhalen.


theamericanconservative--2020-02-19--Farming Isn’t an Information Age Skill

Farming Isn’t an Information Age Skill

When executed properly , haymaking enables farmers to feed animals with the nutrients of preserved grass through cold winters .
My great-grandfather , like many farmers of his time , used to cut and stack hay with horsepower and human hands .
Knowing when to cut the hay was the first of his considerations .
Protein and energy concentration in the grass often declines as the plants mature , and so waiting too long can result in less nutrition .
“ [ O ] ld-timers used to talk about cutting hay around the Fourth of July , ” Farming Magazine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ it was stout and had some bottom to it.
’ ” After my great-grandfather cut his hay crop , he would “ ted ” it ( fluffing it , thus allowing air and sun to dry its undersurface ) , and then gather it into “ windrows ” —long rows of cut hay , left to dry in the field .
Weather is another important consideration for haymaking : hot weather helps the hay cure quickly , but rain can ruin the drying process .
Experienced farmers know when hay is ready @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ ve watched a farmer out in his field , sifting through the cut grass , gauging its readiness .
Back before modern machinery simplified the process , farmhands and neighboring farmers used pitchforks to gather the dried hay onto a “ slip.
” They would attach a sling full of hay to the cable of a “ hay derrick , ” a hoisting apparatus that lifted it up to the barn loft .
There , my great-grandfather would tightly stack the loose hay .
Stacking was a crucial skill , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : if the farmer didn ’ t arrange and compress it properly , the hay could get moldy .
The entire process requires acumen , savvy , and hard-earned wisdom .
It was , in the old-fashioned sense , a “ craft ” —indeed , as Alexander Langlands puts it in his book Crœft : An Inquiry into the Origins and True Meaning of Traditional Crafts , agriculture is the “ most fundamental of crafts.
” But many moderns know nothing of the savvy and skill required to execute just one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This was abundantly clear in a speech given by former New York City mayor ( and now presidential hopeful ) Michael Bloomberg .
In it , he describes farming thus : “ I could teach anybody , even people in this room , to be a farmer .
It ’ s a process .
You dig a hole , you put a seed in , you put dirt on top , add water , up comes the corn.
” In its surrounding context , Bloomberg is attempting to describe our supposed “ progress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ society , and finally to today ’ s information economy .
In his telling , human society has continued to advance—and the work of today ’ s “ information worker ” is far more skilled and intellectually demanding than the aforementioned putting a seed in the ground .
“ [ T ] he skill sets that you have to learn are how to think and analyze , ” Bloomberg says .
“ And that ’ s a whole degree level different .
You have to have a different skill set , you have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Bloomberg ’ s comments stirred the ire of many farmers and farm advocates , who protest ( correctly ) that he knows nothing of the intellectual difficulties and demands of farming .
But interestingly , many responded to the video not by arguing for the dignity of farming in its ancient and modern methodologies but rather by arguing that farmers are information technology workers , too .
One responder to the video said , “ The man has no clue how much information and technology goes into agriculture and skilled trades careers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less than 2 % agricultural in a couple of centuries for a reason.
” Dairy farmer Sarah Lloyd said in a Journal Sentinel review , “ We have people here in the Midwest working really hard in high-tech areas across the economy .
Come visit us in Wisconsin , is what I would say.
” These responses are woefully insufficient , because they are at root agreeing with Bloomberg ’ s designation of the ancient manual labor aspects of agriculture as backward or intellectually undemanding .
This simply is not the case .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the rise of more sophisticated technology—has lost some ( though assuredly not all ) of its craftsmanship over time , because the skills we humans once completed ourselves are now automatically performed for us .
Consider , then , the farmer planting a seed in the soil .
Prior to the tractor that planted seeds in perfect rows via GPS systems , the farmer ’ s ability to perform this simple act was predicated on a variety of things : first and foremost , his or her knowledge of the soil .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ baseline craft of farming , the foundation on which all rural crafts are built , is undoubtedly that of digging ; understanding the soil , how it behaves , how it gives life , and the expense in energy needed to work it.
” Farmers had to know the health and fertility of the ground prior to planting seeds in it .
They had to study its intricacies , measure its acidity , and know the amount of humus , clay , or sand it might contain .
Farmers were also responsible for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the growing stringency of modern copyright laws—they repaired and maintained by themselves .
They were responsible for teams of horses , which required training and care .
They had to know their seeds : when they ought to be planted , how deep and how closely together , whether they would increase or draw nutrients from the ground .
And farmers did not usually plant just one crop in their fields .
Monocropping is a rather modern invention , enabled by our use of fertilizers , herbicides , and pesticides .
Before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diversification , crop rotation , and grazing in order to preserve soil fertility , keep yields high , and hold weeds and pests at bay .
Langlands notes that in Exmoor , a region he has studied as an archaeologist , “ A remarkable seven-course rotation seems to have promoted cycles of wheat , barlet and legumes interspersed with years of grassland pasture .
In this system , if the fertility of the soil was in question , perhaps because of poor yields , a field could be reverted to grassland and grazed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for example , a greater number of fields could be put down to grass for grazing , and for longer periods .
This would allow the farmer to build fertility for future years in what we might consider today a form of investment.
” Many farmers , in our own time , are re-adopting these ancient methods of crop rotation , cover cropping , and rotational grazing—suggesting that perhaps Bloomberg is wrong in his assumption that all the changes of the past millennia are inherently good .
Many in the agricultural industry are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wisdom to the practices of indigenous and peasant farmers , ancient sheepherders , and cattle grazers .
They suggest that perhaps , in our widespread embrace of technology , there are some forms of wisdom we have lost .
The skills of a farmer would take pages to write down .
Their practices used to include fleecing , milking , butchering , curing , drying , swathing , pond-making , beekeeping , and horsemanship .
Today ’ s farmers must still build an enormous knowledge of horticulture , animal husbandry , meteorology , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know how to care for a cow with mastitis , how to help birth a lamb , and , yes , how to tell if hay is ready for baling simply by its “ feel.
” Farmers in my state , which is in the arid West , must know how to irrigate , a discipline that requires intricate knowledge of the soil , evaporation levels , the technology and equipment involved , and more .
They must know how to handle and maintain huge , complex pieces of equipment .
They must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and where , and how to make a profit off their crops ( no mean feat in this time of trade wars and low commodity prices ) .
I have been interviewing farmers and writing about agriculture for nearly seven years now .
Every year , I grow more intimidated by the amount of work and skill required to be a farmer .
Michael Bloomberg has probably never heard of a “ steckling , ” has no idea the work and skill required to grow a biennial crop .
He has not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mob grazing , rotational grazing , strip grazing , creep grazing , and multi-species grazing—that farmers and ranchers debate , study , and implement .
But Bloomberg ’ s dismissal is part and parcel of our culture ’ s disdain for manual labor or “ blue-collar work.
” Matthew Crawford captures this disdain well in his book Shop Class as Soulcraft : in the 20th century , the “ intrinsic satisfactions ” of various forms of manual work were “ degraded by automation.
” Henry Ford ’ s assembly line served to sever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from its physical execution .
Such a partition of thinking from doing has bequeathed us the dichotomy of white collar versus blue collar , corresponding to mental versus manual.
” But this dichotomy falls prey to two big errors , Crawford argues : “ First , it assumes that all blue-collar work is as mindless as assembly line work , and second , that white-collar work is still recognizably mental in character .
Yet there is evidence to suggest that the new frontier of capitalism lies in doing to office work what was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it of its cognitive elements .
Paradoxically , educators who would steer students toward cognitively rich work might do this best by rehabilitating the manual trades , based on a firmer grasp of what such work is really like.
” In our own time , Crawford writes , parents still don ’ t want their children to become plumbers , because they still accept this dichotomy .
Even though a plumber commands a good deal of knowledge and wisdom ( and can charge a good deal of money ) in the execution of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faces a cultural condescension ( as does the farmer ) that we must reckon with in our time .
“ Skilled manual labor entails a systematic encounter with the material world , precisely the kind of encounter that gives rise to natural science , ” Crawford suggests .
“ From its earliest practice , craft knowledge has entailed knowledge of the ‘ ways ’ of one ’ s materials—that is , knowledge of their nature , acquired through disciplined perception.
” Langlands argues similarly in his book , suggesting that our abandonment of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understanding of the world , led to a harmfully consumptive society , and cheapened the vital connection between body and mind captured so beautifully in the old-fashioned crœfts .
“ We have become detached from making , and it isn ’ t a good state for us to be in , ” he argues .
According to Langlands and Crawford , having only 2 percent of the American workforce on the farm is not a net benefit of the information economy—it ’ s a bug .
It signifies a loss of connection between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of it .
Only this kind of a widespread disconnect could lead a politician like Bloomberg to display such complete ignorance of both the ancient and modern workings of the farm .
Our understanding of intellect and knowledge was once a deeply embodied thing , a principle that was not just tied to a computer or code , but to the very pragmatic workings of wood species and soil types , “ the right angle , the plumb , and the level , ” weft and warp , shoe and harness , seed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past through the lens of snobbishness or disdain .
Rather we should seek to understand and appreciate the skill and artistry of manual labor .
As Crawford suggests , we should “ publicly recognize a yeoman aristocracy : those who gain real knowledge of things , the sort we all depend on every day.
” It is this sort of humble respect for craft that undergirds a healthy society—and signals a wise politician .

Hwilc pe gepuht betwux woruld crœftas heoldan ealdordom?
Eorptilp, forpam se yrpling us ealle fett. [Master] Which do you think, amongst the world-crafts, holds the most authority? [Pupil] Agriculture, for the farm feeds us all. — Œlfric’s Colloqy
There’s an art to making hay.
When executed properly, haymaking enables farmers to feed animals with the nutrients of preserved grass through cold winters. My great-grandfather, like many farmers of his time, used to cut and stack hay with horsepower and human hands.
Knowing when to cut the hay was the first of his considerations. Protein and energy concentration in the grass often declines as the plants mature, and so waiting too long can result in less nutrition. “[O]ld-timers used to talk about cutting hay around the Fourth of July,” Farming Magazine notes, “when they said, ‘it was stout and had some bottom to it.’”
After my great-grandfather cut his hay crop, he would “ted” it (fluffing it, thus allowing air and sun to dry its undersurface), and then gather it into “windrows”—long rows of cut hay, left to dry in the field. Weather is another important consideration for haymaking: hot weather helps the hay cure quickly, but rain can ruin the drying process. Experienced farmers know when hay is ready to be stored by its feel alone. I’ve watched a farmer out in his field, sifting through the cut grass, gauging its readiness.
Back before modern machinery simplified the process, farmhands and neighboring farmers used pitchforks to gather the dried hay onto a “slip.” They would attach a sling full of hay to the cable of a “hay derrick,” a hoisting apparatus that lifted it up to the barn loft. There, my great-grandfather would tightly stack the loose hay. Stacking was a crucial skill, and required a great deal of expertise: if the farmer didn’t arrange and compress it properly, the hay could get moldy.
The entire process requires acumen, savvy, and hard-earned wisdom. It was, in the old-fashioned sense, a “craft”—indeed, as Alexander Langlands puts it in his book Crœft: An Inquiry into the Origins and True Meaning of Traditional Crafts, agriculture is the “most fundamental of crafts.”
But many moderns know nothing of the savvy and skill required to execute just one of the many tasks that occupy a farmer. This was abundantly clear in a speech given by former New York City mayor (and now presidential hopeful) Michael Bloomberg. In it, he describes farming thus: “I could teach anybody, even people in this room, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn.”
In its surrounding context, Bloomberg is attempting to describe our supposed “progress” from an agrarian to an industrial society, and finally to today’s information economy. In his telling, human society has continued to advance—and the work of today’s “information worker” is far more skilled and intellectually demanding than the aforementioned putting a seed in the ground. “[T]he skill sets that you have to learn are how to think and analyze,” Bloomberg says. “And that’s a whole degree level different. You have to have a different skill set, you have to have a lot more gray matter.”
Bloomberg’s comments stirred the ire of many farmers and farm advocates, who protest (correctly) that he knows nothing of the intellectual difficulties and demands of farming. But interestingly, many responded to the video not by arguing for the dignity of farming in its ancient and modern methodologies but rather by arguing that farmers are information technology workers, too.
One responder to the video said, “The man has no clue how much information and technology goes into agriculture and skilled trades careers. Humans flipped from 98% to less than 2% agricultural in a couple of centuries for a reason.”
Dairy farmer Sarah Lloyd said in a Journal Sentinel review, “We have people here in the Midwest working really hard in high-tech areas across the economy. Come visit us in Wisconsin, is what I would say.”
These responses are woefully insufficient, because they are at root agreeing with Bloomberg’s designation of the ancient manual labor aspects of agriculture as backward or intellectually undemanding. This simply is not the case. If anything, agriculture—like many industries impacted by the rise of more sophisticated technology—has lost some (though assuredly not all) of its craftsmanship over time, because the skills we humans once completed ourselves are now automatically performed for us.
Consider, then, the farmer planting a seed in the soil.
Prior to the tractor that planted seeds in perfect rows via GPS systems, the farmer’s ability to perform this simple act was predicated on a variety of things: first and foremost, his or her knowledge of the soil. As Langlands puts it, “The baseline craft of farming, the foundation on which all rural crafts are built, is undoubtedly that of digging; understanding the soil, how it behaves, how it gives life, and the expense in energy needed to work it.” Farmers had to know the health and fertility of the ground prior to planting seeds in it. They had to study its intricacies, measure its acidity, and know the amount of humus, clay, or sand it might contain.
Farmers were also responsible for a wide variety of equipment, which—prior to the growing stringency of modern copyright laws—they repaired and maintained by themselves. They were responsible for teams of horses, which required training and care. They had to know their seeds: when they ought to be planted, how deep and how closely together, whether they would increase or draw nutrients from the ground.
And farmers did not usually plant just one crop in their fields. Monocropping is a rather modern invention, enabled by our use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Before such items were available, farmers used diversification, crop rotation, and grazing in order to preserve soil fertility, keep yields high, and hold weeds and pests at bay.
Langlands notes that in Exmoor, a region he has studied as an archaeologist, “A remarkable seven-course rotation seems to have promoted cycles of wheat, barlet and legumes interspersed with years of grassland pasture. In this system, if the fertility of the soil was in question, perhaps because of poor yields, a field could be reverted to grassland and grazed by livestock…in years of corn surpluses, for example, a greater number of fields could be put down to grass for grazing, and for longer periods. This would allow the farmer to build fertility for future years in what we might consider today a form of investment.”
Many farmers, in our own time, are re-adopting these ancient methods of crop rotation, cover cropping, and rotational grazing—suggesting that perhaps Bloomberg is wrong in his assumption that all the changes of the past millennia are inherently good. Many in the agricultural industry are realizing that there is indeed an ancient wisdom to the practices of indigenous and peasant farmers, ancient sheepherders, and cattle grazers. They suggest that perhaps, in our widespread embrace of technology, there are some forms of wisdom we have lost.
The skills of a farmer would take pages to write down. Their practices used to include fleecing, milking, butchering, curing, drying, swathing, pond-making, beekeeping, and horsemanship. Today’s farmers must still build an enormous knowledge of horticulture, animal husbandry, meteorology, and soil science. Many of them know how to care for a cow with mastitis, how to help birth a lamb, and, yes, how to tell if hay is ready for baling simply by its “feel.” Farmers in my state, which is in the arid West, must know how to irrigate, a discipline that requires intricate knowledge of the soil, evaporation levels, the technology and equipment involved, and more. They must know how to handle and maintain huge, complex pieces of equipment. They must determine what to grow in what years, and where, and how to make a profit off their crops (no mean feat in this time of trade wars and low commodity prices).
I have been interviewing farmers and writing about agriculture for nearly seven years now. Every year, I grow more intimidated by the amount of work and skill required to be a farmer. Michael Bloomberg has probably never heard of a “steckling,” has no idea the work and skill required to grow a biennial crop. He has not studied the various grazing methodologies—continuous grazing, mob grazing, rotational grazing, strip grazing, creep grazing, and multi-species grazing—that farmers and ranchers debate, study, and implement.
But Bloomberg’s dismissal is part and parcel of our culture’s disdain for manual labor or “blue-collar work.” Matthew Crawford captures this disdain well in his book Shop Class as Soulcraft: in the 20th century, the “intrinsic satisfactions” of various forms of manual work were “degraded by automation.” Henry Ford’s assembly line served to sever “the cognitive aspects of manual work from its physical execution. Such a partition of thinking from doing has bequeathed us the dichotomy of white collar versus blue collar, corresponding to mental versus manual.”
But this dichotomy falls prey to two big errors, Crawford argues: “First, it assumes that all blue-collar work is as mindless as assembly line work, and second, that white-collar work is still recognizably mental in character. Yet there is evidence to suggest that the new frontier of capitalism lies in doing to office work what was previously done to factory work: draining it of its cognitive elements. Paradoxically, educators who would steer students toward cognitively rich work might do this best by rehabilitating the manual trades, based on a firmer grasp of what such work is really like.”
In our own time, Crawford writes, parents still don’t want their children to become plumbers, because they still accept this dichotomy. Even though a plumber commands a good deal of knowledge and wisdom (and can charge a good deal of money) in the execution of his or her craft, he still faces a cultural condescension (as does the farmer) that we must reckon with in our time.
“Skilled manual labor entails a systematic encounter with the material world, precisely the kind of encounter that gives rise to natural science,” Crawford suggests. “From its earliest practice, craft knowledge has entailed knowledge of the ‘ways’ of one’s materials—that is, knowledge of their nature, acquired through disciplined perception.”
Langlands argues similarly in his book, suggesting that our abandonment of manual, physical crafts has weakened our understanding of the world, led to a harmfully consumptive society, and cheapened the vital connection between body and mind captured so beautifully in the old-fashioned crœfts. “We have become detached from making, and it isn’t a good state for us to be in,” he argues.
According to Langlands and Crawford, having only 2 percent of the American workforce on the farm is not a net benefit of the information economy—it’s a bug. It signifies a loss of connection between the consumers of food and the makers of it. Only this kind of a widespread disconnect could lead a politician like Bloomberg to display such complete ignorance of both the ancient and modern workings of the farm. Our understanding of intellect and knowledge was once a deeply embodied thing, a principle that was not just tied to a computer or code, but to the very pragmatic workings of wood species and soil types, “the right angle, the plumb, and the level,” weft and warp, shoe and harness, seed and sward.
We should not view the past through the lens of snobbishness or disdain. Rather we should seek to understand and appreciate the skill and artistry of manual labor. As Crawford suggests, we should “publicly recognize a yeoman aristocracy: those who gain real knowledge of things, the sort we all depend on every day.” It is this sort of humble respect for craft that undergirds a healthy society—and signals a wise politician.