theamericanconservative--2020-10-28--The Founders Believed in a National Economic Strategy

Our doctrinaire dedication to free trade has been sapping our power for 30 years as we single-mindedly pursued trade for wealth creation .
2020 stripped naked the emaciated figure of American industry , revealing the depth of our dependence on foreign manufactures for everything from face masks , respirators , ventilators , to pharmaceuticals .
Driving this weakness was an underlying condition in our body politic : American statesmen unserious about and unschooled in the arts of power .
If we value America ’ s peace , and thus the power necessary to uphold it , we must practice the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to bring our commitments and capabilities into balance .
Edmund Burke described political society as a contract between the dead , living , and those yet to be born .
But American society has settled for a contract exchanging production for consumption , long-term prospects for near-term profits , and commonwealth for private wealth .
Call this the “ Economist View ” of the national interest , which prioritizes wealth and consumer interests .
For those who take the Economist View , this emphasis on wealth as the purpose of political economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essence of the Economist View is that , excepting immediate national defense , statesmen do not bring a unique perspective to political economy that justifies raising costs to consumers .
This has starved us of an older , richer account of political community that subordinates economics to politics .
It also fails to appreciate higher realities of statecraft and one of America ’ s oldest strategies for political economy in the national interest .
Call this richer account the “ Statesman View , ” which prioritizes national power for safety and independence and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are in conflict .
The essence of the Statesman View of the national interest is that there is a statesman at the helm of government building up the body politic for the good of the whole people .
His statecraft forges national unity from sectional difference , reconciles private interests for the public good , and protects against political disruptions from foreign trade .
Economics and politics are not divorced in the Statesman View because political economy is the union of a people ’ s economic means and political ends .
Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Economist View and free trade in this debate .
In fact , America has adapted trade to the national interest , and protectionism was the first and eventually dominant strategy of building economic power and independence .
Reversing course on global free trade is thus not a betrayal of permanent American principle .
The agenda before American statesmen of the next 30 years is to apply a grand strategy of rebuilding our power to secure our peace .
Getting our history right is important to liberate ourselves from convictions about free trade that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face of our current geopolitical challenge .
Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton in his 1791 Report on the Subject of Manufactures took the Statesman View of trade in the national interest .
The Report is emphatic that the deepest job of a statesman is to protect the safety and independence of the whole body politic : The Washington Administration and Federalist Party adopted Hamilton ’ s protectionism , eventually defending the cause of economic nationalism through the “ American System , ” a protectionist program opposed to the so-called British System of free trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then Andrew Jackson ’ s Democrats championed free trade , however , as the cause of Southern planters , farmers , and landed gentry reliant on British markets for cotton , tobacco , and textiles .
The American System was a grand strategy of nation-building pursued through the 1820s-1840s .
By the 1840s , America ’ s success at achieving economic independence attracted the praise of German-born Friedrich List , who pointed to the American System as a demonstration of the maxim of statecraft that power makes wealth .
The Republican Party completed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national policy for over 50 years and birthing the industrial Northeast , which became the core of America ’ s manufacturing might and the GOP ’ s political bastion well into the 20th century .
America in its Western leadership from 1946-1991 liberalized trade for reasons of high politics , but it never lost sight of trade ’ s power effect nor became doctrinaire about globalization .
World War Two taught America the ways of economic warfare , and our postwar economic statecraft continued to extend or deny trade based on a friend-enemy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , freer trade fortified the Western Alliance through a liberal international order that aimed to outcompete the Soviet bloc , serving a double pronged strategy that fused geopolitics and economics into geoeconomics .
With one arm we were opening the veins of our industrial bloodstream to friends while trying to choke economic life from our enemies with the other .
For example , America from 1947-1951 dispersed 2 percent of its gross national product annually to European allies and later tolerated their discrimination against our agricultural and manufactured exports .
Later , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extended preferential treatment to exports from less developed countries .
Liberalization with developing countries on less than reciprocal terms served our national interest because the Third World was , after Europe , the main theater of U.S.-Soviet influence competition in the 1960s-70s .
Meanwhile , administrations from Truman to Nixon fought rearguard battles with domestic and European business interests over liberalizing East-West trade .
President Nixon finally conceded to a liberalized U.S. embargo , but he linked it to Soviet commitments on strategic arms limitations as part of détente and in 1971 also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further the Sino-Soviet split .
Ironically , the American economic strategy of rebuilding allies and opening our home market to their exports succeeded so well that West Germany and Japan by the 1970s were outcompeting American industry .
Foreign trade ’ s penetration into the U.S. economy , eased by low tariffs , produced new winners and losers in the South , West , and Northeast due to uneven patterns of economic integration with the world .
The Cold War economy had industrialized Western and Southern states for the first time and built @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constituencies formed there from booming aerospace , electronics , agribusiness , construction , oil , and real estate industries that were export competitive in the 1960s-70s , which predisposed the West and South to free trade .
These disruptions realigned America ’ s political geography and reversed Republican positions on trade and the national interest .
By the 1970s , the Northeast ’ s decline unglued the old Northern-Southern Democratic alliance and created an opening for a new Western-Southern Republican coalition that in the 1980s emerged triumphant .
Democrats became a Northeastern party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instincts while Republicans became a Southern and Western party whose new bastions profited from free trade .
As the party of Ronald Reagan championed liberalization more uniformly , Republican leaders espoused the Economist View of wealth and consumers as the objects of trade and the national interest .
This completed a revolution in Republican statecraft on political economy , which for a century had been guided by the Statesman View of governing for the public good by way of balancing interests .
President Dwight Eisenhower ’ s farewell speech in 1961 may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forth the Statesman View explicitly .
Out of the Reagan Revolution came an array of conservative movement groups and libertarians united by doctrinaire belief in the laissez-faire gospel of wealth and consumption , sporting neckties patterned with miniature busts of Adam Smith .
The history of America ’ s rise to industrial power through Hamiltonian , Whig , and Republican protectionism was rewritten with a Jeffersonian , free-trading gloss and justified by vehement gestures at the bad old Smoot-Hawley Tariff .
By the 1980s , free trade became unbending doctrine for the Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mid-2010s , a bipartisan Washington consensus favored regional free trade agreements , globalized finance , and the rise of foreign direct investment and intrafirm trade by multinational corporations .
So , what is the legacy of all this liberalization ?
Free traders emphasize consumer savings from reduced tariffs and economic efficiencies from globalized supply chains that hone specialization in a country ’ s alleged comparative advantage .
However , at possibly the zenith year of free trade and globalization in 2001 , Princeton economist Robert Gilpin noted estimates that trade barriers lowered since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ annually into the pockets of American consumers !
But what of the opportunity cost ?
If the American consumer pocketed only $ 1,000 a year in exchange for the Northeast ’ s deindustrialization since the 1970s , the offshoring of American industry in the 1990s-2000s , and our dangerous dependence on Chinese manufactures and supply chains in 2020 , I submit we need a return of statecraft for political economy in the national interest .
We now have a badly eroded defense industrial and technological base that is causing the Defense Department to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Commandant of the Marine Corps in 2020 warned that Chinese shipyards could outpace the U.S. in replacing naval losses during a war .
Tim Cook said that Apple manufactures iPads and iPhones in China because of the skilled talent there for advanced and precision tooling , whereas “ In the U.S. , you could have a meeting of tooling engineers and I ’ m not sure you could fill a room .
In China , you could fill multiple football fields.
” The truth is , almost all governments except the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outcomes in strategic economic sectors .
China practiced geoeconomics very well , to the surprise of naïve American elites .
In exchange for access to its market , China for years extracted a pound of flesh from U.S. firms—requiring technology transfers , joint venture restrictions , and localized production—then cloned their business DNA and subsidized homegrown corporate replicants that grew strong enough to push the U.S. firms out of China .
This gives the lie to the liberal notion that the public good arises spontaneously from businessmen following self-interest .
Important U.S. multinationals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interests abroad , but geoeconomic rivals can manipulate them to political advantage .
For example , Google infamously refused to renew contracts with the Defense Department on artificial intelligence research while maintaining contracts on similar work with the Chinese government that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff claimed in 2019 directly benefitted the Chinese military .
The first step to rebuilding American power in 2020 and beyond is to affirm that statesmen , not economists and not businessmen , interpret the national interest .
Statesmanship requires seeing the world in terms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see it in terms of money flows .
These power flows , negative or positive depending on the balance of our commitments and capabilities , determine the solvency of our position in the world .
Where does America have negative balances draining , and positive balances refilling , our reserves of power and prestige ?
Our statesmen must set about finding and fathoming these sinkholes and fountains of American power .
The next step to rebuilding American power is for our statesmen to keep one eye on our geopolitical position through sound foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our general welfare through sound political economy .
This entails integrating foreign and domestic policies that reinforce a consistent , overarching balance of national capabilities .
The object of foreign affairs strategy should be plugging the sinkholes and channeling the fountains of our power through adjustments in our commitments and capabilities .
But any foreign strategy must rest on a political coalition durable enough to provide statesmen a stable interpretation of the national interest .
Forming that coalition is the hard work of domestic statesmanship .
In 2020 and probably beyond , America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ realignment .
The question for domestic statesmanship is : how to weld a winning coalition for a new consensus on the national interest that frees statesmen to respond to our geopolitical challenge with a better grand strategy ?
A logical approach from the Statesman View would be an effort of economic nationalism to build up the union of the body politic over its sectional divisions .
The argument to press on free-trader skeptics is : if American industrial and manufacturing powers necessary to 21st century economic independence have been reduced to an infantile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national safety again on foreign manufactures , then the original reasoning for protecting infant industries applies again .
In other words , the descriptive case Hamilton made in his 1791 Report could be updated for 2020 , but his normative case stands well in principle now as then .
The ends of this strategy would be protection of economic sectors vital to the national interest , for the purpose of reshoring and rebuilding productive powers for national safety and independence when the next emergency or war comes .
As the American peace that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Cold War erodes , a single-minded pursuit of wealth through trade takes on new dangers for the nation ’ s position .
The global supply chains feeding domestic consumption begin to look more like the chains of foreign dependence .
To expect any reversal in our country ’ s fortune , our statesmen must again become serious about , and schooled in , the arts of power .
A political economy serving the national interest will disrupt and reform American statecraft .
But for statesmen to do anything less is a failure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serving sectional interests ( i.e.
, domestic factions ) , which is less than statesmanship , or foreign interests , which is betrayal .
This statesmanship is conservative in character , almost by definition .
It is a task of national conservatism with a vision to the future .
Preserving the means for next generations to become more safe , inventive , prosperous , and happy is the only justification for imposing on private interests in the name of a national interest .
This national conservatism transcends liberal time conceptions , which span @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about .
The interest in conserving the productive powers of future generations of citizens is a task beyond the lifetime of effort of any individual , voluntary association , or commercial venture .
We may expect people to serve the welfare of their own children and their investments to pay off for the present generation .
But only the nation is the proper vehicle for conserving the general welfare .
Only the nation serves the society of strangers in our midst , our fellow citizens , who will outlast us when we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ born .
Nathan Hitchen is a graduate of the Institute of World Politics , Johns Hopkins SAIS , Rutgers University , and is an alumnus of the John Jay Institute .
He serves on the board of directors for the Equal Rights Institute .

Our doctrinaire dedication to free trade has been sapping our power for 30 years as we single-mindedly pursued trade for wealth creation. 2020 stripped naked the emaciated figure of American industry, revealing the depth of our dependence on foreign manufactures for everything from face masks, respirators, ventilators, to pharmaceuticals.
Driving this weakness was an underlying condition in our body politic: American statesmen unserious about and unschooled in the arts of power. If we value America’s peace, and thus the power necessary to uphold it, we must practice the first principle of foreign policy, which is to bring our commitments and capabilities into balance.
Edmund Burke described political society as a contract between the dead, living, and those yet to be born. But American society has settled for a contract exchanging production for consumption, long-term prospects for near-term profits, and commonwealth for private wealth. Call this the “Economist View” of the national interest, which prioritizes wealth and consumer interests. For those who take the Economist View, this emphasis on wealth as the purpose of political economy creates ambivalence about the statesman. The essence of the Economist View is that, excepting immediate national defense, statesmen do not bring a unique perspective to political economy that justifies raising costs to consumers.
This has starved us of an older, richer account of political community that subordinates economics to politics. It also fails to appreciate higher realities of statecraft and one of America’s oldest strategies for political economy in the national interest. Call this richer account the “Statesman View,” which prioritizes national power for safety and independence and seeks through politics to balance domestic interests that are in conflict. The essence of the Statesman View of the national interest is that there is a statesman at the helm of government building up the body politic for the good of the whole people. His statecraft forges national unity from sectional difference, reconciles private interests for the public good, and protects against political disruptions from foreign trade. Economics and politics are not divorced in the Statesman View because political economy is the union of a people’s economic means and political ends.
Many people think America always held to the Economist View and free trade in this debate. In fact, America has adapted trade to the national interest, and protectionism was the first and eventually dominant strategy of building economic power and independence. Reversing course on global free trade is thus not a betrayal of permanent American principle. The agenda before American statesmen of the next 30 years is to apply a grand strategy of rebuilding our power to secure our peace. Getting our history right is important to liberate ourselves from convictions about free trade that otherwise inhibit creative economic statecraft in the face of our current geopolitical challenge.
Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton in his 1791 Report on the Subject of Manufactures took the Statesman View of trade in the national interest. The Report is emphatic that the deepest job of a statesman is to protect the safety and independence of the whole body politic:
Not only the wealth; but the independence and security of a Country, appear to be materially connected with the prosperity of manufactures. Every nation, with a view to those great objects, ought to endeavour to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of Subsistence, habitation, clothing, and defence.
The Washington Administration and Federalist Party adopted Hamilton’s protectionism, eventually defending the cause of economic nationalism through the “American System,” a protectionist program opposed to the so-called British System of free trade. Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans and then Andrew Jackson’s Democrats championed free trade, however, as the cause of Southern planters, farmers, and landed gentry reliant on British markets for cotton, tobacco, and textiles.
The American System was a grand strategy of nation-building pursued through the 1820s-1840s. By the 1840s, America’s success at achieving economic independence attracted the praise of German-born Friedrich List, who pointed to the American System as a demonstration of the maxim of statecraft that power makes wealth. The Republican Party completed the American System by making protectionism the national policy for over 50 years and birthing the industrial Northeast, which became the core of America’s manufacturing might and the GOP’s political bastion well into the 20th century.
America in its Western leadership from 1946-1991 liberalized trade for reasons of high politics, but it never lost sight of trade’s power effect nor became doctrinaire about globalization. World War Two taught America the ways of economic warfare, and our postwar economic statecraft continued to extend or deny trade based on a friend-enemy distinction. In the early Cold War, freer trade fortified the Western Alliance through a liberal international order that aimed to outcompete the Soviet bloc, serving a double pronged strategy that fused geopolitics and economics into geoeconomics. With one arm we were opening the veins of our industrial bloodstream to friends while trying to choke economic life from our enemies with the other. For example, America from 1947-1951 dispersed 2 percent of its gross national product annually to European allies and later tolerated their discrimination against our agricultural and manufactured exports.
Later, the U.S. reduced trade barriers on manufactures and extended preferential treatment to exports from less developed countries. Liberalization with developing countries on less than reciprocal terms served our national interest because the Third World was, after Europe, the main theater of U.S.-Soviet influence competition in the 1960s-70s. Meanwhile, administrations from Truman to Nixon fought rearguard battles with domestic and European business interests over liberalizing East-West trade. President Nixon finally conceded to a liberalized U.S. embargo, but he linked it to Soviet commitments on strategic arms limitations as part of détente and in 1971 also lifted import controls on China to drive further the Sino-Soviet split.
Ironically, the American economic strategy of rebuilding allies and opening our home market to their exports succeeded so well that West Germany and Japan by the 1970s were outcompeting American industry. Foreign trade’s penetration into the U.S. economy, eased by low tariffs, produced new winners and losers in the South, West, and Northeast due to uneven patterns of economic integration with the world. The Cold War economy had industrialized Western and Southern states for the first time and built communities with stable military-industrial jobs. New constituencies formed there from booming aerospace, electronics, agribusiness, construction, oil, and real estate industries that were export competitive in the 1960s-70s, which predisposed the West and South to free trade.
These disruptions realigned America’s political geography and reversed Republican positions on trade and the national interest. By the 1970s, the Northeast’s decline unglued the old Northern-Southern Democratic alliance and created an opening for a new Western-Southern Republican coalition that in the 1980s emerged triumphant. Democrats became a Northeastern party voicing that aging region’s protectionist instincts while Republicans became a Southern and Western party whose new bastions profited from free trade. As the party of Ronald Reagan championed liberalization more uniformly, Republican leaders espoused the Economist View of wealth and consumers as the objects of trade and the national interest. This completed a revolution in Republican statecraft on political economy, which for a century had been guided by the Statesman View of governing for the public good by way of balancing interests. President Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell speech in 1961 may be the last time a GOP president set forth the Statesman View explicitly.
Out of the Reagan Revolution came an array of conservative movement groups and libertarians united by doctrinaire belief in the laissez-faire gospel of wealth and consumption, sporting neckties patterned with miniature busts of Adam Smith. The history of America’s rise to industrial power through Hamiltonian, Whig, and Republican protectionism was rewritten with a Jeffersonian, free-trading gloss and justified by vehement gestures at the bad old Smoot-Hawley Tariff. By the 1980s, free trade became unbending doctrine for the Republican Party. From the 1990s to the mid-2010s, a bipartisan Washington consensus favored regional free trade agreements, globalized finance, and the rise of foreign direct investment and intrafirm trade by multinational corporations.
So, what is the legacy of all this liberalization? Free traders emphasize consumer savings from reduced tariffs and economic efficiencies from globalized supply chains that hone specialization in a country’s alleged comparative advantage. However, at possibly the zenith year of free trade and globalization in 2001, Princeton economist Robert Gilpin noted estimates that trade barriers lowered since the 1960s put an additional $1,000 annually into the pockets of American consumers! But what of the opportunity cost? If the American consumer pocketed only $1,000 a year in exchange for the Northeast’s deindustrialization since the 1970s, the offshoring of American industry in the 1990s-2000s, and our dangerous dependence on Chinese manufactures and supply chains in 2020, I submit we need a return of statecraft for political economy in the national interest.
We now have a badly eroded defense industrial and technological base that is causing the Defense Department to ring the alarm. For example, the Commandant of the Marine Corps in 2020 warned that Chinese shipyards could outpace the U.S. in replacing naval losses during a war. Tim Cook said that Apple manufactures iPads and iPhones in China because of the skilled talent there for advanced and precision tooling, whereas “In the U.S., you could have a meeting of tooling engineers and I’m not sure you could fill a room. In China, you could fill multiple football fields.”
The truth is, almost all governments except the United States practice direct industrial policy for desired outcomes in strategic economic sectors. China practiced geoeconomics very well, to the surprise of naïve American elites. In exchange for access to its market, China for years extracted a pound of flesh from U.S. firms—requiring technology transfers, joint venture restrictions, and localized production—then cloned their business DNA and subsidized homegrown corporate replicants that grew strong enough to push the U.S. firms out of China.
This gives the lie to the liberal notion that the public good arises spontaneously from businessmen following self-interest. Important U.S. multinationals favor free trade most because of corporate interests abroad, but geoeconomic rivals can manipulate them to political advantage. For example, Google infamously refused to renew contracts with the Defense Department on artificial intelligence research while maintaining contracts on similar work with the Chinese government that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff claimed in 2019 directly benefitted the Chinese military.
* * *
The first step to rebuilding American power in 2020 and beyond is to affirm that statesmen, not economists and not businessmen, interpret the national interest. Statesmanship requires seeing the world in terms of power flows, much as economists see it in terms of money flows. These power flows, negative or positive depending on the balance of our commitments and capabilities, determine the solvency of our position in the world. Where does America have negative balances draining, and positive balances refilling, our reserves of power and prestige? Our statesmen must set about finding and fathoming these sinkholes and fountains of American power.
The next step to rebuilding American power is for our statesmen to keep one eye on our geopolitical position through sound foreign strategy, and the other eye on our general welfare through sound political economy. This entails integrating foreign and domestic policies that reinforce a consistent, overarching balance of national capabilities. The object of foreign affairs strategy should be plugging the sinkholes and channeling the fountains of our power through adjustments in our commitments and capabilities. But any foreign strategy must rest on a political coalition durable enough to provide statesmen a stable interpretation of the national interest.
Forming that coalition is the hard work of domestic statesmanship. In 2020 and probably beyond, America’s political geography is ripe for realignment. The question for domestic statesmanship is: how to weld a winning coalition for a new consensus on the national interest that frees statesmen to respond to our geopolitical challenge with a better grand strategy?
A logical approach from the Statesman View would be an effort of economic nationalism to build up the union of the body politic over its sectional divisions. The argument to press on free-trader skeptics is: if American industrial and manufacturing powers necessary to 21st century economic independence have been reduced to an infantile state, and we are dependent for national safety again on foreign manufactures, then the original reasoning for protecting infant industries applies again. In other words, the descriptive case Hamilton made in his 1791 Report could be updated for 2020, but his normative case stands well in principle now as then. The ends of this strategy would be protection of economic sectors vital to the national interest, for the purpose of reshoring and rebuilding productive powers for national safety and independence when the next emergency or war comes.
As the American peace that flowed from America’s victory in the Cold War erodes, a single-minded pursuit of wealth through trade takes on new dangers for the nation’s position. The global supply chains feeding domestic consumption begin to look more like the chains of foreign dependence. To expect any reversal in our country’s fortune, our statesmen must again become serious about, and schooled in, the arts of power. A political economy serving the national interest will disrupt and reform American statecraft. But for statesmen to do anything less is a failure of duty. The only alternatives are serving sectional interests (i.e., domestic factions), which is less than statesmanship, or foreign interests, which is betrayal.
This statesmanship is conservative in character, almost by definition. It is a task of national conservatism with a vision to the future. Preserving the means for next generations to become more safe, inventive, prosperous, and happy is the only justification for imposing on private interests in the name of a national interest. This national conservatism transcends liberal time conceptions, which span only the lives of those presently walking about. The interest in conserving the productive powers of future generations of citizens is a task beyond the lifetime of effort of any individual, voluntary association, or commercial venture. We may expect people to serve the welfare of their own children and their investments to pay off for the present generation. But only the nation is the proper vehicle for conserving the general welfare. Only the nation serves the society of strangers in our midst, our fellow citizens, who will outlast us when we are dead through their children yet to be born.
Nathan Hitchen is a graduate of the Institute of World Politics, Johns Hopkins SAIS, Rutgers University, and is an alumnus of the John Jay Institute. He serves on the board of directors for the Equal Rights Institute.


theamericanconservative--2020-10-29--The Election Monsters Next Door

The Election Monsters Next Door

`` Trump-Pence '' signs and banners are seen on a street in Olyphant , just outside Scranton , Pennsylvania , on August 11 , 2020 .
( Photo by ERIC BARADAT/AFP via Getty Images ) Northampton County in Pennsylvania was a bellwether in the 2016 election , lurching from Barack Obama four years earlier to Donald Trump .
Located in the east of the state , bordering New Jersey and the Delaware River , it has a little of everything : tony suburbs , rolling farms , preserved downtowns , the deindustrialized hulks of Bethlehem and Allentown that Billy Joel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highways to New York , quieter roads north into the Poconos .
This year , Northampton is once again a swing county , and when I visited family there last week , it wasn ’ t hard to tell .
Walking through a neighborhood in Bethlehem , I saw about equal parts Trump and Biden gear , but louder and more in-your-face than anything in deep-blue Northern Virginia where I live .
Pick-up trucks roared down state routes with both American and Trump 2016 flags billowing off their beds .
Fake tombstones and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The commercial breaks in between NFL games were pileups of negative campaign ads , anti-Trump then anti-Biden then anti-Trump then anti-Biden .
One man had a “ Trump for President ” banner in his yard so large that someone joked you could see it from space .
In another country , this might have seemed strange , even alarming , evidence of an election that had lost all sense of proportion .
Yet what struck me was how utterly normal it felt .
Americans have always had a rowdy tradition of democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slap bumper stickers on their cars—the signs in Bethlehem wouldn ’ t have been out of place four or even 30 years ago .
What ’ s different now is the sense of dread that ’ s come to color such a quotidian scene .
From off the news come warnings that the national mood is unusually tense .
Typically sober commentators wonder whether political violence is in our future , even another civil war .
You listen to this , you stare at those lawn signs , you hear the chilly October @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you start to wonder whether something darker lurks beneath , whether the people in those quiet homes might be willing to fight in the streets should their candidates lose .
The data are grim .
An Axios poll from two years ago found that 23 percent of Republicans think Democrats are evil , while 21 percent of Democrats think the same of Republicans .
About one in three on both sides now say violence might be justified to advance their parties ’ goals , up significantly in recent years .
“ I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Frank Luntz , a respected GOP political consultant , told the Washington Post .
“ Even the most balanced , mainstream people are talking about this election in language that is more caffeinated and cataclysmic than anything I ’ ve ever heard.
” On the right , Trump voters see the president as a shield of last resort against a radical left that wants to abolish gender , take their guns , and tear down statues of their civic heroes .
On the left , Trump is seen as a Franco from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presence threatens to undo decades of hard-won progress .
There isn ’ t much wiggle room in between those perceptions , much space to weigh your opinions against those of the other side .
If the face of your political opponents is a black-masked rioter or a reincarnated Falange , then the choice is either win or die .
And if that ’ s the choice , you start to wonder how anyone could possibly oppose you , why they would ever align themselves with what you see as the forces of hell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Antifa ?
How ghoulish do you have to be to vote for a Nazi nectarine ?
The film critic Pauline Kael once said of the 1972 election ( the quote is often butchered ) , “ I only know one person who voted for Nixon .
Where they are I don ’ t know .
They ’ re outside my ken.
” Now the other side can seem not just outside our ken but outside our species .
Why this sudden openness to political violence ?
There are many reasons , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much easier to entertain thuggery against those you regard as less than human .
The internet doesn ’ t help here , flattening us all into names and avatars on social media sites , obscuring our common personhood .
But another source of this dehumanization is that , whether we want to admit it or not , voting for either side in this election is a fairly radical act .
Trump is unique in American history , trampling on norms while blowtorching his opponents with unprecedented rhetorical heat .
Biden seems more familiar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quo from which he emerged was itself deeply disruptive , as are some of his newer ideas like halting fracking permits and rolling back the Obamacare contraception exemption for nuns .
Such radicalism can rule out any common ground that might have been found , making the other side difficult to comprehend , even to relate to .
Of course , bitterly contested campaigns are nothing new—I don ’ t think there ’ s been a presidential election in my adult life where at least one candidate hasn ’ t seemed to loathe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different , like if the wrong side wins , the monsters are going to swarm out into the streets and run wild .
We ’ ve talked a lot about the widening class divide in America , how wealthy and educated coastal elites are shifting towards the Democrats , while poorer high school graduates in flyover states back Trump .
But as with any abstract explainer of politics , that ’ s much too simple .
In places like Northampton County , the vampires live next door .
Those you ’ re supposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ realignment has taken place isn ’ t so thorough as to preclude conservatives and liberals from having to live with each other .
And maybe that ’ s consolation amid all this chaos .
It ’ s one thing to say you would consider violence against those who think differently ; it ’ s quite another to actually carry it out against those who are close to you .
Of course , you could , if you ’ re furious enough .
But outside of cable news and Twitter , the sentiment I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign season isn ’ t fury .
It ’ s exhaustion .
People have grown sick of the omnipresence of politics , the endless debates , the apocalyptic premonitions .
The stakes in this election are high , but for God ’ s sake , they can ’ t be that high .
For months now , analysts have surmised about an “ exhausted majority , ” a cohort of relatively non-ideological voters who are fed up with the entire spectacle .
They ’ re said to be backing Biden , since Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I know many on the right who feel the same way .
The demands of 2020 engagement , with its 24-hour outrage spin cycle and shots of contempt right into the vein , simply aren ’ t compatible with how most people live their lives , which is to say among the real and near and human .
In Nathaniel Hawthorne ’ s imperishable horror story Young Goodman Brown , the titular character loses faith in everything—his church , his wife—after supposedly witnessing a satanic ritual in the woods .
In the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ they carved no hopeful verse upon his tombstone ; for his dying hour was gloom.
” It ’ s because those next door aren ’ t sinister devil worshippers that we may not yet go that way .
And if we don ’ t , it will be because we knew the neighbors weren ’ t monsters all along ; the real freaks were those who did nothing but salivate over a depressing and wretched election .

Northampton County in Pennsylvania was a bellwether in the 2016 election, lurching from Barack Obama four years earlier to Donald Trump. Located in the east of the state, bordering New Jersey and the Delaware River, it has a little of everything: tony suburbs, rolling farms, preserved downtowns, the deindustrialized hulks of Bethlehem and Allentown that Billy Joel so lamented, sprawling warehouses, busy highways to New York, quieter roads north into the Poconos.
This year, Northampton is once again a swing county, and when I visited family there last week, it wasn’t hard to tell. Walking through a neighborhood in Bethlehem, I saw about equal parts Trump and Biden gear, but louder and more in-your-face than anything in deep-blue Northern Virginia where I live. Pick-up trucks roared down state routes with both American and Trump 2016 flags billowing off their beds. Fake tombstones and crashed witches mingled with Biden lawn signs. The commercial breaks in between NFL games were pileups of negative campaign ads, anti-Trump then anti-Biden then anti-Trump then anti-Biden. One man had a “Trump for President” banner in his yard so large that someone joked you could see it from space.
In another country, this might have seemed strange, even alarming, evidence of an election that had lost all sense of proportion. Yet what struck me was how utterly normal it felt. Americans have always had a rowdy tradition of democratic engagement, have always been quick to slap bumper stickers on their cars—the signs in Bethlehem wouldn’t have been out of place four or even 30 years ago. What’s different now is the sense of dread that’s come to color such a quotidian scene. From off the news come warnings that the national mood is unusually tense. Typically sober commentators wonder whether political violence is in our future, even another civil war. You listen to this, you stare at those lawn signs, you hear the chilly October breeze rustling through the leaves, and you start to wonder whether something darker lurks beneath, whether the people in those quiet homes might be willing to fight in the streets should their candidates lose.
The data are grim. An Axios poll from two years ago found that 23 percent of Republicans think Democrats are evil, while 21 percent of Democrats think the same of Republicans. About one in three on both sides now say violence might be justified to advance their parties’ goals, up significantly in recent years. “I’ve never seen anything like it,” Frank Luntz, a respected GOP political consultant, told the Washington Post. “Even the most balanced, mainstream people are talking about this election in language that is more caffeinated and cataclysmic than anything I’ve ever heard.” On the right, Trump voters see the president as a shield of last resort against a radical left that wants to abolish gender, take their guns, and tear down statues of their civic heroes. On the left, Trump is seen as a Franco from Flushing, a braying fascist whose very presence threatens to undo decades of hard-won progress.
There isn’t much wiggle room in between those perceptions, much space to weigh your opinions against those of the other side. If the face of your political opponents is a black-masked rioter or a reincarnated Falange, then the choice is either win or die. And if that’s the choice, you start to wonder how anyone could possibly oppose you, why they would ever align themselves with what you see as the forces of hell. Who are these monsters who side with Antifa? How ghoulish do you have to be to vote for a Nazi nectarine? The film critic Pauline Kael once said of the 1972 election (the quote is often butchered), “I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken.” Now the other side can seem not just outside our ken but outside our species.
Why this sudden openness to political violence? There are many reasons, but surely one is that it’s much easier to entertain thuggery against those you regard as less than human. The internet doesn’t help here, flattening us all into names and avatars on social media sites, obscuring our common personhood. But another source of this dehumanization is that, whether we want to admit it or not, voting for either side in this election is a fairly radical act. Trump is unique in American history, trampling on norms while blowtorching his opponents with unprecedented rhetorical heat. Biden seems more familiar, but then to many the status quo from which he emerged was itself deeply disruptive, as are some of his newer ideas like halting fracking permits and rolling back the Obamacare contraception exemption for nuns. Such radicalism can rule out any common ground that might have been found, making the other side difficult to comprehend, even to relate to.
Of course, bitterly contested campaigns are nothing new—I don’t think there’s been a presidential election in my adult life where at least one candidate hasn’t seemed to loathe the other. But this one feels different, like if the wrong side wins, the monsters are going to swarm out into the streets and run wild. We’ve talked a lot about the widening class divide in America, how wealthy and educated coastal elites are shifting towards the Democrats, while poorer high school graduates in flyover states back Trump. But as with any abstract explainer of politics, that’s much too simple. In places like Northampton County, the vampires live next door. Those you’re supposed to fear are your neighbors. Whatever realignment has taken place isn’t so thorough as to preclude conservatives and liberals from having to live with each other.
And maybe that’s consolation amid all this chaos. It’s one thing to say you would consider violence against those who think differently; it’s quite another to actually carry it out against those who are close to you.
Of course, you could, if you’re furious enough. But outside of cable news and Twitter, the sentiment I’ve heard expressed most often this campaign season isn’t fury. It’s exhaustion. People have grown sick of the omnipresence of politics, the endless debates, the apocalyptic premonitions. The stakes in this election are high, but for God’s sake, they can’t be that high. For months now, analysts have surmised about an “exhausted majority,” a cohort of relatively non-ideological voters who are fed up with the entire spectacle. They’re said to be backing Biden, since Trump is the more tiring personality, though I know many on the right who feel the same way. The demands of 2020 engagement, with its 24-hour outrage spin cycle and shots of contempt right into the vein, simply aren’t compatible with how most people live their lives, which is to say among the real and near and human.
In Nathaniel Hawthorne’s imperishable horror story Young Goodman Brown, the titular character loses faith in everything—his church, his wife—after supposedly witnessing a satanic ritual in the woods. In the last line, Hawthorne says of Brown, “they carved no hopeful verse upon his tombstone; for his dying hour was gloom.” It’s because those next door aren’t sinister devil worshippers that we may not yet go that way. And if we don’t, it will be because we knew the neighbors weren’t monsters all along; the real freaks were those who did nothing but salivate over a depressing and wretched election.


theamericanconservative--2020-10-29--NFL Veteran Connects Race and Abortion

NFL Veteran Connects Race and Abortion

Benjamin Watson has been a regular speaker at prominent events like the March for Life for years , but Divided Hearts of America is the soft-spoken NFL star ’ s most significant foray into pro-life advocacy to date .
More fundamentally , as our disagreements over the rights of the unborn occur in the context of increasingly irreconcilable philosophical divisions , the new documentary is also a window into the story of our looming national crack-up .
Abortion , says one of the film ’ s interviewees , “ is our new civil war .
.
.
in many ways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battle for the soul of this country.
” Divided Hearts is distinct from other pro-life films not just for its production quality , which is significantly higher than comparable documentaries in the genre , but also for the unique perspective it offers : Watson , a devout Christian and father of seven , is joined by a collection of other leading black pro-life voices—Tim Scott and Ben Carson both feature prominently—to examine the question of legal abortion in the context of the African-American experience .
“ Black Americans are only 12 , 13 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and yet we ’ re responsible for between 28 to 36 percent of all abortions in the United States of America , ” activist Walter Hoye tells viewers .
“ That ’ s not an accident .
That ’ s genocide.
” One can draw a direct line from the dehumanization of the black body in chattel slavery to the dehumanization of the black body in the womb .
The racist history of the billion-dollar abortion industry will be all too familiar to committed pro-lifers , but the eugenic origins of organizations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like New York , where more black babies are aborted than born alive every year—are largely unknown to the average American .
This comes as no surprise .
The link between abortion and the oppression of black Americans is conspicuously absent from the mainstream narrative for the same reason that activists shroud the procedure ’ s inherent violence in abstract terms of “ choice , ” “ autonomy ” or “ reproductive justice.
” The contention that the pro-choice position is the obviously socially conscious policy—one of the basic claims of its proponents—is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion rights movement .
The documentary ’ s most significant contribution to the pro-life cause , then , is its exposition of this shameful and racist past , which has long languished in relative obscurity .
Its excavation of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement ’ s widespread opposition to abortion , for example , serves as a rebuke to the contemporary idea that “ pro-choice ” is the default social justice position .
( “ We ’ ve been asking for the right to decent housing , the right to education , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve been given , free of charge , is the right to kill our unborn child , ” pro-life civil rights activist Dolores Grier says in an old , grainy clip featured in the film ) .
In describing the inherent moral value of unborn life from the African-American perspective , Watson and his counterparts tie the struggle for racial equality to the push to protect children in the womb , depicting both as inextricably connected aspects of the fight for a society built around human dignity .
Simultaneously , the retelling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the heart of what abortion is : the methodical and institutionalized deprivation of basic rights from an entire class of people , accomplished through a systemic dehumanization in both our legal system and our culture writ large .
America ’ s darkest moments have always been characterized by a failure to extend the universal dignity guaranteed by our system to those whom we have seen as less than human .
“ As long as you can paint a person as a non-human—as in the days of slavery in America or any period in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to do to them , ” says Alveda King , the niece of Martin Luther King , Jr. and one of the central pro-life voices in the film .
The parallel is illuminating : In 1852 , the now-infamous Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Sandford upheld slavery by holding that African-Americans were not eligible for the basic rights of citizenship enshrined in our Constitution ; in 1973 , Roe v. Wade upheld abortion using a similar justification as it pertained to unborn children .
In his majority opinion in Roe , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was founded on a denial of fetal personhood , conceding that “ If this suggestion of personhood is established , [ Roe ’ s ] case , of course , collapses , for the fetus ’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [ 14th ] Amendment.
” At its core , then , the debate over abortion is really a debate over one ’ s view of the human person .
This essential fact is something that abortion rights advocates persistently try to avoid , but Divided Hearts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s view of the issue is fundamentally a reflection of their view of the humanity of the unborn child : “ You find a lot of pro-abortion people always talking about ‘ it ’ or ‘ the cells ’ or ‘ the mass ’ – they don ’ t want to personify it , ” Ben Carson tells Watson toward the end of the film .
And yet , he adds : “ No one will ever convince me that what ’ s inside of a woman ’ s uterus is a meaningless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ njhochman ) is a Young Voices associate contributor and a senior at Colorado College .

Benjamin Watson has been a regular speaker at prominent events like the March for Life for years, but Divided Hearts of America is the soft-spoken NFL star’s most significant foray into pro-life advocacy to date. More fundamentally, as our disagreements over the rights of the unborn occur in the context of increasingly irreconcilable philosophical divisions, the new documentary is also a window into the story of our looming national crack-up. Abortion, says one of the film’s interviewees, “is our new civil war. . . in many ways, it’s a great moral battle for the soul of this country.”
Divided Hearts is distinct from other pro-life films not just for its production quality, which is significantly higher than comparable documentaries in the genre, but also for the unique perspective it offers: Watson, a devout Christian and father of seven, is joined by a collection of other leading black pro-life voices—Tim Scott and Ben Carson both feature prominently—to examine the question of legal abortion in the context of the African-American experience. “Black Americans are only 12, 13, 14 percent of the population tops, and yet we’re responsible for between 28 to 36 percent of all abortions in the United States of America,” activist Walter Hoye tells viewers. “That’s not an accident. That’s genocide.” One can draw a direct line from the dehumanization of the black body in chattel slavery to the dehumanization of the black body in the womb.
The racist history of the billion-dollar abortion industry will be all too familiar to committed pro-lifers, but the eugenic origins of organizations like Planned Parenthood—persistently reflected today in cities like New York, where more black babies are aborted than born alive every year—are largely unknown to the average American. This comes as no surprise. The link between abortion and the oppression of black Americans is conspicuously absent from the mainstream narrative for the same reason that activists shroud the procedure’s inherent violence in abstract terms of “choice,” “autonomy” or “reproductive justice.” The contention that the pro-choice position is the obviously socially conscious policy—one of the basic claims of its proponents—is undermined by the dirty underbelly of the abortion rights movement.
The documentary’s most significant contribution to the pro-life cause, then, is its exposition of this shameful and racist past, which has long languished in relative obscurity. Its excavation of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement’s widespread opposition to abortion, for example, serves as a rebuke to the contemporary idea that “pro-choice” is the default social justice position. (“We’ve been asking for the right to decent housing, the right to education, in fact the right to healthcare—and all we’ve been given, free of charge, is the right to kill our unborn child,” pro-life civil rights activist Dolores Grier says in an old, grainy clip featured in the film). In describing the inherent moral value of unborn life from the African-American perspective, Watson and his counterparts tie the struggle for racial equality to the push to protect children in the womb, depicting both as inextricably connected aspects of the fight for a society built around human dignity.
Simultaneously, the retelling of this dark history effectively gets to the heart of what abortion is: the methodical and institutionalized deprivation of basic rights from an entire class of people, accomplished through a systemic dehumanization in both our legal system and our culture writ large.
America’s darkest moments have always been characterized by a failure to extend the universal dignity guaranteed by our system to those whom we have seen as less than human. “As long as you can paint a person as a non-human—as in the days of slavery in America or any period in the world with slaves—you…can do whatever you want to do to them,” says Alveda King, the niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. and one of the central pro-life voices in the film.
The parallel is illuminating: In 1852, the now-infamous Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Sandford upheld slavery by holding that African-Americans were not eligible for the basic rights of citizenship enshrined in our Constitution; in 1973, Roe v. Wade upheld abortion using a similar justification as it pertained to unborn children. In his majority opinion in Roe, Justice Harry Blackmun admitted that the decision was founded on a denial of fetal personhood, conceding that “If this suggestion of personhood is established, [Roe’s] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”
At its core, then, the debate over abortion is really a debate over one’s view of the human person. This essential fact is something that abortion rights advocates persistently try to avoid, but Divided Hearts of America succeeds in showing how one’s view of the issue is fundamentally a reflection of their view of the humanity of the unborn child: “You find a lot of pro-abortion people always talking about ‘it’ or ‘the cells’ or ‘the mass’ – they don’t want to personify it,” Ben Carson tells Watson toward the end of the film. And yet, he adds: “No one will ever convince me that what’s inside of a woman’s uterus is a meaningless bunch of cells.”
Nate Hochman (@njhochman) is a Young Voices associate contributor and a senior at Colorado College.


theamericanconservative--2020-10-30--Sowing, Reaping, and Locking

Sowing, Reaping, and Locking

If Biden is elected , he may be one of the most corrupt people ever to assume the office .
One of the great rallying cries of the 2016 election was “ Lock her up !
” Hillary Clinton was never a very likable candidate , despite Barack Obama ’ s comment in 2008 that she was “ likeable enough.
” She wasn ’ t , really .
And she always just seemed corrupt .
Partly it was because she was married to an obviously corrupt man .
Bill Clinton ( it just never seemed right to call him President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , whom numerous women charged with rape .
In the end—well , not the very end—he ended up paying a settlement of $ 850,000 to one of them , and had his license to practice law suspended for lying to a court .
Ponder that for a moment : a former president of the United Sates had his law license suspended because he committed perjury .
If you asked a bunch of school children which president it was ( and if it wasn ’ t an open book quiz ) , they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Bill Clinton , husband of Hillary Clinton .
Some people are just naturally funny .
Bob Hope .
Johnny Carson .
Alec Guinness .
Their humor is infectious .
It just—spreads .
Some people are just naturally crooked and dishonest .
Bill Clinton .
Hillary Clinton .
W. Jefferson Clinton .
Hillary Rodham .
They are so .
.
.
naturally crooked , we are tempted to say they can ’ t help it .
Balls of fire !
Hillary Clinton ’ s scandals are too numerous to describe , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she was secretary of state during the Obama administration , she kept a private email account so her emails wouldn ’ t be read by people who might reveal to the world what she was doing .
Three weeks after her emails were subpoenaed , 31,830 of them were wiped clean from her server .
People are supposed to go to jail for doing things like that .
People have gone to jail for things like that .
Why not Hillary ?
Part of the answer is unknown .
But part of it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whatever that means ) that winners of elections don ’ t prosecute losers .
They only do that in , you know , “ banana republics.
” But in banana republics they ’ re all more likely to be corrupt—winners as well as losers .
That is not the American tradition .
Or hasn ’ t been until now .
Hillary ’ s handling of her emails was clearly corrupt , or clearly corrupt enough to have justified making her defend herself in a court of law .
But the Trump administration decided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to today .
The Hunter Biden laptop story clearly indicates that Biden may be far more corrupt than Hillary was .
If Clinton had been prosecuted , and if Biden is corrupt , it is less likely that he would have decided to run for president : why take the risk of exposure of his financial dealings with China when he was vice president ?
Biden says things like , “ I never took a dime from the Chinese.
” Your fifth grade son would ask if he ever took a nickel or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school daughter would ask if he ever received any money indirectly from the Chinese , i.e.
, perhaps via Hunter Biden .
If Biden gets elected , he may be one of the most corrupt people ever to assume the office .
That could be a disaster for the United States , and for some of our allies as well—particularly , perhaps , Taiwan .
And—and this is important—what are the odds that no one else in the Democratic Party knew of Biden ’ s dealing with the Chinese ?
All the more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bear some of the responsibility for the disaster of a Biden win .
He didn ’ t direct that Hillary be prosecuted .
But he can learn from experience .
If he wins , he should direct the Department of Justice to investigate Biden and prosecute him if they find crimes .
And he probably needs an out-of-town specialist to run the investigation , which should include investigating the top people at the FBI—who have been sitting on the Hunter Biden laptop for almost a year .
Probably the top 100 people at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s unlikely that there could be so much corruption at the tippy top without its oozing down to the next 100 or so employees .
“ Lock her up !
” was the people ’ s cry in 2016 .
They were wiser than their leaders .
We should learn from it .
Actions , and inactions , have consequences .
Like sowing and reaping .
Daniel Oliver is Chairman of the Board of the Education and Research Institute and a Director of Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy in San Francisco @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Federal Trade Commission under President Reagan , he was Executive Editor and subsequently Chairman of the Board of William F. Buckley Jr. ’ s National Review .

One of the great rallying cries of the 2016 election was “Lock her up!” Hillary Clinton was never a very likable candidate, despite Barack Obama’s comment in 2008 that she was “likeable enough.” She wasn’t, really.
And she always just seemed corrupt. Partly it was because she was married to an obviously corrupt man. Bill Clinton (it just never seemed right to call him President Clinton) was a sleazy Arkansas politician, whom numerous women charged with rape. In the end—well, not the very end—he ended up paying a settlement of $850,000 to one of them, and had his license to practice law suspended for lying to a court.
Ponder that for a moment: a former president of the United Sates had his law license suspended because he committed perjury. If you asked a bunch of school children which president it was (and if it wasn’t an open book quiz), they’d probably say Donald Trump. Nope. Bill Clinton, husband of Hillary Clinton.
Some people are just naturally funny. Bob Hope. Johnny Carson. Alec Guinness. Their humor is infectious. It just—spreads.
Some people are just naturally crooked and dishonest. Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton. W. Jefferson Clinton. Hillary Rodham. They are so . . . naturally crooked, we are tempted to say they can’t help it. Balls of fire!
Hillary Clinton’s scandals are too numerous to describe, but the important scandal is this one: while she was secretary of state during the Obama administration, she kept a private email account so her emails wouldn’t be read by people who might reveal to the world what she was doing. Three weeks after her emails were subpoenaed, 31,830 of them were wiped clean from her server.
People are supposed to go to jail for doing things like that. People have gone to jail for things like that. Why not Hillary?
Part of the answer is unknown. But part of it is that there was—is—a general sense (whatever that means) that winners of elections don’t prosecute losers. They only do that in, you know, “banana republics.”
But in banana republics they’re all more likely to be corrupt—winners as well as losers. That is not the American tradition. Or hasn’t been until now.
Hillary’s handling of her emails was clearly corrupt, or clearly corrupt enough to have justified making her defend herself in a court of law. But the Trump administration decided not to prosecute her.
Fast forward to today. The Hunter Biden laptop story clearly indicates that Biden may be far more corrupt than Hillary was. If Clinton had been prosecuted, and if Biden is corrupt, it is less likely that he would have decided to run for president: why take the risk of exposure of his financial dealings with China when he was vice president? Biden says things like, “I never took a dime from the Chinese.” Your fifth grade son would ask if he ever took a nickel or a quarter from them. Your law school daughter would ask if he ever received any money indirectly from the Chinese, i.e., perhaps via Hunter Biden.
If Biden gets elected, he may be one of the most corrupt people ever to assume the office. That could be a disaster for the United States, and for some of our allies as well—particularly, perhaps, Taiwan.
And—and this is important—what are the odds that no one else in the Democratic Party knew of Biden’s dealing with the Chinese? All the more reason to investigate. Donald Trump will bear some of the responsibility for the disaster of a Biden win. He didn’t direct that Hillary be prosecuted. But he can learn from experience. If he wins, he should direct the Department of Justice to investigate Biden and prosecute him if they find crimes.
And he probably needs an out-of-town specialist to run the investigation, which should include investigating the top people at the FBI—who have been sitting on the Hunter Biden laptop for almost a year. Probably the top 100 people at the FBI should be fired. It’s unlikely that there could be so much corruption at the tippy top without its oozing down to the next 100 or so employees.
“Lock her up!” was the people’s cry in 2016. They were wiser than their leaders. We should learn from it. Actions, and inactions, have consequences. Like sowing and reaping.
Daniel Oliver is Chairman of the Board of the Education and Research Institute and a Director of Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy in San Francisco. In addition to serving as Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission under President Reagan, he was Executive Editor and subsequently Chairman of the Board of William F. Buckley Jr.’s National Review.


theamericanconservative--2020-10-31--Glenn Greenwald Sparks Snowden Deja-Vu

Glenn Greenwald Sparks Snowden Deja-Vu

On Thursday , Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald announced that he was resigning from the news outlet he helped found , The Intercept .
His reason ?
The progressive reporter believes his pro-Joe Biden editors do not want him saying anything critical about the former vice president days before the election .
Greenwald explained , “ The final , precipitating cause is that The Intercept ’ s editors , in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom , censored an article I wrote this week , refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Democratic presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supported by all New-York-based Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression.
” What , exactly , were they suppressing ?
According to Greenwald , his delving into the Hunter Biden alleged laptop and foreign business dealings controversy , which the journalist still shared on his newly announced platform on Substack .
The Intercept released a statement insisting the problem was Greenwald ’ s ego and not their editorial policies .
Regardless , Greenwald has been one of the few prominent voices on the left to call out media bias , particularly as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential nominee .
Greenwald has also been one of the very few unafraid to point out the very unprogressive record of Joe Biden .
This Greenwald was on full display during his interview on Joe Rogan ’ s popular podcast Wednesday .
The two discussed everything from the media refusing to even investigate the latest Hunter Biden controversy , to how interviewers glad-hand Joe Biden .
Greenwald also reminded Rogan ’ s millions of listeners how Joe Biden bullied other countries into not giving Greenwald ’ s friend , Edward Snowden , asylum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an NSA contractor turned whistleblower , worked with Greenwald to alert the American public that they were being spied on—activity a federal appeals court ruled illegal just this September—he predictably sought asylum to avoid being arrested by U.S. officials .
Snowden originally had a number of options , as different countries offered him safe haven .
That is , until Joe Biden stepped in .
Biden ’ s former boss , Barack Obama , had once vowed to protect whistleblowers during his 2008 Democratic presidential campaign .
His website read , “ Often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , fraud , and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out .
Such acts of courage and patriotism , which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars , should be encouraged rather than stifled.
” “ We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance , ” the Obama website statement continued .
“ Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste , fraud , and abuse of authority in government.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ revelations , this statement disappeared from the web .
After all , Snowden had revealed illegal surveillance carried out under Obama-Biden , not Bush-Cheney .
The Obama White House subsequently pulled no punches in making this particular whistleblower ’ s life as difficult as possible .
Rogan asked Greenwald during their interview , “ So Joe Biden was responsible for blocking his asylum to other countries ?
” Greenwald replied , “ Yeah , Joe Biden and John Kerry .
They were carrying out the policy of the Obama administration , but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Greenwald would know .
As seen in the Oscar-winning documentary “ Citizenfour , ” Greenwald was holed up with Snowden in a Hong Kong hotel room as both men carefully plotted on how to best sound the alarm on the NSA .
They eventually did .
Then it came time for Snowden to run .
One of the first things that he did , when Snowden left Hong Kong , the ticket that he had was Moscow , Havana and then he was going to go to Ecuador , where he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Joe Biden called the Cuban government and said , if you allow him safe passage—which they had already granted him—you ’ re going to suffer consequences like you ’ ve never experienced from the U.S. government before .
.
.
so they withdrew their safe passage guarantee.
” Greenwald explained how Biden went out of his way to thwart Snowden at every turn by strong-arming other countries into denying the whistleblower safe haven .
“ Then he applied to countries that frequently grant asylum to whistleblowers like Sweden , Finland , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also a lot of revelations and he was looked upon favorably because he was showing those populations how the NSA was spying on them , ” Greenwald said .
He added , “ And then at the last minute , ( Snowden ’ s ) lawyers would get a call from the consulates of those countries and say ‘ Joe Biden called and said that they ’ ll start a trade war with us or they ’ ll withdraw from this treaty or they ’ ll do this or that if we grant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t , ” the countries informed Snowden .
Rogan and Greenwald went on to discuss how , despite Barack Obama promising to better protect whistleblowers during his 2008 presidential campaign , Rogan noted “ his administration was one of the worst for whistleblowers ever.
” Indeed .
The Obama administration waged war on whistleblowers and Joe Biden spearheaded the U.S. government hunt for Edward Snowden .
Does anyone—does any civil libertarian—believe a Biden administration would behave any different ?
Will anyone on the left , besides Glenn Greenwald , even dare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the former political editor of Rare.us and co-authored the 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington with Senator Rand Paul .

On Thursday, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald announced that he was resigning from the news outlet he helped found, The Intercept. His reason? The progressive reporter believes his pro-Joe Biden editors do not want him saying anything critical about the former vice president days before the election.
Greenwald explained, “The final, precipitating cause is that The Intercept’s editors, in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom, censored an article I wrote this week, refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all New-York-based Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression.”
What, exactly, were they suppressing? According to Greenwald, his delving into the Hunter Biden alleged laptop and foreign business dealings controversy, which the journalist still shared on his newly announced platform on Substack.
The Intercept released a statement insisting the problem was Greenwald’s ego and not their editorial policies. Regardless, Greenwald has been one of the few prominent voices on the left to call out media bias, particularly as it relates to protecting the current Democratic presidential nominee.
Greenwald has also been one of the very few unafraid to point out the very unprogressive record of Joe Biden. This Greenwald was on full display during his interview on Joe Rogan’s popular podcast Wednesday. The two discussed everything from the media refusing to even investigate the latest Hunter Biden controversy, to how interviewers glad-hand Joe Biden.
Greenwald also reminded Rogan’s millions of listeners how Joe Biden bullied other countries into not giving Greenwald’s friend, Edward Snowden, asylum.
In 2013, after Snowden, an NSA contractor turned whistleblower, worked with Greenwald to alert the American public that they were being spied on—activity a federal appeals court ruled illegal just this September—he predictably sought asylum to avoid being arrested by U.S. officials. Snowden originally had a number of options, as different countries offered him safe haven.
That is, until Joe Biden stepped in.
Biden’s former boss, Barack Obama, had once vowed to protect whistleblowers during his 2008 Democratic presidential campaign. His website read, “Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled.”
“We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance,” the Obama website statement continued. “Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government.”
However, after Snowden made his revelations, this statement disappeared from the web.
After all, Snowden had revealed illegal surveillance carried out under Obama-Biden, not Bush-Cheney. The Obama White House subsequently pulled no punches in making this particular whistleblower’s life as difficult as possible.
Rogan asked Greenwald during their interview, “So Joe Biden was responsible for blocking his asylum to other countries?”
Greenwald replied, “Yeah, Joe Biden and John Kerry. They were carrying out the policy of the Obama administration, but it was Joe Biden that took the lead.”
Greenwald would know. As seen in the Oscar-winning documentary “Citizenfour,” Greenwald was holed up with Snowden in a Hong Kong hotel room as both men carefully plotted on how to best sound the alarm on the NSA. They eventually did. Then it came time for Snowden to run.
Greenwald explained:
One of the first things that he did, when Snowden left Hong Kong, the ticket that he had was Moscow, Havana and then he was going to go to Ecuador, where he was going to get asylum. . . and Joe Biden called the Cuban government and said, if you allow him safe passage—which they had already granted him—you’re going to suffer consequences like you’ve never experienced from the U.S. government before. . . so they withdrew their safe passage guarantee.”
Greenwald explained how Biden went out of his way to thwart Snowden at every turn by strong-arming other countries into denying the whistleblower safe haven.
“Then he applied to countries that frequently grant asylum to whistleblowers like Sweden, Finland, even Germany and France, where there were also a lot of revelations and he was looked upon favorably because he was showing those populations how the NSA was spying on them,” Greenwald said.
He added, “And then at the last minute, (Snowden’s) lawyers would get a call from the consulates of those countries and say ‘Joe Biden called and said that they’ll start a trade war with us or they’ll withdraw from this treaty or they’ll do this or that if we grant asylum.”
“Sorry, we just can’t,” the countries informed Snowden.
Rogan and Greenwald went on to discuss how, despite Barack Obama promising to better protect whistleblowers during his 2008 presidential campaign, Rogan noted “his administration was one of the worst for whistleblowers ever.”
Indeed. The Obama administration waged war on whistleblowers and Joe Biden spearheaded the U.S. government hunt for Edward Snowden. Does anyone—does any civil libertarian—believe a Biden administration would behave any different?
Will anyone on the left, besides Glenn Greenwald, even dare to ask such questions?
Jack Hunter is the former political editor of Rare.us and co-authored the 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington with Senator Rand Paul.


theamericanconservative--2020-10-31--Pick Your Presidential Poison

Pick Your Presidential Poison

Trump is n't likely to reach beyond his base , and Biden is almost certain to be taken in by the radicals .
There 's no good choice here .
This year ’ s presidential election gives a whole new meaning to the term , “ Pick your poison.
” On the one hand we have the incumbent , a septuagenarian of uncouth demeanor , odiously brutal rhetoric , and a tendency toward self-absorption that is nearly total .
He has coarsened the nation ’ s political culture to an extent never before seen or even contemplated by most Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the challenger , also a septuagenarian , steeped in the milieu of official Washington , a power-hungry and money-hungry capital that gets further removed from ordinary citizens by the year .
His own many years are showing , and he demonstrates intermittent bouts of apparent disorientation .
As Daniel Henninger wrote the other day in The Wall Street Journal , voters are asking : “ How has it come to this , a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea ?
” ( He added that the Deep Blue Sea has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not fair to focus on the age of these two candidates .
We ’ re living longer these days and perhaps it can be said that we are staying younger longer , too .
And I have nothing against septuagenarians , being one myself .
But it seems reasonable to wonder if we aren ’ t playing the percentages with considerably more risk than usual in choosing a president well into his seventies , including one who will be eighty within two years of taking office .
But the age issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem with this electoral choice .
We have two candidates who just don ’ t seem to be up to the job .
This is not the sort of thing Otto von Bismarck had in mind when he mused about the seeming invincibility of this rising power on our North American continent back in the 1890s : “ God watches over drunks , small children , and the United States of America.
” It ’ s easy to see why Bismarck felt that way about America ( leaving aside the other two ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the German statesman ’ s waning years seemed to work out beautifully .
The industrial surge , the generally consistent economic growth , the thrust into empire with the annexation of Hawaii and the Spanish-American War , the Central American canal project , the big naval buildup , the general civic stability of the post-Civil War decades : America was on the move , and its rise appeared irrepressible .
God doesn ’ t seem to be looking out for America these days .
That ’ s apparent in a host of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the binary choice Americans face in this election .
Donald Trump is one of the most polarizing figures ever to occupy the White House .
Leaving aside his views , some of which are sound , his leadership has rattled the nation , and his reelection will rattle it further .
He is a historically significant figure in that he carved out for himself a political role as leader of what historian Walter Russell Mead has called the “ Jacksonian ” elements in American society—nationalist in outlook and concerned about such things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a common enterprise with a unique culture , a sense of sacred territory , and a devotion to the idea of American sovereignty .
As the leader of these people , Trump has led a crusade against the relatively new meritocratic elites of the country who have set themselves against Jacksonian America .
The aim is to reduce it to political irrelevance through the tools of political correctness , cancel culture , and moral superiority .
They are globalist in outlook , ardently anti-nationalist , fixated on identity politics , cultural atomization , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thus do we see an epic struggle in today ’ s America between two broad views of the country and its future .
But the battle can ’ t really be joined because the leaders of the two parties can ’ t get beyond their flaws .
Trump sees the struggle for what it is but throughout his presidency has demonstrated that he lacks the tools for building a governing coalition around the Jacksonian philosophy .
He deigns to talk only to those already in his camp and hence can ’ t expand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s reelected , that fatal political flaw will chase after him , tripping him up and undermining any prospect that he could move the nation in a new direction based on the Jacksonian model .
Joe Biden , meanwhile , seems likely to embrace a brand of far-left politics that will generate its own kind of civic ripping and tearing .
He seeks to pass himself off as a unifying figure for polarized times , as if we ’ re living in the 1950s or the 1990s .
It ’ s all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signal political developments in America of the past two decades–the emergence of the Democratic Party as a truly leftist institution , socialist in its economic outlook , guided by an anti-nationalist fervor , bent on ripping America from the cultural moorings that have defined the country since the beginning .
And it is hostile to those citizens who have gravitated to Trump .
Is this going to be the guiding force for America if Joe Biden is elected ?
We don ’ t know .
He won ’ t say .
For good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential governing system , framed by the Founders as part of their effort to prevent the emergence of unchecked power .
In our system the president sets the agenda , and that means that major national crises and epic struggles of the nation must be managed , if they are to be managed at all , by presidential leadership .
Can this election yield that kind of leadership ?
It doesn ’ t seem likely .
Either way , prospects seem thin that this week ’ s balloting will pull the country out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been its habitat for many years now .
America has always been a resiliant country .
But not since the 1850s have we had a presidential election with so little prospect that the outcome can successfully address the profound crises of our time .
And that raises some questions : Is this just happenstance , an aberrational twist of fate in which both parties put forth men so lacking in confidence-building attributes ?
Or is this a reflection of some fundamental decay in the fabric of the nation ?
And , if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decay and get the country back to its old winning ways ?
Questions without ready answers , at least for now .
Robert W. Merry , former Washington journalist and publishing executive , is the author of five books on American history and foreign policy .

This year’s presidential election gives a whole new meaning to the term, “Pick your poison.” On the one hand we have the incumbent, a septuagenarian of uncouth demeanor, odiously brutal rhetoric, and a tendency toward self-absorption that is nearly total. He has coarsened the nation’s political culture to an extent never before seen or even contemplated by most Americans. On the other hand we have the challenger, also a septuagenarian, steeped in the milieu of official Washington, a power-hungry and money-hungry capital that gets further removed from ordinary citizens by the year. His own many years are showing, and he demonstrates intermittent bouts of apparent disorientation.
As Daniel Henninger wrote the other day in The Wall Street Journal, voters are asking: “How has it come to this, a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea?” (He added that the Deep Blue Sea has always frightened him.)
Perhaps it’s not fair to focus on the age of these two candidates. We’re living longer these days and perhaps it can be said that we are staying younger longer, too. And I have nothing against septuagenarians, being one myself. But it seems reasonable to wonder if we aren’t playing the percentages with considerably more risk than usual in choosing a president well into his seventies, including one who will be eighty within two years of taking office.
But the age issue isn’t the crux of the problem with this electoral choice. We have two candidates who just don’t seem to be up to the job.
This is not the sort of thing Otto von Bismarck had in mind when he mused about the seeming invincibility of this rising power on our North American continent back in the 1890s: “God watches over drunks, small children, and the United States of America.” It’s easy to see why Bismarck felt that way about America (leaving aside the other two). Everything the country sought to do in the German statesman’s waning years seemed to work out beautifully. The industrial surge, the generally consistent economic growth, the thrust into empire with the annexation of Hawaii and the Spanish-American War, the Central American canal project, the big naval buildup, the general civic stability of the post-Civil War decades: America was on the move, and its rise appeared irrepressible.
God doesn’t seem to be looking out for America these days. That’s apparent in a host of ways, but it is certainly reflected in the binary choice Americans face in this election. Donald Trump is one of the most polarizing figures ever to occupy the White House. Leaving aside his views, some of which are sound, his leadership has rattled the nation, and his reelection will rattle it further. He is a historically significant figure in that he carved out for himself a political role as leader of what historian Walter Russell Mead has called the “Jacksonian” elements in American society—nationalist in outlook and concerned about such things as the identity of their country as a common enterprise with a unique culture, a sense of sacred territory, and a devotion to the idea of American sovereignty.
As the leader of these people, Trump has led a crusade against the relatively new meritocratic elites of the country who have set themselves against Jacksonian America. The aim is to reduce it to political irrelevance through the tools of political correctness, cancel culture, and moral superiority. They are globalist in outlook, ardently anti-nationalist, fixated on identity politics, cultural atomization, open borders, and supranational institutions.
Thus do we see an epic struggle in today’s America between two broad views of the country and its future. But the battle can’t really be joined because the leaders of the two parties can’t get beyond their flaws. Trump sees the struggle for what it is but throughout his presidency has demonstrated that he lacks the tools for building a governing coalition around the Jacksonian philosophy. He deigns to talk only to those already in his camp and hence can’t expand his core constituency. Even if he’s reelected, that fatal political flaw will chase after him, tripping him up and undermining any prospect that he could move the nation in a new direction based on the Jacksonian model.
Joe Biden, meanwhile, seems likely to embrace a brand of far-left politics that will generate its own kind of civic ripping and tearing. He seeks to pass himself off as a unifying figure for polarized times, as if we’re living in the 1950s or the 1990s. It’s all phony. It ignores one of the signal political developments in America of the past two decades–the emergence of the Democratic Party as a truly leftist institution, socialist in its economic outlook, guided by an anti-nationalist fervor, bent on ripping America from the cultural moorings that have defined the country since the beginning. And it is hostile to those citizens who have gravitated to Trump.
Is this going to be the guiding force for America if Joe Biden is elected? We don’t know. He won’t say.
For good or ill, we live in a presidential governing system, framed by the Founders as part of their effort to prevent the emergence of unchecked power. In our system the president sets the agenda, and that means that major national crises and epic struggles of the nation must be managed, if they are to be managed at all, by presidential leadership. Can this election yield that kind of leadership? It doesn’t seem likely.
Either way, prospects seem thin that this week’s balloting will pull the country out of the Slough of Despond that has been its habitat for many years now.
America has always been a resiliant country. But not since the 1850s have we had a presidential election with so little prospect that the outcome can successfully address the profound crises of our time. And that raises some questions:
Is this just happenstance, an aberrational twist of fate in which both parties put forth men so lacking in confidence-building attributes?
Or is this a reflection of some fundamental decay in the fabric of the nation?
And, if the latter, how do we arrest the decay and get the country back to its old winning ways?
Questions without ready answers, at least for now.
Robert W. Merry, former Washington journalist and publishing executive, is the author of five books on American history and foreign policy.