theamericanconservative--2020-06-23--Why Conservative Fusionism Was Destined to Disintegrate

LOS ANGELES , CA - OCTOBER 21 : Tucker Carlson speaks onstage during Politicon 2018 at Los Angeles Convention Center on October 21 , 2018 in Los Angeles , California .
( Photo by Phillip Faraone/Getty Images for Politicon ) In his recent monologue about mob rule and cancel culture , Tucker Carlson made what seems like an uncontroversial claim : “ No child is born evil.
” Beyond setting Calvinists aflutter on Theology Twitter , however , Tucker ’ s assertion exposes why conservative fusionism was predestined to disintegrate .
Market-lovers , churchgoers , and commie-haters had plenty uniting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threatened world annihilation , Jimmy Carter had us mired in stagflation , and the recently legalized abortion industry was cranking out record numbers of corpses .
Leaders calling themselves fusionists , combining all three strains of conservatism , promised solutions .
But with success came divisions .
In the 1990 ’ s , having dispensed with the Soviet Union , neocons turned to Middle East nation-building .
Christians became increasingly intolerable in a liberalizing and globalizing world .
Multinational panjandrums shifted manufacturing overseas .
The partners Frank Meyer once described as interdependent pillars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ differences .
How could this be , when they ’ d been so good together ?
The traditionalists kept the individualists mindful of virtue , and the individualists kept the traditionalists alert for infringements on liberty .
They needed each other , didn ’ t they ?
Maybe not as much as we thought , because they weren ’ t so different after all .
This was Jonah Goldberg ’ s claim a couple of years ago : “ The libertarian individualists of the 1960s were more virtue-oriented than they appreciated .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with freedom than they often let on .
And many of the arguments about fusionism amounted to the sorts of squabbles we associate with the faculty lounge ; they were so vicious because the stakes were so low.
” The real problem , in Goldberg ’ s view , is that the ignorant rabble displaced the intellectuals .
Whereas before we had Brent Bozell intelligently disputing Frank Meyer , now we get Diamond & Silk starring at CPAC , while the leader of the GOP tweets murder rumors about one of his critics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s demise in changes to technology and political party structure , in the spirit of originalism we might consider what American conservatism ’ s founders believed .
It ’ s hard to find two early conservative thinkers more antagonistic toward one another than Harry Jaffa and Willmoore Kendall , yet they agreed political philosophy—and thereby political strategy—is fundamentally driven by beliefs about the nature of man .
“ All societies , ” wrote Kendall in Basic Symbols of the American Political Tradition , “ think of themselves , once they begin to think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a truth , a meaning , about the nature and destiny of man , and thus about that which , in the constitution of being , is above and beyond man.
” Jaffa , who otherwise sought to eviscerate Kendall in his extensive rebuttal of the aforementioned book , concurred on this point : “ what men are by nature , that is , prior to civil society , determines what purposes civil society may rightfully serve.
” Writing before either of them , Richard Weaver made the same claim in the opening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that rejection of the transcendental had placed man at the center of things , thus leading to “ the abandonment of the doctrine of original sin.
” This in turn opened the door to all manner of progressive nonsense rooted in the fundamental belief that any flaws in man ’ s behavior are due to correctible social forces—a conviction Stalin embraced wholeheartedly .
We can see how factions in today ’ s disintegrating conservative coalition differ on Tucker Carlson ’ s assertion , and how that disagreement drives them apart .
For the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ globalization advocates , or just Creaster Republicans with business degrees , man is essentially pretty good , and will add all kinds of value to the GDP if government will only get out of his way .
Cut taxes and regulation , keep oil prices low , and maybe even consider reducing our debt , and the country will do just fine .
To the neocons and their establishment DC heirs , man is as good or bad as his ideas .
The Russkies got Marx , we got Madison , and therein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or a smart bomb or a few thousand expendable young Marines to depose a guy clutching The Communist Manifesto , replace him with a guy who has The Federalist Papers stuffed into his back pocket , and that ’ s how you illuminate a darkened world one freedom beacon at a time .
To the traditionalists , meanwhile , if man is not born evil then he certainly comes out of the womb bent in that direction .
His worst impulses must therefore be restrained , his virtue cultivated .
What ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existence of God , the aims society ought pursue , as Eric Voegelin argued , extend before the cradle and past the grave .
Historical conditions drove these disparate tribes together for a time , but we shouldn ’ t confuse soldiers sharing a foxhole for Siamese twins .
Past policy divisions aside , just look at how their worldviews shape each tribe ’ s response to the coronavirus pandemic : To the market-lover , the economy ’ s health trumps the health of the vulnerable elderly .
To the neocon , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China .
The traditionalists , meanwhile , are concerned less about the financial survival of Tysons and Smithfield Foods than with keeping local institutions open , because optimizing lifespan or the national GDP is less important than giving people regular work , community engagement , and communion with God .
Rumbling beneath the break-up on the American right is the echo of the question Tucker hinted at : What is man ?
Friends and allies can certainly disagree about the answer , but sooner or later they ’ re going to want different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to train their guns on each other .

In his recent monologue about mob rule and cancel culture, Tucker Carlson made what seems like an uncontroversial claim: “No child is born evil.” Beyond setting Calvinists aflutter on Theology Twitter, however, Tucker’s assertion exposes why conservative fusionism was predestined to disintegrate.
Market-lovers, churchgoers, and commie-haters had plenty uniting them back in 1979. The Soviets threatened world annihilation, Jimmy Carter had us mired in stagflation, and the recently legalized abortion industry was cranking out record numbers of corpses. Leaders calling themselves fusionists, combining all three strains of conservatism, promised solutions.
But with success came divisions. In the 1990’s, having dispensed with the Soviet Union, neocons turned to Middle East nation-building. Christians became increasingly intolerable in a liberalizing and globalizing world. Multinational panjandrums shifted manufacturing overseas. The partners Frank Meyer once described as interdependent pillars began to realize they might have irreconcilable differences.
How could this be, when they’d been so good together? The traditionalists kept the individualists mindful of virtue, and the individualists kept the traditionalists alert for infringements on liberty. They needed each other, didn’t they?
Maybe not as much as we thought, because they weren’t so different after all. This was Jonah Goldberg’s claim a couple of years ago: “The libertarian individualists of the 1960s were more virtue-oriented than they appreciated. The traditionalists of the period were more concerned with freedom than they often let on. And many of the arguments about fusionism amounted to the sorts of squabbles we associate with the faculty lounge; they were so vicious because the stakes were so low.”
The real problem, in Goldberg’s view, is that the ignorant rabble displaced the intellectuals. Whereas before we had Brent Bozell intelligently disputing Frank Meyer, now we get Diamond & Silk starring at CPAC, while the leader of the GOP tweets murder rumors about one of his critics.
But whereas Goldberg roots conservatism’s demise in changes to technology and political party structure, in the spirit of originalism we might consider what American conservatism’s founders believed. It’s hard to find two early conservative thinkers more antagonistic toward one another than Harry Jaffa and Willmoore Kendall, yet they agreed political philosophy—and thereby political strategy—is fundamentally driven by beliefs about the nature of man.
“All societies,” wrote Kendall in Basic Symbols of the American Political Tradition, “think of themselves, once they begin to think of themselves at all, as representing a truth, a meaning, about the nature and destiny of man, and thus about that which, in the constitution of being, is above and beyond man.”
Jaffa, who otherwise sought to eviscerate Kendall in his extensive rebuttal of the aforementioned book, concurred on this point: “what men are by nature, that is, prior to civil society, determines what purposes civil society may rightfully serve.”
Writing before either of them, Richard Weaver made the same claim in the opening pages of Ideas Have Consequences, asserting that rejection of the transcendental had placed man at the center of things, thus leading to “the abandonment of the doctrine of original sin.” This in turn opened the door to all manner of progressive nonsense rooted in the fundamental belief that any flaws in man’s behavior are due to correctible social forces—a conviction Stalin embraced wholeheartedly.
We can see how factions in today’s disintegrating conservative coalition differ on Tucker Carlson’s assertion, and how that disagreement drives them apart. For the individualists, be they libertarians, free-market globalization advocates, or just Creaster Republicans with business degrees, man is essentially pretty good, and will add all kinds of value to the GDP if government will only get out of his way. Cut taxes and regulation, keep oil prices low, and maybe even consider reducing our debt, and the country will do just fine.
To the neocons and their establishment DC heirs, man is as good or bad as his ideas. The Russkies got Marx, we got Madison, and therein lies all the difference. Use diplomacy or a smart bomb or a few thousand expendable young Marines to depose a guy clutching The Communist Manifesto, replace him with a guy who has The Federalist Papers stuffed into his back pocket, and that’s how you illuminate a darkened world one freedom beacon at a time.
To the traditionalists, meanwhile, if man is not born evil then he certainly comes out of the womb bent in that direction. His worst impulses must therefore be restrained, his virtue cultivated. What’s more, because original sin implies the existence of God, the aims society ought pursue, as Eric Voegelin argued, extend before the cradle and past the grave.
Historical conditions drove these disparate tribes together for a time, but we shouldn’t confuse soldiers sharing a foxhole for Siamese twins. Past policy divisions aside, just look at how their worldviews shape each tribe’s response to the coronavirus pandemic: To the market-lover, the economy’s health trumps the health of the vulnerable elderly. To the neocon, it’s time to go toe-to-toe with China. The traditionalists, meanwhile, are concerned less about the financial survival of Tysons and Smithfield Foods than with keeping local institutions open, because optimizing lifespan or the national GDP is less important than giving people regular work, community engagement, and communion with God.
Rumbling beneath the break-up on the American right is the echo of the question Tucker hinted at: What is man? Friends and allies can certainly disagree about the answer, but sooner or later they’re going to want different foxholes. And eventually they’re going to train their guns on each other.
Tony Woodlief is a writer who lives in North Carolina.


theamericanconservative--2020-06-23--Michael Pack Is Right To Rein In State-Funded Broadcasters

There are four branches of government in the United States .
In addition to the three you learned about in civics class , there is a vast civil service that is theoretically answerable to the executive but in practice is certainly not .
During the Trump era , the independence of this fourth branch of government has been buttressed by the media ’ s willingness to portray any attempt to subject it to control by elected officials as a “ purge , ” and in an Orwellian inversion of reality , antithetical to democracy .
The firing of Geoffrey Berman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is just the latest example of this , resistance to which is based on the theory that U.S .
Attorneys should not be subject to the Attorney General .
The conspiracy theory concocted to obscure this false sense of where authority lies is that he was fired to cover up Trump ’ s corruption .
No evidence exists for this theory , and it ’ s just as likely he was fired for failing to bring charges against Jeffrey Epstein ’ s co-conspirators .
Berman had recently clashed with Washington , being unwilling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criticizing the New York Mayor ’ s double standards on quarantine enforcement , on the one hand encouraging protests while using the NYPD to break up a Jewish funeral .
If the Department of Justice wishes to make an issue of that , as part of a duly elected executive government , they should be able to have prosecutors who are willing to do so .
This isn ’ t a difficult principle , and in matters of state the executive has even more latitude .
Yet late last week , another agency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another Trump purge : the U.S. Agency for Global Media , home to the various quasi-journalism operations that form the United States ’ public diplomacy apparatus .
The heads of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty , Middle East Broadcasting Network , Radio Free Asia , and the Open Technology Fund were all sacked by incoming USAGM executive Michael Pack , who was recently confirmed by the Senate .
No career employees were fired ; all four had special contracts .
NPR ’ s David Folkenflik set the tune for coverage of the sackings , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they were “ raising fears of meddling.
” Meddling to what end , however , Folkenflik did not seem terribly clear about .
Pressed by CBS about what this could portend for their editorial direction , he told the anchor that it could have ramifications for Radio Free Asia ’ s “ bolder reporting ” about Uyghurs in China , citing John Bolton ’ s revelation that Trump had downplayed China ’ s persecution in a meeting with Xi Jinping .
He didn ’ t mention that Trump signed the Uyghur Human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sackings took place .
Concerns about “ editorial independence ” are at the heart of the controversy , according to CBS .
Editorial independence is one thing that the recently departed head of VOA , Amanda Bennett , had emphasized as part of the organization ’ s mission .
In a statement to VOA staff before she departed , she said , “ Michael Pack swore before Congress to respect and honor the firewall that guarantees VOA ’ s independence , which in turn plays the single most important role in the stunning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in us.
” Woe betide Pack if after being confirmed by the Senate he dares to exercise control over an institution chartered and funded by Congress .
Even if you believe that a government-funded broadcaster could , through the magic of some bureaucratic or legal fiction , exercise meaningful editorial independence , the lack thereof is a fact : VOA ’ s editorials are cleared by the State Department .
If this shake-up portends an end to that fiction , that is a good thing .
The theory of Bennett and various Pack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries will recognize what a long leash we give our state-funded broadcasters , and therefore the editorial independence of VOA and its siblings itself becomes part of the soft-power pitch being made .
It ’ s an interesting argument , but also somewhat self-serving .
The VOA charter says , “ VOA will present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively.
” It ’ s hard to argue with the fact that , at least at Radio Free Europe , the coverage sounds more like Trump ’ s Atlanticist critics : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skeptical of populist politicians like Salvini , Orban and Duda , and fond of NATO .
You can think their view is the right one , but it ’ s also not the view of the president the American people put in the White House .
By that standard , the VOA is out of step with its charter .
By any objective measure a shake-up at USAGM is fully justified , for years it has lingered at the bottom of the lists of federal agencies in terms of employee satisfaction .
VOA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of its Africa broadcasters for accepting bribes two years ago .
Nor can the shake-up be attributed to partisanship : the former heads of the European and Middle East broadcasters , Jamie Fly and Alberto Fernandez , worked in the Bush administration .
Perhaps this is why CNBC , for example , uses the term “ Trump loyalists ” —it ’ s true that Fly , a leading neoconservative and Never Trumper , is a Trump disloyalist .
The big question is why they hired him in the first place .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holds true here : the hawks are mad about it .
The leading interventionist of the senatorial opposition , Bob Menendez , said the firings were part of Trump ’ s “ efforts to transform U.S. institutions rooted in the principles of democracy into tools for the President ’ s own personal agenda.
” Texas Rep. Michael McCaul , an Iran hawk and ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs committee also expressed his concern .
What they object to is American foreign policy ever being subject to democratic control : they claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the demos ’ s revealed preference for a more restrained posture abroad .
What personal benefit Trump could possibly derive from getting his message out on an African radio station or a TV studio in Dubai is unclear , perhaps Senator Menendez could clarify that for us .
As with Russiagate , the backlash to Pack ’ s shake-up is really about policy differences , not concerns about corruption .
It remains to be seen what the administration intends to do with USAGM , but given the differences of opinion between the administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public and official diplomacy , it ’ s hard to blame them for wanting both a shorter leash and a fresh start .

There are four branches of government in the United States. In addition to the three you learned about in civics class, there is a vast civil service that is theoretically answerable to the executive but in practice is certainly not. During the Trump era, the independence of this fourth branch of government has been buttressed by the media’s willingness to portray any attempt to subject it to control by elected officials as a “purge,” and in an Orwellian inversion of reality, antithetical to democracy.
The firing of Geoffrey Berman in the Southern District of New York is just the latest example of this, resistance to which is based on the theory that U.S. Attorneys should not be subject to the Attorney General. The conspiracy theory concocted to obscure this false sense of where authority lies is that he was fired to cover up Trump’s corruption.
No evidence exists for this theory, and it’s just as likely he was fired for failing to bring charges against Jeffrey Epstein’s co-conspirators. Berman had recently clashed with Washington, being unwilling to put his name to a letter criticizing the New York Mayor’s double standards on quarantine enforcement, on the one hand encouraging protests while using the NYPD to break up a Jewish funeral. If the Department of Justice wishes to make an issue of that, as part of a duly elected executive government, they should be able to have prosecutors who are willing to do so.
This isn’t a difficult principle, and in matters of state the executive has even more latitude. Yet late last week, another agency made headlines as the victim of yet another Trump purge: the U.S. Agency for Global Media, home to the various quasi-journalism operations that form the United States’ public diplomacy apparatus. The heads of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Middle East Broadcasting Network, Radio Free Asia, and the Open Technology Fund were all sacked by incoming USAGM executive Michael Pack, who was recently confirmed by the Senate. No career employees were fired; all four had special contracts.
NPR’s David Folkenflik set the tune for coverage of the sackings, with his story alleging in the headline that they were “raising fears of meddling.” Meddling to what end, however, Folkenflik did not seem terribly clear about. Pressed by CBS about what this could portend for their editorial direction, he told the anchor that it could have ramifications for Radio Free Asia’s “bolder reporting” about Uyghurs in China, citing John Bolton’s revelation that Trump had downplayed China’s persecution in a meeting with Xi Jinping. He didn’t mention that Trump signed the Uyghur Human Rights Act the same week as the sackings took place.
Concerns about “editorial independence” are at the heart of the controversy, according to CBS. Editorial independence is one thing that the recently departed head of VOA, Amanda Bennett, had emphasized as part of the organization’s mission. In a statement to VOA staff before she departed, she said, “Michael Pack swore before Congress to respect and honor the firewall that guarantees VOA’s independence, which in turn plays the single most important role in the stunning trust our audiences around the world have in us.” Woe betide Pack if after being confirmed by the Senate he dares to exercise control over an institution chartered and funded by Congress.
Even if you believe that a government-funded broadcaster could, through the magic of some bureaucratic or legal fiction, exercise meaningful editorial independence, the lack thereof is a fact: VOA’s editorials are cleared by the State Department. If this shake-up portends an end to that fiction, that is a good thing.
The theory of Bennett and various Pack critics goes something like this: Other countries will recognize what a long leash we give our state-funded broadcasters, and therefore the editorial independence of VOA and its siblings itself becomes part of the soft-power pitch being made. It’s an interesting argument, but also somewhat self-serving. The VOA charter says, “VOA will present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively.”
It’s hard to argue with the fact that, at least at Radio Free Europe, the coverage sounds more like Trump’s Atlanticist critics: prone to seeing Russian meddling everywhere, skeptical of populist politicians like Salvini, Orban and Duda, and fond of NATO. You can think their view is the right one, but it’s also not the view of the president the American people put in the White House. By that standard, the VOA is out of step with its charter.
By any objective measure a shake-up at USAGM is fully justified, for years it has lingered at the bottom of the lists of federal agencies in terms of employee satisfaction. VOA had to fire half the staff of one of its Africa broadcasters for accepting bribes two years ago. Nor can the shake-up be attributed to partisanship: the former heads of the European and Middle East broadcasters, Jamie Fly and Alberto Fernandez, worked in the Bush administration. Perhaps this is why CNBC, for example, uses the term “Trump loyalists”—it’s true that Fly, a leading neoconservative and Never Trumper, is a Trump disloyalist. The big question is why they hired him in the first place.
A pattern common to many Trump-era controversies also holds true here: the hawks are mad about it. The leading interventionist of the senatorial opposition, Bob Menendez, said the firings were part of Trump’s “efforts to transform U.S. institutions rooted in the principles of democracy into tools for the President’s own personal agenda.” Texas Rep. Michael McCaul, an Iran hawk and ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs committee also expressed his concern. What they object to is American foreign policy ever being subject to democratic control: they claim to be defending democratic institutions while thwarting the demos’s revealed preference for a more restrained posture abroad.
What personal benefit Trump could possibly derive from getting his message out on an African radio station or a TV studio in Dubai is unclear, perhaps Senator Menendez could clarify that for us. As with Russiagate, the backlash to Pack’s shake-up is really about policy differences, not concerns about corruption. It remains to be seen what the administration intends to do with USAGM, but given the differences of opinion between the administration and many career officials involved in both public and official diplomacy, it’s hard to blame them for wanting both a shorter leash and a fresh start.


theamericanconservative--2020-06-24--Pelosi Cancels History By Removing Her Predecessors

She can take their portraits down , but Hunter , Orr , Cobb , and Crisp will always be there .
Architect of the Capitol workers remove the portrait of Confederate speaker James Orr from a wall in the Speaker 's Lobby of the US Capitol .
( Photo by NICHOLAS KAMM/POOL/AFP via Getty Images ) On June 18 , the portraits of four former Speakers of the House , all connected to the Confederate States of America and the Civil War , were removed from the walls of the Capitol .
In the words of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hallowed halls of Congress or in any place of honor for memorializing men who embody the violent bigotry and grotesque racism of the Confederacy.
” And so down went Robert Hunter of Virginia , James Orr of South Carolina , and Howell Cobb and Charles Crisp , both of Georgia .
Of course , this removal comes at a time when statues and monuments are being vandalized , toppled , and removed all over the country , leading Rep. Tom Massie ( R-Ky. ) , to exclaim , “ Where does all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DC ?
” As Douglas Bradburn , president of George Washington ’ s Mount Vernon , said to Just the News , “ If we fail to honor George Washington , because we understand him only as a slave owner , we will lose the story of the United States , for it will have no beginning and very little direction.
” Or as Cicero , the ancient Roman , put it , “ Not to know what happened before one was born is always to be a child.
” Massie , Bradburn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and yet for the moment , we might confine ourselves just to those four Speakers who have been “ canceled ” —that is , sent down the Orwellian memory hole .
All were interesting figures , and so as they go off to historical exile , even if we don ’ t like them , they can still offer us something to remember .
For instance , consider Orr , one of the disappeared .
He was without doubt a Confederate , and yet as the South Carolina Encyclopedia details , after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a Secessionist , in 1870 , “ Orr joined the Republican Party in the hope of effecting reforms.
” That is , he switched from the Party of Jefferson Davis to the Party of Abraham Lincoln .
Indeed , “ As a delegate to the 1872 Republican national convention , he praised President Ulysses Grant ’ s [ anti ] Ku Klux Klan policy in South Carolina.
” Was Orr sincere in his change of heart ?
Or was he just an opportunistic “ scalawag ” ?
That ’ s for historians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Grant appointed him to be ambassador to Russia , as the Encyclopedia tells us , “ a gesture of reconciliation.
” Isn ’ t that exactly what we should want ?
A coming together and a healing of national wounds ?
And so shouldn ’ t we be learning about past positive precedents ?
Then there ’ s Charles Crisp , who in some ways is the most interesting of the quartet ; he had the most extensive career after the Civil War , rising near to the pinnacle of American political life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lessons to anyone wishing to learn about practical politics ; indeed , his story illustrates a key lesson of life itself : Those who are at the bottom can sometimes rise to the top , and those who are on top can sometimes fall to the bottom .
So with that in mind , who knows who will be canceling whom a century from now ?
Born in 1845 , Crisp served in the Confederate Army during the Civil War ; in 1864 , he was captured at Spotsylvania , spending the rest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Released back to Georgia , he became a lawyer , a judge , and a state legislator .
Then in 1882 , he was elected to the U.S. House .
In 1890 , the Democrats won a national majority in the House , and the following year , Crisp was elected Speaker of the 52nd Congress—putting him third in line for the presidency .
As one historian observed , Crisp was “ a skillful debater and an expert parliamentarian , ” adding , “ He was a man of marked judicial temperament—calm and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own dignity and the dignity of his position.
” Now , of course , such a description can be applied to just about every Speaker ; the nature of the post is that it goes to a savvy insider who can gain the confidence of fellow insiders , each of them jockeying on behalf of themselves , their committees , and their districts .
To put the job description another way , the Speaker is the ultimate deal-maker .
Indeed , the Democratic Party itself was a web of deals in those days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Protestants and Northern Catholics .
The two factions had been on opposite sides of religious disputes tracing back to the Reformation ; in America in particular , the split came over temperance , the Southerners being “ dry ” and the Northerners “ wet.
” In fact , the two blocs didn ’ t have much in common at all—except for a shared hostility to Northern Protestants , who were overwhelmingly Republican .
The Democratic Party consisted , then , of groups that felt victimized by Yankee power , both economic and cultural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the day , running the railroads , Wall Street , and the “ trusts , ” were almost all Republicans , as were the culture-producers of Boston and New York City .
( And yes , the political map of the late 19th century was mostly the inverse of the red-blue map of today—that which was then-Republican being now Democratic , and that which was then-Democratic being now Republican . )
This was the political world of Charles Crisp .
His region , the South , still bore the stain of rebellion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were nonetheless able to form a coalition with enough Northerners to make “ Democracy , ” as it was often called then , competitive in national elections ; in fact , as soon as 1876—barely more than a decade after the end of the Civil War—the Democrats won a clear popular-vote majority in the presidential election , although the GOP candidate , Rutherford B. Hayes , prevailed in the electoral college .
So when Crisp took the Speaker ’ s gavel in 1891—the first Deep Southerner to do so since 1859—it represented a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man himself , but also for his region .
One could even say that Dixie proved better at politicking , inside the system , than at rebelling , outside the system .
Now , of course , the victory of white Southerners in those days came at the expense of black Southerners , who were almost all Lincoln Republicans .
In fact , Southern Democrats had used their political skills , working with Northern Democrats , to discredit and dislodge the Republican policy of Reconstruction .
And then , once the U.S. Army @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whites—not to put too fine a point on it—used their martial skills to disenfranchise , and otherwise subjugate , blacks .
It ’ s this racial history , of course , that dominates popular understanding today , and so Crisp and others are now in political limbo—or worse .
And yet there was another side to the 19th-century Southern Democrats : economic populism .
In 1890 , Congressman Crisp had supported the Sherman Anti-Trust Act—anti-trust , of course , being a progressive governmental remedy that it has gone in and out of fashion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in these days of Big Tech , it has been making a comeback .
Then , in 1894 , when he was Speaker , Crisp help shepherd the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act into law .
That bill provided for a modest reduction in trade duties , and also , remarkably , it included a federal income tax .
To be sure , the rate was low , just two percent on incomes over $ 4,000 ( adjusted for inflation , that would be almost $ 100,000 today ) , and yet nonetheless , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watershed .
( The Supreme Court threw out the tax as unconstitutional in 1895 , and so an amendment to the Constitution , permitting an income tax , was a great Democratic cause for the next two decades ; it was finally put in place by a Southern-born Democrat , Woodrow Wilson . )
Of course , the popularity of the income tax has waxed and waned over the years , and rates have risen and fallen , and yet it has never been in jeopardy of being abolished ; the exigencies of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Indeed , it seems likely that rates will be increased in the next few years .
So we can see : Even if Crisp himself has been de-platformed , some of the economic ideas he championed seem poised for a comeback .
Crisp died in 1896 ; his admiring constituents elected his son to succeed him in the House .
Indeed , there ’ s a Crisp County , Georgia , named in his honor .
Of course , the life of Charles Crisp is of no interest to those who simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he and his kind are gone with the wind—and good riddance .
Yet Crisp ’ s political career is a reminder that even the defeated can yet be the victorious , provided they possess the necessary resolve and resilience .
Indeed , not that she would ever admit it , but Nancy Pelosi , Crisp ’ s fellow Democrat , might feel a kinship to his ability to count votes and wrangle coalitions , especially on behalf of progressive economic policies .
So when America gets done with this spasm of iconoclasm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secrets of effective politics have not been destroyed—and are still extant , in fact , in the biographies of the dead .
So even if every statue or place honoring Crisp is pulled down or renamed , the ambitious , or merely curious , will still be able to learn about him ; if they do , they ’ ll understand something about coalitions and comebacks .
After all , as another Southern Democrat , Thomas Jefferson , wrote in 1817 , “ A morsel of genuine history [ is ] a thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Yes , Jefferson , too , is now on the PC chopping block , and yet he was wise enough to know that the judgments of history are never permanent .
Indeed , the actual events of history are , of course , permanent , and those “ morsels , ” when gleaned , are always valuable .
As a result , Hunter , Orr , Cobb , and Crisp will always abide with us , even if we dare not speak their name .

On June 18, the portraits of four former Speakers of the House, all connected to the Confederate States of America and the Civil War, were removed from the walls of the Capitol. In the words of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, “There is no room in the hallowed halls of Congress or in any place of honor for memorializing men who embody the violent bigotry and grotesque racism of the Confederacy.” And so down went Robert Hunter of Virginia, James Orr of South Carolina, and Howell Cobb and Charles Crisp, both of Georgia.
Of course, this removal comes at a time when statues and monuments are being vandalized, toppled, and removed all over the country, leading Rep. Tom Massie (R-Ky.), to exclaim, “Where does all this end? Renaming ‘Washington’ DC?”
As Douglas Bradburn, president of George Washington’s Mount Vernon, said to Just the News, “If we fail to honor George Washington, because we understand him only as a slave owner, we will lose the story of the United States, for it will have no beginning and very little direction.” Or as Cicero, the ancient Roman, put it, “Not to know what happened before one was born is always to be a child.”
Massie, Bradburn, and Cicero all make good points, and yet for the moment, we might confine ourselves just to those four Speakers who have been “canceled”—that is, sent down the Orwellian memory hole. All were interesting figures, and so as they go off to historical exile, even if we don’t like them, they can still offer us something to remember.
For instance, consider Orr, one of the disappeared. He was without doubt a Confederate, and yet as the South Carolina Encyclopedia details, after a lifetime as a Democrat and then as a Secessionist, in 1870, “Orr joined the Republican Party in the hope of effecting reforms.” That is, he switched from the Party of Jefferson Davis to the Party of Abraham Lincoln. Indeed, “As a delegate to the 1872 Republican national convention, he praised President Ulysses Grant’s [anti] Ku Klux Klan policy in South Carolina.”
Was Orr sincere in his change of heart? Or was he just an opportunistic “scalawag”? That’s for historians to sort out, and yet President Grant appointed him to be ambassador to Russia, as the Encyclopedia tells us, “a gesture of reconciliation.” Isn’t that exactly what we should want? A coming together and a healing of national wounds? And so shouldn’t we be learning about past positive precedents?
Then there’s Charles Crisp, who in some ways is the most interesting of the quartet; he had the most extensive career after the Civil War, rising near to the pinnacle of American political life. As such, his career offers lessons to anyone wishing to learn about practical politics; indeed, his story illustrates a key lesson of life itself: Those who are at the bottom can sometimes rise to the top, and those who are on top can sometimes fall to the bottom. So with that in mind, who knows who will be canceling whom a century from now?
Born in 1845, Crisp served in the Confederate Army during the Civil War; in 1864, he was captured at Spotsylvania, spending the rest of the war as a POW. Released back to Georgia, he became a lawyer, a judge, and a state legislator. Then in 1882, he was elected to the U.S. House.
In 1890, the Democrats won a national majority in the House, and the following year, Crisp was elected Speaker of the 52nd Congress—putting him third in line for the presidency.
As one historian observed, Crisp was “a skillful debater and an expert parliamentarian,” adding, “He was a man of marked judicial temperament—calm and deliberate with the ability to maintain his own dignity and the dignity of his position.” Now, of course, such a description can be applied to just about every Speaker; the nature of the post is that it goes to a savvy insider who can gain the confidence of fellow insiders, each of them jockeying on behalf of themselves, their committees, and their districts. To put the job description another way, the Speaker is the ultimate deal-maker.
Indeed, the Democratic Party itself was a web of deals in those days; it consisted mostly of Southern white Protestants and Northern Catholics. The two factions had been on opposite sides of religious disputes tracing back to the Reformation; in America in particular, the split came over temperance, the Southerners being “dry” and the Northerners “wet.” In fact, the two blocs didn’t have much in common at all—except for a shared hostility to Northern Protestants, who were overwhelmingly Republican.
The Democratic Party consisted, then, of groups that felt victimized by Yankee power, both economic and cultural; the great tycoons and robber barons of the day, running the railroads, Wall Street, and the “trusts,” were almost all Republicans, as were the culture-producers of Boston and New York City. (And yes, the political map of the late 19th century was mostly the inverse of the red-blue map of today—that which was then-Republican being now Democratic, and that which was then-Democratic being now Republican.)
This was the political world of Charles Crisp. His region, the South, still bore the stain of rebellion and slavery, and yet white Southerners were nonetheless able to form a coalition with enough Northerners to make “Democracy,” as it was often called then, competitive in national elections; in fact, as soon as 1876—barely more than a decade after the end of the Civil War—the Democrats won a clear popular-vote majority in the presidential election, although the GOP candidate, Rutherford B. Hayes, prevailed in the electoral college.
So when Crisp took the Speaker’s gavel in 1891—the first Deep Southerner to do so since 1859—it represented a huge victory, not only for the man himself, but also for his region. One could even say that Dixie proved better at politicking, inside the system, than at rebelling, outside the system.
Now, of course, the victory of white Southerners in those days came at the expense of black Southerners, who were almost all Lincoln Republicans. In fact, Southern Democrats had used their political skills, working with Northern Democrats, to discredit and dislodge the Republican policy of Reconstruction. And then, once the U.S. Army was out of the way, Southern whites—not to put too fine a point on it—used their martial skills to disenfranchise, and otherwise subjugate, blacks.
It’s this racial history, of course, that dominates popular understanding today, and so Crisp and others are now in political limbo—or worse.
And yet there was another side to the 19th-century Southern Democrats: economic populism. In 1890, Congressman Crisp had supported the Sherman Anti-Trust Act—anti-trust, of course, being a progressive governmental remedy that it has gone in and out of fashion many times over the last 130 years—and in these days of Big Tech, it has been making a comeback.
Then, in 1894, when he was Speaker, Crisp help shepherd the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act into law. That bill provided for a modest reduction in trade duties, and also, remarkably, it included a federal income tax. To be sure, the rate was low, just two percent on incomes over $4,000 (adjusted for inflation, that would be almost $100,000 today), and yet nonetheless, the enactment of any income tax was a watershed. (The Supreme Court threw out the tax as unconstitutional in 1895, and so an amendment to the Constitution, permitting an income tax, was a great Democratic cause for the next two decades; it was finally put in place by a Southern-born Democrat, Woodrow Wilson.)
Of course, the popularity of the income tax has waxed and waned over the years, and rates have risen and fallen, and yet it has never been in jeopardy of being abolished; the exigencies of financing a modern government require such taxation. Indeed, it seems likely that rates will be increased in the next few years.
So we can see: Even if Crisp himself has been de-platformed, some of the economic ideas he championed seem poised for a comeback.
Crisp died in 1896; his admiring constituents elected his son to succeed him in the House. Indeed, there’s a Crisp County, Georgia, named in his honor.
Of course, the life of Charles Crisp is of no interest to those who simply want to erase history. For them, he and his kind are gone with the wind—and good riddance.
Yet Crisp’s political career is a reminder that even the defeated can yet be the victorious, provided they possess the necessary resolve and resilience. Indeed, not that she would ever admit it, but Nancy Pelosi, Crisp’s fellow Democrat, might feel a kinship to his ability to count votes and wrangle coalitions, especially on behalf of progressive economic policies.
So when America gets done with this spasm of iconoclasm, the thoughtful will realize that the secrets of effective politics have not been destroyed—and are still extant, in fact, in the biographies of the dead. So even if every statue or place honoring Crisp is pulled down or renamed, the ambitious, or merely curious, will still be able to learn about him; if they do, they’ll understand something about coalitions and comebacks.
After all, as another Southern Democrat, Thomas Jefferson, wrote in 1817, “A morsel of genuine history [is] a thing so rare as to be always valuable.” Yes, Jefferson, too, is now on the PC chopping block, and yet he was wise enough to know that the judgments of history are never permanent.
Indeed, the actual events of history are, of course, permanent, and those “morsels,” when gleaned, are always valuable. As a result, Hunter, Orr, Cobb, and Crisp will always abide with us, even if we dare not speak their name.


theamericanconservative--2020-06-24--Bolton’s Book is an Instruction Manual for How Not to Do Foreign Policy

He did his best to block Trump 's few good instincts and prevent the president from having any diplomatic successes .
Bookstore customer Thomas O'Shaughnessy holds up two copies of the new book he will buy , `` The Room Where it Happened '' by former US National Security Advisor John Bolton , at Barnes & Noble bookstore in Glendale , California on June 23 , 2020 .
( Photo by ROBYN BECK/AFP via Getty Images ) Anyone who has followed the long career of Donald Trump ’ s ex-national security advisor John Bolton knows of his hostility toward multinational @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states .
His solution to difficult countries like Iran and North Korea is always regime change : through sanctions if possible and military action if necessary .
President Trump hired Bolton in April 2018 to help get rid of the Iran nuclear deal ( the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA ) negotiated under Barack Obama , which Bolton—and many others particularly in the Republican Party—regarded as insufficiently tough .
Trump formally withdrew the United States from the JCPOA in May 2018 , but entertained ambitions of obtaining a “ better deal.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ declared that he was willing to meet with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani without preconditions in order to get one .
Bolton did everything he could to frustrate such ambitions until Trump unceremoniously ejected him in September 2019 .
Bolton also encouraged acts that could have dragged the U.S. into a third Middle Eastern war .
It is telling that of the several times Bolton claims that he was ready to quit the Trump administration , one was when Trump changed his mind at the last minute about retaliating for the Iranian downing of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 150 Iranians—one was when Trump considered inviting Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif to the White House , and one was when Trump toyed with meeting Zarif at a G-7 summit in the French resort of Biarritz .
A skilled bureaucratic infighter who , in the George W. Bush administration , helped torpedo a 1994 nuclear agreement with North Korea and push America into war with Iraq through selective use of what turned out to be bad intelligence about weapons of mass destruction , Bolton is a product of an era when the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years of American military blunders and disregard for the opinions of allies and partners—as well as the rise of China—have eroded that dominance .
The current era requires multilateral diplomacy more than ever—persuasion rather than intimidation .
Ironically , the details in Bolton ’ s book , The Room Where It Happened , underline just how outmoded and counterproductive his views are .
Bolton seems to assume the reader will take his side in his many battles with bureaucratic rivals and members of the “ High Minded ” —his disparaging term for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assumes that readers will appreciate his efforts to circumvent Trump .
But what comes through just as strongly is the ineffectiveness of Bolton ’ s approach .
His agenda did not mesh so perfectly with Trump ’ s .
Other administration officials , such as Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin , had a better sense of the president ’ s desires .
Mnuchin , Bolton writes , slow-walked the re-imposition of economic sanctions on Iran—to give U.S. allies and the oil markets a chance to absorb them without disruption .
“ This was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” says Bolton .
“ He seemed as concerned with mitigating the impact of sanctions as with imposing them to begin with.
” According to Bolton , “ The right way to impose sanctions is to do so swiftly and unexpectedly ; make them broad and comprehensive , not piecemeal ; and enforce them rigorously , using military assets to interdict illicit commerce if necessary.
” But history shows that sanctions rarely compel determined adversaries to make concessions , or alter their conduct—especially if they perceive that doing so could expose them to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ combined with skillful diplomacy , the widest possible international buy-in , and a willingness to relax the punishment when conditions warrant .
Bolton appears to disdain the very idea of such negotiations .
In his book , he scorns Mnuchin for working behind the scenes with France ’ s finance minister , Bruno Le Maire , to arrange a slight relaxation of Iranian sanctions to get new talks started between the U.S. and Iran—something Trump clearly wanted and Bolton evidently regarded with horror .
When Bolton found out about this nefarious diplomacy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minister Benjamin Netanyahu , “ encouraging Netanyahu to call Trump…to stiffen his spine.
” Bolton also disparages Mnuchin for expressing reservations about the American sanctioning of Iran ’ s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ( IRGC ) .
“ Mnuchin worried that this designation for the elite wing of the Iranian military…would have widespread consequences , a concern I didn ’ t understand , ” Bolton writes .
“ I thought the whole point was to inflict as much pain as possible on these terrorists.
” In fact , as Bolton himself concedes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action against Iran could increase the risk to US forces in Iraq and across the region.
” Bolton ’ s prescription in this eventuality is to increase American forces in Iraq .
Similarly , he opposes a U.S. withdrawal from Syria , not so much because it might benefit the Islamic State , but because the United States has to stay in Syria to prevent Iran from further strengthening its presence there .
Bolton has a similar rationale for staying in Afghanistan , even though the U.S. troops there have given Iran another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any military strikes on the Iranian homeland .
Given its chaos and conflicts , the Trump administration has struggled to achieve any big diplomatic successes .
But Bolton did his part to block Trump ’ s few good instincts .
In this sense , The Room Where It Happened is essential reading for those who want to create a new brand of American global engagement based on trade , diplomacy , and mutually beneficial cultural exchange .
Bolton shows us what not to do and what does not work .
Barbara Slavin directs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Atlantic Council .
She tweets @ BarbaraSlavin1 .

Anyone who has followed the long career of Donald Trump’s ex-national security advisor John Bolton knows of his hostility toward multinational agreements and hard line toward so-called rogue states. His solution to difficult countries like Iran and North Korea is always regime change: through sanctions if possible and military action if necessary.
President Trump hired Bolton in April 2018 to help get rid of the Iran nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) negotiated under Barack Obama, which Bolton—and many others particularly in the Republican Party—regarded as insufficiently tough. Trump formally withdrew the United States from the JCPOA in May 2018, but entertained ambitions of obtaining a “better deal.” In July 2018, he even declared that he was willing to meet with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani without preconditions in order to get one.
Bolton did everything he could to frustrate such ambitions until Trump unceremoniously ejected him in September 2019. Bolton also encouraged acts that could have dragged the U.S. into a third Middle Eastern war. It is telling that of the several times Bolton claims that he was ready to quit the Trump administration, one was when Trump changed his mind at the last minute about retaliating for the Iranian downing of a U.S. drone—because it could have killed 150 Iranians—one was when Trump considered inviting Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif to the White House, and one was when Trump toyed with meeting Zarif at a G-7 summit in the French resort of Biarritz.
A skilled bureaucratic infighter who, in the George W. Bush administration, helped torpedo a 1994 nuclear agreement with North Korea and push America into war with Iraq through selective use of what turned out to be bad intelligence about weapons of mass destruction, Bolton is a product of an era when the U.S. truly dominated the international system. But years of American military blunders and disregard for the opinions of allies and partners—as well as the rise of China—have eroded that dominance. The current era requires multilateral diplomacy more than ever—persuasion rather than intimidation. Ironically, the details in Bolton’s book, The Room Where It Happened, underline just how outmoded and counterproductive his views are.
Bolton seems to assume the reader will take his side in his many battles with bureaucratic rivals and members of the “High Minded”—his disparaging term for the U.S. foreign policy establishment. He also assumes that readers will appreciate his efforts to circumvent Trump. But what comes through just as strongly is the ineffectiveness of Bolton’s approach. His agenda did not mesh so perfectly with Trump’s. Other administration officials, such as Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, had a better sense of the president’s desires.
Mnuchin, Bolton writes, slow-walked the re-imposition of economic sanctions on Iran—to give U.S. allies and the oil markets a chance to absorb them without disruption. “This was a perennial problem with Treasury under Mnuchin,” says Bolton. “He seemed as concerned with mitigating the impact of sanctions as with imposing them to begin with.”
According to Bolton, “The right way to impose sanctions is to do so swiftly and unexpectedly; make them broad and comprehensive, not piecemeal; and enforce them rigorously, using military assets to interdict illicit commerce if necessary.” But history shows that sanctions rarely compel determined adversaries to make concessions, or alter their conduct—especially if they perceive that doing so could expose them to existential harm. Effective sanctions must be combined with skillful diplomacy, the widest possible international buy-in, and a willingness to relax the punishment when conditions warrant.
Bolton appears to disdain the very idea of such negotiations. In his book, he scorns Mnuchin for working behind the scenes with France’s finance minister, Bruno Le Maire, to arrange a slight relaxation of Iranian sanctions to get new talks started between the U.S. and Iran—something Trump clearly wanted and Bolton evidently regarded with horror. When Bolton found out about this nefarious diplomacy, he phoned a friend, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “encouraging Netanyahu to call Trump…to stiffen his spine.”
Bolton also disparages Mnuchin for expressing reservations about the American sanctioning of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). “Mnuchin worried that this designation for the elite wing of the Iranian military…would have widespread consequences, a concern I didn’t understand,” Bolton writes. “I thought the whole point was to inflict as much pain as possible on these terrorists.” In fact, as Bolton himself concedes, “there was a legitimate concern that action against Iran could increase the risk to US forces in Iraq and across the region.”
Bolton’s prescription in this eventuality is to increase American forces in Iraq. Similarly, he opposes a U.S. withdrawal from Syria, not so much because it might benefit the Islamic State, but because the United States has to stay in Syria to prevent Iran from further strengthening its presence there.
Bolton has a similar rationale for staying in Afghanistan, even though the U.S. troops there have given Iran another venue to pressure America and retaliate for any military strikes on the Iranian homeland.
Given its chaos and conflicts, the Trump administration has struggled to achieve any big diplomatic successes. But Bolton did his part to block Trump’s few good instincts. In this sense, The Room Where It Happened is essential reading for those who want to create a new brand of American global engagement based on trade, diplomacy, and mutually beneficial cultural exchange. Bolton shows us what not to do and what does not work.
Barbara Slavin directs the Future of Iran Initiative at the Atlantic Council. She tweets @BarbaraSlavin1.


theamericanconservative--2020-06-26--‘The Young Guns’: Ten Years Later

‘The Young Guns’: Ten Years Later

Small government conservatives were going to shake up Washington .
Instead , the city spat them out .
Will Trump face the same fate ?
The country is reeling from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression .
Just years prior the proud citizens of a peerless empire , Americans have become a dispirited lot .
The decline of the United States appears more and more like a foregone conclusion .
And after patchy Republican rule , the Democratic Party seems invincible — poised to control the presidency for a generation .
Within the corridors of power , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the conversation .
Debts balloon as John Maynard Keynes is excavated and propped up like El Cid .
Conservatism isn ’ t just uncool— it ’ s terminal .
But this isn ’ t Trump ’ s America — it ’ s Barack Obama ’ s first term in office .
“ History ’ s hard to know , ” as Hunter Thompson once wrote , but the echoes today of ten years ago are unmistakable .
As the United States potentially ushers in a new left-wing presidency , America ’ s “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be said to exist — will undergo its latest round of psychoanalysis .
And even if Trump holds off the sans culottes outside his gates , he will hold onto power a diminished figure , b-lining for lame duck status .
His administration will have appointed scores of conservative judges , only to see little to no enduring judicial victories ( “ Do you get the impression the Supreme Court doesn ’ t like me ?
” Trump asked earlier this month ) .
Put in power on a promise of stabilizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a tenth of the border wall .
And he will have cut taxes only to preside over the perhaps largest collapse in GDP growth in American history .
It ’ s clear , for now , US Republicans stand for one thing : against the Democrats .
The Democratic Party , on the contrary , in recent months — as Ross Douthat points out in the New York Times — has been reborn .
It is now bursting with almost religious fervor , a cult of “ public health , ” “ expertise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with corporate America .
The clique — which can plausibly claim to channel a numerical majority — has been infused with a surge of purpose , a revolution more effective than anything dreamed up by Bernie Sanders .
Or , as Douthat puts it : “ Much of the action around it , the anti-racist reckoning unfolding in colleges , media organizations , corporations and public statuary , may seem more unifying than the Sanders revolution precisely because it isn ’ t as threatening to power.
” America ’ s left wing has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s been a long time coming .
As Janan Ganesh points out in the Financial Times : “ Doctrinal liberals stormed the three branches of government handily enough , but not Hollywood , the publishing industry , academia and other trades that form our habits of mind without our knowing it.
” And in language I can sympathize with , he adds : “ Conservatism has bleak truths to impart : about the fragility of order , the perverse consequences of well-meaning change , the loss of the individual in the push for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give no quarter to conservatism ’ s insights are prone to over-reach .
In fact , it is not obvious on which side a strict liberal , in the old sense , now belongs.
” For an example of a compact that neither changed history nor thwarted , one need look no further than “ The Young Guns , ” by Eric Cantor , Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy .
Originally a 2007 Weekly Standard cover , it ’ s a trio now as defunct as that magazine , But in 2010 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a brief tract — an encore to Newt Gingrich ’ s “ Contract With America ” ( which too ended up being largely unenforced ) — a blueprint of what they would do with real power ( they never got it ) .
By self-acclamation , Cantor was “ the leader , ” Ryan was “ the thinker ” and McCarthy was “ the strategist.
” McCarthy was quietly derided as the weak link , but his moniker ended up most apt , as he held formal power the longest ( he remains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Minority Leader ) .
But the group did little else but survive ( Ryan is now at Fox News , Cantor in investment banking ) .
Republicans stormed the House 2010 , only to pass tedious Obamacare repeals with no chance of obtaining the President ’ s signature .
In other words , the 190-page treatise explained small government conservatism in large font .
When given the opportunity seven years later under President Donald Trump , senior Republicans confessed they hadn ’ t expected Trump to win and that they didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alternative to the Affordable Care Act .
Earlier , these Congressional Republicans had managed to install one of their own — Paul Ryan — on the 2012 ticket .
But Ryan helped Romney lose a winnable election , failing even to deliver his home state of Wisconsin ( which Trump would carry four years later ) .
When Republicans took the Senate in 2014 — completing their sweep of Congress — their leadership attempted to champion Trade Protection Authority , and favored Jeb Bush ( who took the plurality of Republican Congressional endorsements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their standard-bearer .
Or .
as Rep. Adam Kinzinger said in late summer 2015 after Trump was already dominating the race : “ I think Jeb ’ s the guy.
” No , he ’ s wasn ’ t It ’ s worth noting that in order to win back power in 2016 , the Republican Party needed an ex-Democrat , Mr. Trump .
The kinds of voters who went Obama-Biden in 2008 and 2012 — and then flipped to Trump in 2016 — are exactly the demographic that could give a fresh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ticket in 2020 .
For all the ink that has been spilled on Trump as an avatar of white reaction , he is losing even that contingent — and fast — if polling is to be at all believed .
Republicans have also started this year by reviving another mistake of a forgotten era — dismissing the polls , as they did in 2012 .
If Trump is jettisoned from office this autumn , as seems likely , it will be an event rich with irony .
As some of his conservative critics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with elements from the old Democratic Party ( some might say a “ conservatism ” ) , emphasizing the need to curb special interests , military overstretch , and runaway capitalism .
Should he lose , the fact that he actually governed like a Republican of old ( focusing on tax cuts , deregulation , and the pursuit of a bizarre obsession with Iran , to the neglect of worker protections and immigration ) will have played no small part .
Many will vie for the title .
But if they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s attempted successors would do well to consider — and avoid — the example of the “ young guns .
”

The country is reeling from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Just years prior the proud citizens of a peerless empire, Americans have become a dispirited lot. The decline of the United States appears more and more like a foregone conclusion. And after patchy Republican rule, the Democratic Party seems invincible — poised to control the presidency for a generation. Within the corridors of power, the country’s fraught race relations dominate the conversation. Debts balloon as John Maynard Keynes is excavated and propped up like El Cid. Conservatism isn’t just uncool— it’s terminal. But this isn’t Trump’s America — it’s Barack Obama’s first term in office.
“History’s hard to know,” as Hunter Thompson once wrote, but the echoes today of ten years ago are unmistakable.
As the United States potentially ushers in a new left-wing presidency, America’s “Right” — if such a thing can be said to exist — will undergo its latest round of psychoanalysis. And even if Trump holds off the sans culottes outside his gates, he will hold onto power a diminished figure, b-lining for lame duck status. His administration will have appointed scores of conservative judges, only to see little to no enduring judicial victories (“Do you get the impression the Supreme Court doesn’t like me?” Trump asked earlier this month). Put in power on a promise of stabilizing immigration, he will have delivered perhaps a tenth of the border wall. And he will have cut taxes only to preside over the perhaps largest collapse in GDP growth in American history.
It’s clear, for now, US Republicans stand for one thing: against the Democrats.
The Democratic Party, on the contrary, in recent months — as Ross Douthat points out in the New York Times — has been reborn. It is now bursting with almost religious fervor, a cult of “public health,” “expertise,” “anti-racism” and armistice with corporate America. The clique — which can plausibly claim to channel a numerical majority — has been infused with a surge of purpose, a revolution more effective than anything dreamed up by Bernie Sanders. Or, as Douthat puts it: “Much of the action around it, the anti-racist reckoning unfolding in colleges, media organizations, corporations and public statuary, may seem more unifying than the Sanders revolution precisely because it isn’t as threatening to power.”
America’s left wing has seized the commanding heights. It’s been a long time coming.
As Janan Ganesh points out in the Financial Times: “Doctrinal liberals stormed the three branches of government handily enough, but not Hollywood, the publishing industry, academia and other trades that form our habits of mind without our knowing it.” And in language I can sympathize with, he adds: “Conservatism has bleak truths to impart: about the fragility of order, the perverse consequences of well-meaning change, the loss of the individual in the push for group rights. Zealots for change who give no quarter to conservatism’s insights are prone to over-reach. In fact, it is not obvious on which side a strict liberal, in the old sense, now belongs.”
For an example of a compact that neither changed history nor thwarted, one need look no further than “The Young Guns,” by Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy.
Originally a 2007 Weekly Standard cover, it’s a trio now as defunct as that magazine, But in 2010, they used this as the title for a brief tract — an encore to Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America” (which too ended up being largely unenforced) — a blueprint of what they would do with real power (they never got it). By self-acclamation, Cantor was “the leader,” Ryan was “the thinker” and McCarthy was “the strategist.” McCarthy was quietly derided as the weak link, but his moniker ended up most apt, as he held formal power the longest (he remains, at time of writing, the House Minority Leader).
But the group did little else but survive (Ryan is now at Fox News, Cantor in investment banking).
Republicans stormed the House 2010, only to pass tedious Obamacare repeals with no chance of obtaining the President’s signature. In other words, the 190-page treatise explained small government conservatism in large font. When given the opportunity seven years later under President Donald Trump, senior Republicans confessed they hadn’t expected Trump to win and that they didn’t, per se, have an alternative to the Affordable Care Act.
Earlier, these Congressional Republicans had managed to install one of their own — Paul Ryan — on the 2012 ticket.
But Ryan helped Romney lose a winnable election, failing even to deliver his home state of Wisconsin (which Trump would carry four years later). When Republicans took the Senate in 2014 — completing their sweep of Congress — their leadership attempted to champion Trade Promotion Authority, and favored Jeb Bush (who took the plurality of Republican Congressional endorsements in the early 2016 race) as their standard-bearer. Or. as Rep. Adam Kinzinger said in late summer 2015 after Trump was already dominating the race: “I think Jeb’s the guy.” No, he’s wasn’t
It’s worth noting that in order to win back power in 2016, the Republican Party needed an ex-Democrat, Mr. Trump. The kinds of voters who went Obama-Biden in 2008 and 2012 — and then flipped to Trump in 2016 — are exactly the demographic that could give a fresh chance to the bottom of that old ticket in 2020. For all the ink that has been spilled on Trump as an avatar of white reaction, he is losing even that contingent — and fast — if polling is to be at all believed. Republicans have also started this year by reviving another mistake of a forgotten era — dismissing the polls, as they did in 2012.
If Trump is jettisoned from office this autumn, as seems likely, it will be an event rich with irony. As some of his conservative critics point out, he campaigned in 2016 with elements from the old Democratic Party (some might say a “conservatism”), emphasizing the need to curb special interests, military overstretch, and runaway capitalism. Should he lose, the fact that he actually governed like a Republican of old (focusing on tax cuts, deregulation, and the pursuit of a bizarre obsession with Iran, to the neglect of worker protections and immigration) will have played no small part.
Many will vie for the title. But if they’re actually interested in power, Trump’s attempted successors would do well to consider — and avoid — the example of the “young guns.”


theamericanconservative--2020-06-26--The Korean War Atrocities No One Wants to Talk About

For decades they covered up the U.S. massacre of civilians at No Gun Ri and elsewhere .
This is why we never learn our lessons .
June 25th was the 70th anniversary of the start of the Korean War .
Hundreds of thousands of American soldiers fought bravely in that war , and almost 37,000 were killed .
But the media is ignoring perhaps the war ’ s most important lesson : the U.S. government has almost unlimited sway to hide its own war crimes .
During the Korean War , Americans were deluged with official pronouncements about how the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect innocent civilians .
Because the evils of communism were self-evident , few questions arose about how the U.S. was thwarting Red aggression .
When a U.S. Senate subcommittee appointed in 1953 by Sen. Joseph McCarthy investigated Korean War atrocities , the committee explicitly declared that , “ war crimes were defined as those acts committed by enemy nations.
” In 1999 , forty-six years after the cease fire in Korea , the Associated Press exposed a 1950 massacre of Korean refugees at No Gun Ri .
U.S. troops drove Koreans out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remain on a railroad embankment .
Beginning on July 25 , 1950 , the refugees were strafed by U.S. planes and machine guns over the following three days .
Hundreds of people , mostly women and children , were killed .
The 1999 AP story was widely denounced by American politicians and some media outlets as a slander on American troops .
The Pentagon promised an exhaustive investigation .
In January 2001 , the Pentagon released a 300-page report purportedly proving that the No Gun Ri killings were merely “ an unfortunate tragedy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approaching refugees .
President Bill Clinton announced his “ regret that Korean civilians lost their lives at No Gun Ri.
” In a January 2001 interview , Clinton was asked why he used “ regret ” instead of “ apology.
” He declared , “ I believe that the people who looked into it could not conclude that there was a deliberate act , decided at a high enough level in the military hierarchy , to acknowledge that , in effect , the government had participated in something that was terrible.
” Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ wrongdoing high enough in the chain of command in the Army to say that , in effect , the government was responsible.
” In 2005 , Sahr Conway-Lanz , a Harvard University doctoral student , discovered a letter in the National Archives from the U.S. ambassador to Korea , John Muccio , sent to Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk on the day the No Gun Ri massacre commenced .
Muccio summarized a new policy from a meeting between U.S. military and South Korean officials : “ If refugees do appear from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warning shots , and if they then persist in advancing they will be shot.
” The new policy was radioed to Army units around Korea on the morning the No Gun Ri massacre began .
The U.S. military feared that North Korean troops might be hiding amidst the refugees .
The Pentagon initially claimed that its investigators never saw Muccio ’ s letter but it was in the specific research file used for its report .
Conway-Lanz ’ s 2006 book Collateral Damage quoted an official U.S. Navy history of the first six @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the policy of strafing civilians was “ wholly defensible.
” An official Army history noted : “ Eventually , it was decided to shoot anyone who moved at night.
” A report for the aircraft carrier USS Valley Forge justified attacking civilians because the Army insisted that “ groups of more than eight to ten people were to be considered troops , and were to be attacked.
” In 2007 , the Army recited its original denial : “ No policy purporting to authorize soldiers to shoot refugees was ever promulgated to soldiers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Press exposed more dirt from the U.S. archives : “ More than a dozen documents—in which high-ranking U.S. officers tell troops that refugees are ‘ fair game , ’ for example , and order them to ‘ shoot all refugees coming across river ’ —were found by the AP in the investigators ’ own archived files after the 2001 inquiry .
None of those documents was disclosed in the Army ’ s 300-page public report.
” A former Air Force Pilot told investigators that his plane and three others strafed refugees at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ massacre ; the official report claimed “ all pilots interviewed … knew nothing about such orders.
” Evidence also surfaced of other massacres like No Gun Ri .
On September 1 , 1950 , the destroyer USS DeHaven , at the Army ’ s insistence , “ fired on a seaside refugee encampment at Pohang , South Korea .
Survivors say 100 to 200 people were killed.
” Slaughtering civilians en masse became routine procedure after the Chinese Army intervened in the Korean war in late 1950 .
U.S .
Commander Gen. Douglas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a “ desert.
” The U.S. military eventually “ expanded its definition of a military target to any structure that could shelter enemy troops or supplies.
” In a scoring method that foreshadowed the Vietnam war body counts , Air Force press releases touted the “ square footage ” of “ enemy-held buildings ” that it flattened .
General Curtis LeMay summarized the achievements : “ We burned down every town in North Korea… and some in South Korea , too.
” A million civilians may have been killed during the war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Reconciliation Commission uncovered many previously unreported atrocities .
The Pentagon strategy on Korean War atrocities succeeded because it left truth to the historians , not the policymakers .
The facts about No Gun Ri finally slipped out—ten presidencies later .
Even more damaging , the Rules of Engagement for killing Korean civilians were covered up until after four more U.S. wars .
If U.S. policy for slaying Korean refugees had been exposed during that war , it might have curtailed similar killings in Vietnam ( many of which were not revealed until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congressman and decorated Korean War veteran Pete McCloskey warned , “ The government will always lie about embarrassing matters.
” The same shenanigans permeate other U.S. wars .
The secrecy and deceit surrounding U.S. military interventions has had catastrophic consequences in this century .
The Bush administration exploited the 9/11 attacks to justify attacking Iraq in 2003 , and it was not until 2016 that the U.S. government revealed documents exposing the Saudi government ’ s role in financing the hijackers ( 15 of 19 were Saudi citizens ) .
The Pentagon covered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Iraqi civilians until Bradley Manning and Wikileaks exposed them in 2010 .
There is likely reams of evidence of duplicity and intentional slaughter of civilians in U.S. government files on its endlessly confused and contradictory Syrian intervention .
When politicians or generals appear itching to pull the U.S. into another foreign war , remember that truth is routinely the first casualty .
The blood of civilian victims of U.S. wars is the political version of disappearing ink .
But the kinfolk and neighbors of those victims could pursue vengeance regardless of whether @ @ @ @ @ @

June 25th was the 70th anniversary of the start of the Korean War. Hundreds of thousands of American soldiers fought bravely in that war, and almost 37,000 were killed. But the media is ignoring perhaps the war’s most important lesson: the U.S. government has almost unlimited sway to hide its own war crimes.
During the Korean War, Americans were deluged with official pronouncements about how the U.S. military was taking all possible steps to protect innocent civilians. Because the evils of communism were self-evident, few questions arose about how the U.S. was thwarting Red aggression. When a U.S. Senate subcommittee appointed in 1953 by Sen. Joseph McCarthy investigated Korean War atrocities, the committee explicitly declared that, “war crimes were defined as those acts committed by enemy nations.”
In 1999, forty-six years after the cease fire in Korea, the Associated Press exposed a 1950 massacre of Korean refugees at No Gun Ri. U.S. troops drove Koreans out of their village and forced them to remain on a railroad embankment. Beginning on July 25, 1950, the refugees were strafed by U.S. planes and machine guns over the following three days. Hundreds of people, mostly women and children, were killed. The 1999 AP story was widely denounced by American politicians and some media outlets as a slander on American troops.
The Pentagon promised an exhaustive investigation. In January 2001, the Pentagon released a 300-page report purportedly proving that the No Gun Ri killings were merely “an unfortunate tragedy” caused by trigger-happy soldiers frightened by approaching refugees.
President Bill Clinton announced his “regret that Korean civilians lost their lives at No Gun Ri.” In a January 2001 interview, Clinton was asked why he used “regret” instead of “apology.” He declared, “I believe that the people who looked into it could not conclude that there was a deliberate act, decided at a high enough level in the military hierarchy, to acknowledge that, in effect, the government had participated in something that was terrible.” Clinton specified that there was no evidence of “wrongdoing high enough in the chain of command in the Army to say that, in effect, the government was responsible.”
In 2005, Sahr Conway-Lanz, a Harvard University doctoral student, discovered a letter in the National Archives from the U.S. ambassador to Korea, John Muccio, sent to Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk on the day the No Gun Ri massacre commenced. Muccio summarized a new policy from a meeting between U.S. military and South Korean officials: “If refugees do appear from north of U.S. lines they will receive warning shots, and if they then persist in advancing they will be shot.” The new policy was radioed to Army units around Korea on the morning the No Gun Ri massacre began. The U.S. military feared that North Korean troops might be hiding amidst the refugees. The Pentagon initially claimed that its investigators never saw Muccio’s letter but it was in the specific research file used for its report.
Conway-Lanz’s 2006 book Collateral Damage quoted an official U.S. Navy history of the first six months of the Korean War stating that the policy of strafing civilians was “wholly defensible.” An official Army history noted: “Eventually, it was decided to shoot anyone who moved at night.” A report for the aircraft carrier USS Valley Forge justified attacking civilians because the Army insisted that “groups of more than eight to ten people were to be considered troops, and were to be attacked.”
In 2007, the Army recited its original denial: “No policy purporting to authorize soldiers to shoot refugees was ever promulgated to soldiers in the field.” But the Associated Press exposed more dirt from the U.S. archives: “More than a dozen documents—in which high-ranking U.S. officers tell troops that refugees are ‘fair game,’ for example, and order them to ‘shoot all refugees coming across river’—were found by the AP in the investigators’ own archived files after the 2001 inquiry. None of those documents was disclosed in the Army’s 300-page public report.”
A former Air Force Pilot told investigators that his plane and three others strafed refugees at the same time of the No Gun Ri massacre; the official report claimed “all pilots interviewed … knew nothing about such orders.” Evidence also surfaced of other massacres like No Gun Ri. On September 1, 1950, the destroyer USS DeHaven, at the Army’s insistence, “fired on a seaside refugee encampment at Pohang, South Korea. Survivors say 100 to 200 people were killed.”
Slaughtering civilians en masse became routine procedure after the Chinese Army intervened in the Korean war in late 1950. U.S. Commander Gen. Douglas MacArthur spoke of turning North Korean-held territory into a “desert.” The U.S. military eventually “expanded its definition of a military target to any structure that could shelter enemy troops or supplies.” In a scoring method that foreshadowed the Vietnam war body counts, Air Force press releases touted the “square footage” of “enemy-held buildings” that it flattened. General Curtis LeMay summarized the achievements: “We burned down every town in North Korea… and some in South Korea, too.” A million civilians may have been killed during the war, and a South Korean government Truth and Reconciliation Commission uncovered many previously unreported atrocities.
The Pentagon strategy on Korean War atrocities succeeded because it left truth to the historians, not the policymakers. The facts about No Gun Ri finally slipped out—ten presidencies later. Even more damaging, the Rules of Engagement for killing Korean civilians were covered up until after four more U.S. wars. If U.S. policy for slaying Korean refugees had been exposed during that war, it might have curtailed similar killings in Vietnam (many of which were not revealed until decades after the war).
Former congressman and decorated Korean War veteran Pete McCloskey warned, “The government will always lie about embarrassing matters.” The same shenanigans permeate other U.S. wars. The secrecy and deceit surrounding U.S. military interventions has had catastrophic consequences in this century. The Bush administration exploited the 9/11 attacks to justify attacking Iraq in 2003, and it was not until 2016 that the U.S. government revealed documents exposing the Saudi government’s role in financing the hijackers (15 of 19 were Saudi citizens). The Pentagon covered up the vast majority of U.S. killings of Iraqi civilians until Bradley Manning and Wikileaks exposed them in 2010. There is likely reams of evidence of duplicity and intentional slaughter of civilians in U.S. government files on its endlessly confused and contradictory Syrian intervention.
When politicians or generals appear itching to pull the U.S. into another foreign war, remember that truth is routinely the first casualty. The blood of civilian victims of U.S. wars is the political version of disappearing ink. But the kinfolk and neighbors of those victims could pursue vengeance regardless of whether cover-ups con the American people.
James Bovard is the author of Lost Rights, Attention Deficit Democracy, and Public Policy Hooligan. He is also a USA Today columnist. Follow him on Twitter @JimBovard.


theamericanconservative--2020-06-26--Biden’s Basement Strategy: Just Say Nothing

He seems to be getting a pass on a whole lot of questions , including racism , monuments , Affirmative Action and police .
Some polls now have Joe Biden running ahead of Donald Trump by 10 points and sweeping the battleground states of Michigan , Wisconsin and Pennsylvania .
This vindicates the strategy Biden ’ s advisers have adopted : Confine Joe to his basement , no press conferences .
Trot him out to recite carefully scripted messages for the cameras .
Then lead him back to his stall .
This enables Biden to avoid the blazing questions that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but liberals and leftists .
And most of these issues touch on the explosive subject of race .
Consider .
California ’ s legislature just voted to put to a statewide ballot in November a return to the racial preferences that were banned as discriminatory in a statewide referendum , 25 years ago .
The proposal would reverse the 1995 constitutional amendment , approved by 55 percent of voters , which outlawed “ preferential treatment ” based on “ race , sex , color , ethnicity , or national origin.
” If the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racial spoils system .
Race preferences are being pushed because they are needed to bring about greater representation of Blacks and Hispanics in the student bodies of elite schools of the state university system like UCLA and the University of California , Berkeley .
Asian students are today “ overrepresented ” in these prestigious schools , because of their superior test scores .
Where does Biden stand on anti-Asian discrimination ?
Earlier this June , the California Assembly voted to establish a task force to make recommendations for reparations for slavery .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until 1850 , and slavery was outlawed in the state constitution , though several thousand slaves were brought there during the 1849 Gold Rush .
Where does Biden stand on reparations for slavery ?
Many of the recent protests in the wake of George Floyd ’ s death have involved the desecration and destruction of monuments .
What does Biden think about tearing down statues of Christopher Columbus and Robert E. Lee ?
Where does Biden stand on destroying statues of Presidents Washington , Jefferson , Andrew Jackson , Lincoln , Grant and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the removal of the statue of Caesar Rodney , Delaware statesman and slave owner , who , despite a grave illness , rode to Philadelphia to sign Jefferson ’ s Declaration of Independence and cast his lot with the American Revolution ?
Understandably , Biden would prefer not having to choose between Caesar Rodney and BLM .
Black men are arrested and incarcerated more often than whites because of the systemic racism of law enforcement officials , we are told .
Does Biden believe white cops are congenital racists ?
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men is today all too common , the regimes that have ruled them for decades have been almost wholly Democratic .
Does Biden believe there is systemic racism in the ruling circles of all these Democratic-run cities ?
Over the last month , there has been an explosion of shootings and killings .
In Chicago , over Memorial Day , 84 people were shot , 24 mortally .
Last weekend in Chicago , 106 people were shot and 14 killed .
New York City is experiencing the worst shooting violence in a quarter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the police departments of our great cities ?
Again , who has been running those cities , if not Democrats ?
Is there inequality in wealth between Black and white America because of systemic racism ?
If so , why did that inequality persist through two terms of our first Black president , with Biden as his VP ?
Does Biden believe , with Elizabeth Warren , in wealth taxes on the rich and wealth transfers to close the Black-white wealth gap ?
Is there systemic racism in American media ?
Our dominant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Times , ABC , CBS and NBC .
All are controlled by liberals .
Is there systemic racism in our great universities and colleges ?
Yet , Harvard , Yale , Princeton , Columbia , and the rest of the Ivy League have long been run by an entrenched liberal elite .
Is our huge federal workforce permeated by racism ?
Though African Americans are 13 percent of the U.S. population , they occupy 18 percent of all federal jobs .
Is there systemic racism in our public schools ?
Who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost all of the teaching positions ?
Is there systemic racism in California ?
If so , who is at fault ?
The governor , both senators , both houses of the legislature , all statewide offices , and 46 of 53 U.S. House seats in California are held by Democrats .
If Biden emerges , then he will have to answer why all these institutions where his party and people are predominant — the media , Hollywood , the academic community , public schools , big-city governments , the big foundations , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through with systemic racism after decades of Democratic dominance .
And , more precisely , what he intends to do about it .
Perhaps it ’ s better to shelter in place in the basement .
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon ’ s White House Wars : The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever .

Some polls now have Joe Biden running ahead of Donald Trump by 10 points and sweeping the battleground states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. This vindicates the strategy Biden’s advisers have adopted:
Confine Joe to his basement, no press conferences. Trot him out to recite carefully scripted messages for the cameras. Then lead him back to his stall.
This enables Biden to avoid the blazing questions that are dividing not only Democrats and Republicans but liberals and leftists. And most of these issues touch on the explosive subject of race.
Consider. California’s legislature just voted to put to a statewide ballot in November a return to the racial preferences that were banned as discriminatory in a statewide referendum, 25 years ago.
The proposal would reverse the 1995 constitutional amendment, approved by 55 percent of voters, which outlawed “preferential treatment” based on “race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.”
If the measure carries, California returns to a racial spoils system.
Race preferences are being pushed because they are needed to bring about greater representation of Blacks and Hispanics in the student bodies of elite schools of the state university system like UCLA and the University of California, Berkeley.
Asian students are today “overrepresented” in these prestigious schools, because of their superior test scores.
Where does Biden stand on anti-Asian discrimination?
Earlier this June, the California Assembly voted to establish a task force to make recommendations for reparations for slavery.
Now, California did not enter the Union until 1850, and slavery was outlawed in the state constitution, though several thousand slaves were brought there during the 1849 Gold Rush.
Where does Biden stand on reparations for slavery?
Many of the recent protests in the wake of George Floyd’s death have involved the desecration and destruction of monuments.
What does Biden think about tearing down statues of Christopher Columbus and Robert E. Lee? Where does Biden stand on destroying statues of Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, Grant and Theodore Roosevelt?
What did Biden think of the removal of the statue of Caesar Rodney, Delaware statesman and slave owner, who, despite a grave illness, rode to Philadelphia to sign Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence and cast his lot with the American Revolution?
Understandably, Biden would prefer not having to choose between Caesar Rodney and BLM.
Black men are arrested and incarcerated more often than whites because of the systemic racism of law enforcement officials, we are told.
Does Biden believe white cops are congenital racists?
In the great cities where the killing of Black men is today all too common, the regimes that have ruled them for decades have been almost wholly Democratic.
Does Biden believe there is systemic racism in the ruling circles of all these Democratic-run cities?
Over the last month, there has been an explosion of shootings and killings. In Chicago, over Memorial Day, 84 people were shot, 24 mortally.
Last weekend in Chicago, 106 people were shot and 14 killed. New York City is experiencing the worst shooting violence in a quarter century.
Is there systemic racism in the police departments of our great cities? Again, who has been running those cities, if not Democrats?
Is there inequality in wealth between Black and white America because of systemic racism? If so, why did that inequality persist through two terms of our first Black president, with Biden as his VP?
Does Biden believe, with Elizabeth Warren, in wealth taxes on the rich and wealth transfers to close the Black-white wealth gap?
Is there systemic racism in American media?
Our dominant media institutions include The Washington Post, New York Times, ABC, CBS and NBC. All are controlled by liberals.
Is there systemic racism in our great universities and colleges? Yet, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, and the rest of the Ivy League have long been run by an entrenched liberal elite.
Is our huge federal workforce permeated by racism?
Though African Americans are 13 percent of the U.S. population, they occupy 18 percent of all federal jobs.
Is there systemic racism in our public schools? Who controls the teachers unions? Who fills almost all of the teaching positions?
Is there systemic racism in California? If so, who is at fault? The governor, both senators, both houses of the legislature, all statewide offices, and 46 of 53 U.S. House seats in California are held by Democrats.
If Biden emerges, then he will have to answer why all these institutions where his party and people are predominant — the media, Hollywood, the academic community, public schools, big-city governments, the big foundations, the federal bureaucracy — are apparently shot through with systemic racism after decades of Democratic dominance.
And, more precisely, what he intends to do about it.
Perhaps it’s better to shelter in place in the basement.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.