theamericanconservative--2020-07-01--Can We Turn Back the ‘Blood-Dimmed Tide’ on the Potomac?

Poland ’ s victory a century ago stands as a beacon , reminding us of the power of strong leadership that can unite a nation in common cause .
Polish soldiers during the Battle of Warsaw .
( Wikimedia Commons ) At a time when chaos seems to be gushing everywhere , it ’ s nice to think about historical occasions when destruction and evil were defeated .
In fact , it ’ s more than nice ; it ’ s useful .
Why ?
Because if it happened before , it can happen again .
Yes , history is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a treasure-trove of examples of what worked in the past—as well as , of course , what did not work .
One can learn from both .
One positive precedent is the “ Miracle on the Vistula , ” when the people of Poland , defending their capital city of Warsaw , repelled the advancing Soviet Red Army .
In fact , the centennial of the battle , fought from August 12 to August 25 , 1920 , is coming up soon .
The Polish government , and Poles everywhere , plan a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ video featuring the actor Liam Neeson .
Indeed , tourists are encouraged to come and celebrate “ a major milestone in Polish history as it saved Poland ’ s newly regained independence .
.
.
also one of the most important battles in history since the Polish victory over the Soviets stopped the spread of communism to Europe.
” The events of that era were complex , of course , and are subject to multiple interpretations , and so it takes some effort to tease out the precise parallels to today .
Yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true : In the aftermath of World War I , four great empires collapsed—German , Austro-Hungarian , Russian , and Ottoman—and seven new nations were established , or , we might say , re-established .
One of these was Poland , which had been partitioned out of existence by its neighbors in the late 18th century .
Interestingly , even as the Polish nation had disappeared , even as Russian satraps ruled in Warsaw , Polish nationalism grew stronger .
And so , during World War I , a submerged Poland saw its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Germans , and Austro-Hungarians ( as well as other combatant countries ) fought each other to exhaustion .
The big break came in 1917 , when the Russian tsarist government collapsed , soon to be replaced by Lenin ’ s Bolsheviks .
Civil war erupted in Russia—and that was Poland ’ s opportunity for liberation .
Led by soldier-statesman Józef Piłsudski ( 1867-1935 ) , Poland declared its independence on November 11 , 1918 , the same day that an armistice was achieved in the overall war .
Yet if all was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Eastern front—actually , on many fronts—violent turmoil persisted .
So even as Russia was convulsed in civil war , just about every other country in Eastern Europe reeled in convulsion , too , regarding its borders , its political regime , or both .
Moreover , in those days , beyond the rivalries of nationalism , communism was a specter haunting Europe .
Hungary , for instance , was afflicted by a communist government for a few months in 1919 .
And Germany , too , suffered from a short-lived communist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fact , communists were taking to the streets , or even to the barricades , in virtually every country in Europe .
In his famously brooding 1919 poem , “ The Second Coming , ” William Butler Yeats punned on the color red , in both its political and physical manifestations : “ The blood-dimmed tide is loosed , and everywhere/ The ceremony of innocence is drowned.
” So Poland , independent or the first time in more than 120 years , had to chart a course for itself amidst these dangers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create a new alliance of Eastern European countries , as a way of fending off threats from Germany to the west and Russia to the east .
Piłsudski ’ s vision included Ukraine , which was then struggling to secure its independence from Russia .
However , the communists in Moscow were no more eager than any other Muscovite government , before or since , to see an independent Ukraine , and so Poland found itself in conflict with the red regime , soon to be known as the Soviet Union .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set up a friendly Ukrainian government in Kiev , and yet soon the communists , having won their civil war , amassed their armies and counter-attacked , forcing the Poles to retreat .
Indeed , at this exact point , a hundred years ago , July 1920 , the Russians were on the brink of crushing Poland once again .
They had numbers on their side and , in addition , were fired up with communist zeal .
To them , “ workers of the world unite ” was more than a slogan—it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As Red Army general Semyon Budyonny confidently predicted on his way to Warsaw , “ We will be happy on the day when , together with the proletariat of the West , we will enter into a decisive battle with the world bourgeoisie , when our army will receive its operational orders from Red Paris , Berlin , or London.
” Indeed , in those crazy times , when so many thought that communism was the future , Budyonny ’ s bold prediction seemed possible .
Yet then , in August 1920 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At the gates of Warsaw , the Soviets were defeated ; the war ended , and the Russo-Polish border stabilized .
So how did the Poles do it ?
The tangible , historical answer is that Piłsudski had a brilliant plan .
As the Russians advanced on Warsaw , he gambled that could defend the capital with an army of irregulars—boys , shopkeepers , women—while using his actual army as a strike force to hit the Russians from the rear .
This daring moment is captured in a patriotic 2011 movie from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ film , after Piłsudski outlines his plan , a subordinate tells him , “ It ’ s high risk , sir .
Our weakened forces may succumb and Warsaw will fall before you ’ re ready to attack.
” To which Piłsudski responds sternly : “ You must endure the enemy ’ s onslaught on the outskirts of Warsaw until my armies strike them from the back .
There ’ s no other choice.
” So notably , in Poland ’ s subsequent victory , the civilian defenders of Warsaw were as much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ army itself .
Indeed , the military success was a signal moment in modern Polish history , because it demonstrated that the Polish people would and could fight effectively for the Polish nation .
Indeed , during the course of the battle , some citizens became national legends .
One such was a Catholic priest , Father Ignacy Skorupka , martyred in the fighting and revered to this day—and even tweeted .
Of course , that victory in 1920 did not bring an end to Poland ’ s woes .
In 1939 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then the Nazi Germans—once again to dismember Poland .
The joint invasion and occupation was then , of course , overlain by Hitler ’ s attack on Stalin in 1941 , as well as by the Holocaust .
So as many as six million Poles died between 1939 and 1945 , about half of them Jewish .
And then , of course , the communists imposed their dominion on Poland for a further half-century .
Still , Poland ’ s victory a century ago stands as a beacon , reminding us of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nation in common cause .
Indeed , it can be thought of as more than a beacon—it can also be thought of as a case study .
As in , faced with a dangerous menace , here ’ s what the Poles did to save themselves , and we should learn from such heroic actions .
Okay , so now to today .
No , the Red Army is not at our gate , but today , as we know , a dangerous mutation of Leninism , which Wesley Yang has dubbed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already inside our gate .
In the meantime , as we all know , America is deeply divided , unable to unite , even in defense of treasured national symbols .
Or perhaps we should say , with regret , formerly treasured national symbols .
Down this road is national collapse .
In other words , we need a “ Miracle on the Potomac ” to stem this new “ blood-dimmed tide.
” And yet as the Poles proved , miracles don ’ t come easily .
Yes , God can grant miracles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , humans must work hard to earn them .
In the meantime , it ’ s painfully obvious that no current national leader has the personal , ethical , and intellectual resources to reverse the current societal drowning .
So now , thinking back to our historical armamentarium , we can ask : Do we need our own Piłsudski to plan a winning strategy ?
Do we need our own Skorupka to inspire us ?
Do we need our own citizen-army to mobilize for its own defense ?
And perhaps most urgently , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vision that pulls the country together , fixing us in courageous common purpose , like the long-ago defenders of Warsaw ?
Maybe we need all of the above .
But right now , we have little of anything that we can point to that ’ s helping us .
So yes , it will take a miracle .
And yet as we have seen , with enough effort , earthly miracles can be planned—and accomplished .

At a time when chaos seems to be gushing everywhere, it’s nice to think about historical occasions when destruction and evil were defeated.
In fact, it’s more than nice; it’s useful. Why? Because if it happened before, it can happen again. Yes, history is a great resource, as it provides a treasure-trove of examples of what worked in the past—as well as, of course, what did not work. One can learn from both.
One positive precedent is the “Miracle on the Vistula,” when the people of Poland, defending their capital city of Warsaw, repelled the advancing Soviet Red Army.
In fact, the centennial of the battle, fought from August 12 to August 25, 1920, is coming up soon. The Polish government, and Poles everywhere, plan a commemoration; there’s already a video featuring the actor Liam Neeson. Indeed, tourists are encouraged to come and celebrate “a major milestone in Polish history as it saved Poland’s newly regained independence . . . also one of the most important battles in history since the Polish victory over the Soviets stopped the spread of communism to Europe.”
The events of that era were complex, of course, and are subject to multiple interpretations, and so it takes some effort to tease out the precise parallels to today.
Yet this much, for sure, is true: In the aftermath of World War I, four great empires collapsed—German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian, and Ottoman—and seven new nations were established, or, we might say, re-established. One of these was Poland, which had been partitioned out of existence by its neighbors in the late 18th century.
Interestingly, even as the Polish nation had disappeared, even as Russian satraps ruled in Warsaw, Polish nationalism grew stronger. And so, during World War I, a submerged Poland saw its chance to re-emerge, as the Russians, Germans, and Austro-Hungarians (as well as other combatant countries) fought each other to exhaustion.
The big break came in 1917, when the Russian tsarist government collapsed, soon to be replaced by Lenin’s Bolsheviks. Civil war erupted in Russia—and that was Poland’s opportunity for liberation.
Led by soldier-statesman Józef Piłsudski (1867-1935), Poland declared its independence on November 11, 1918, the same day that an armistice was achieved in the overall war.
Yet if all was now quiet on the Western front, on the Eastern front—actually, on many fronts—violent turmoil persisted. So even as Russia was convulsed in civil war, just about every other country in Eastern Europe reeled in convulsion, too, regarding its borders, its political regime, or both.
Moreover, in those days, beyond the rivalries of nationalism, communism was a specter haunting Europe. Hungary, for instance, was afflicted by a communist government for a few months in 1919. And Germany, too, suffered from a short-lived communist regime in its province of Bavaria. In fact, communists were taking to the streets, or even to the barricades, in virtually every country in Europe.
In his famously brooding 1919 poem, “The Second Coming,” William Butler Yeats punned on the color red, in both its political and physical manifestations: “The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere/ The ceremony of innocence is drowned.”
So Poland, independent or the first time in more than 120 years, had to chart a course for itself amidst these dangers. Piłsudski’s idea was to create a new alliance of Eastern European countries, as a way of fending off threats from Germany to the west and Russia to the east.
Piłsudski’s vision included Ukraine, which was then struggling to secure its independence from Russia. However, the communists in Moscow were no more eager than any other Muscovite government, before or since, to see an independent Ukraine, and so Poland found itself in conflict with the red regime, soon to be known as the Soviet Union.
The Poles achieved early success, attempting to set up a friendly Ukrainian government in Kiev, and yet soon the communists, having won their civil war, amassed their armies and counter-attacked, forcing the Poles to retreat.
Indeed, at this exact point, a hundred years ago, July 1920, the Russians were on the brink of crushing Poland once again. They had numbers on their side and, in addition, were fired up with communist zeal. To them, “workers of the world unite” was more than a slogan—it was an action plan for global dominion.
As Red Army general Semyon Budyonny confidently predicted on his way to Warsaw, “We will be happy on the day when, together with the proletariat of the West, we will enter into a decisive battle with the world bourgeoisie, when our army will receive its operational orders from Red Paris, Berlin, or London.”
Indeed, in those crazy times, when so many thought that communism was the future, Budyonny’s bold prediction seemed possible.
Yet then, in August 1920, came the Miracle of the Vistula. At the gates of Warsaw, the Soviets were defeated; the war ended, and the Russo-Polish border stabilized.
So how did the Poles do it? The tangible, historical answer is that Piłsudski had a brilliant plan. As the Russians advanced on Warsaw, he gambled that could defend the capital with an army of irregulars—boys, shopkeepers, women—while using his actual army as a strike force to hit the Russians from the rear.
This daring moment is captured in a patriotic 2011 movie from Poland, Bitwa warszawska; in the film, after Piłsudski outlines his plan, a subordinate tells him, “It’s high risk, sir. Our weakened forces may succumb and Warsaw will fall before you’re ready to attack.” To which Piłsudski responds sternly: “You must endure the enemy’s onslaught on the outskirts of Warsaw until my armies strike them from the back. There’s no other choice.”
So notably, in Poland’s subsequent victory, the civilian defenders of Warsaw were as much a part of the triumph as the army itself. Indeed, the military success was a signal moment in modern Polish history, because it demonstrated that the Polish people would and could fight effectively for the Polish nation.
Indeed, during the course of the battle, some citizens became national legends. One such was a Catholic priest, Father Ignacy Skorupka, martyred in the fighting and revered to this day—and even tweeted.
Of course, that victory in 1920 did not bring an end to Poland’s woes. In 1939, the Soviets teamed up with the Germans—by then the Nazi Germans—once again to dismember Poland. The joint invasion and occupation was then, of course, overlain by Hitler’s attack on Stalin in 1941, as well as by the Holocaust. So as many as six million Poles died between 1939 and 1945, about half of them Jewish. And then, of course, the communists imposed their dominion on Poland for a further half-century.
Still, Poland’s victory a century ago stands as a beacon, reminding us of the power of strong leadership that can unite a nation in common cause. Indeed, it can be thought of as more than a beacon—it can also be thought of as a case study. As in, faced with a dangerous menace, here’s what the Poles did to save themselves, and we should learn from such heroic actions.
Okay, so now to today. No, the Red Army is not at our gate, but today, as we know, a dangerous mutation of Leninism, which Wesley Yang has dubbed the “successor ideology,” is already inside our gate.
In the meantime, as we all know, America is deeply divided, unable to unite, even in defense of treasured national symbols. Or perhaps we should say, with regret, formerly treasured national symbols. Down this road is national collapse.
In other words, we need a “Miracle on the Potomac” to stem this new “blood-dimmed tide.” And yet as the Poles proved, miracles don’t come easily. Yes, God can grant miracles with ease, but here on earth, humans must work hard to earn them.
In the meantime, it’s painfully obvious that no current national leader has the personal, ethical, and intellectual resources to reverse the current societal drowning.
So now, thinking back to our historical armamentarium, we can ask: Do we need our own Piłsudski to plan a winning strategy? Do we need our own Skorupka to inspire us? Do we need our own citizen-army to mobilize for its own defense? And perhaps most urgently, do we need some larger, transcendent vision that pulls the country together, fixing us in courageous common purpose, like the long-ago defenders of Warsaw?
Maybe we need all of the above. But right now, we have little of anything that we can point to that’s helping us. So yes, it will take a miracle. And yet as we have seen, with enough effort, earthly miracles can be planned—and accomplished.


theamericanconservative--2020-06-30--Hillary Was Right About BLM

Hillary Was Right About BLM

In the wake of George Floyd ’ s murder , you may have noticed that some of your white friends and family members engaged in an odd ritual : They filled their social media pages with confessional screeds acknowledging their white privilege and vaguely promising “ to do better , ” to listen more , and so on and so forth ad nauseam .
The idea that the nation ’ s problem with overpolicing of poor and working-class neighborhoods originates from some place of internalized white supremacy and that the problem is not going to get fixed until white Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It had been making the rounds on the fringes of political discourse for years , until recently it spilled onto the world stage and was hastily adopted by said white friends and family members of yours .
Look , for example , how this young white woman reacted recently when asked why she was berating black police officers : “ Racism is a white person ’ s problem , ” she shouts .
“ Racism is my problem .
I need to fix it.
” Talk about a white-savior complex .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once faced with the same idea .
Her response was admirable and no doubt the correct one .
At a primary campaign event in 2015 , Clinton met with the Black Lives Matter activists Daunasia Yancey and Julius Jones during a backroom meeting that was captured on video .
You can find the fullest available recording of the conversation here ( the pertinent moments are between time codes 1:19-3:41 and 8:50-14:20 ) : Yancey and Jones were there to confront Clinton on her role in promoting the 1994 Crime Bill that contributed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ population over the last thirty years ( a trend that has since somewhat changed and , hopefully , with the recent passage of the First Step Act irreversibly so ) .
The intervention was definitely necessary , as Clinton was largely getting a pass for her former tough-on-crime posture , while Bernie Sanders was getting hammered for being somehow blind to the plight of black Americans .
Clinton promised that she now held different views on criminal justice issues , but Jones remained unconvinced .
And so , he asked her : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s going to change the direction of this country ?
” The question might on first sight appear reasonable , but it also strangely confines the matter to the realm of feelings .
Clinton would have none of it and put the ball back in the activists ’ court , a rhetorical tour de force that deserves to be quoted at some length : You ’ re gon na have to come together as a movement and say , here ’ s what we want done about it .
Because you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people as you can pack into Yankee Stadium and a million more like it who are gon na say : Oh , we get it , we get it , we ’ re gon na be nicer .
That ’ s not enough .
At least , that ’ s not how I see politics .
So the consciousness raising , the advocacy , the passion , the youth of your movement is so critical , but now all I ’ m suggesting is , even for us sinners , find some common @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difference right here and now in people ’ s lives .
[ … ] But at the end of the day , we can do a whole lot to change some hearts and change some systems and create more opportunities for people who deserve to have them to live up to their own god-given potential , to live safely , without fear of violence in their own communities , to have a decent school , to have a decent house , to have a decent future .
So , we can do it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep the movement going , which you have started , and through it , you may actually change some hearts .
But if that ’ s all that happens , we ’ ll be back here in ten years having the same conversation .
Christopher Hitchens once remarked that Hillary Clinton ’ s record is so full of lies “ that it can only hope to stay alive on the podium by quacking out the clock [ … ] and saying nothing testable or original or courageous.
” This was not one such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her exchange with the activists , there was the fair share of Clintonian prevarication , too ( “ I ’ m not sure I agree with you .
I ’ m not sure I disagree.
” ) But the imagery of Yankee Stadium full of guilt-ridden white liberals is highly amusing , and her insistence on concrete policy proposals around which the nation can gather is absolutely spot-on .
Just changing someone ’ s heart , she argues , is a meaningless exercise .
It falls below the threshold of the political because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of value will have been done to improve the lives of the poor .
Economic well-being and safety from crime will always trump the hollow gestures of contemporary anti-racism .
On these points at least , Clinton had outwitted the Black Lives Matter activists .
They , in turn , were right , of course , in reminding her of her central role in promoting the sort of policies that led to a general decline in the quality of living for many of America ’ s poor .
It also needs reminding that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effect on civil society .
The social and political work that used to be done by trade unions , churches , parent-teacher or neighborhood associations are now monopolized by professional NGOs and non-profits with deep ties to the state and corporate donors .
But during the activists ’ encounter with Hillary Clinton , Black Lives Matter itself still existed in somewhat germinal form .
Now , it ’ s a richly endowed non-profit in its own right .
But instead of insisting on any of these points , Jones somewhat haplessly replies to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t tell black people what we need to do , then we won ’ t tell you all what you need to do [ … ] This is and has always been a white problem of violence .
There ’ s not much that we can do to stop the violence against us.
” In a brilliant New York Times op-ed from 2017 , Thomas Chatterton Williams wrote that identity politics ironically enough gives whiteness a near-mystical power to mold and control the course of the world in such a way that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s primary actors.
” White people act , black people are acted upon .
This is the way it ’ s been and , if you ask the likes of Ta-Nehisi Coates , this is the way it ’ s going to remain for a long , long time .
It was unfortunate that Jones fell into the same fatalistic way of thinking .
But what felt like an argumentative misstep then is now the law of the land on the left , by which activists like the indignant white woman from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racism .
It ’ s the same sentiment informing those horrid Facebook posts by your friends .
What will be left to the wayside as a result is any meaningful attempt to tackle the issues of overly aggressive policing , unemployment , low growth , dwindling incomes , existential despair , and the skyrocketinghomiciderate that ’ s been haunting our cities since the recent riots and the subsequent retreat of police forces .
Black lives are getting lost at staggering rates , and no one who holds the public microphone seems to care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ genuine reform in the air recently—that is , at least , in the briefest sliver of time right after the brutal killing of George Floyd and right before the looting broke out ( with plenty of entitled white progressives stoking the flames , some of them literally ) .
Since then , things have degenerated toward ahistorical acts of iconoclasm against the author of the Declaration of Independence or the Union general and later president who brought the rebellion to its knees and then crushed the KKK .
The target in all this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ injustice that occurred in the distant past but the belief that “ whiteness ” has wiggled its way through time , swallowing and destroying all that has stood in its way .
It ’ s the stony memorials to this mythic , all-pervasive whiteness that therefore need to be toppled first before anything else can change .
And voila , we ’ re way past addressing the real problems affecting our country .
Far from taking advice on how to fix our problems from the Clintons—they ’ re the last ones we should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Black Lives Matter activists remains prudent on its own .
Whether she truly meant it and whether she as president would have followed through on her words ( she wouldn ’ t have ) , it should still be seen as a compassionate plea to black Americans—really , to all Americans— not to feel like the deck is forever stacked against them .
True change requires us to engage in meaningful civic activity in order to regain a sense of agency that our corporate-sponsored anti-racist figureheads insist remains confined to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ we ’ ll be back here in ten years having the same conversation.
” Gregor Baszak is a PhD candidate in English at the University of Illinois at Chicago and a writer .
His articles have appeared in The American Conservative , Los Angeles Review of Books , Platypus Review , Public Books , Spectator USA , Spiked , and elsewhere .
Follow Gregor on Twitter at @ gregorbas1 .

In the wake of George Floyd’s murder, you may have noticed that some of your white friends and family members engaged in an odd ritual: They filled their social media pages with confessional screeds acknowledging their white privilege and vaguely promising “to do better,” to listen more, and so on and so forth ad nauseam.
The idea that the nation’s problem with overpolicing of poor and working-class neighborhoods originates from some place of internalized white supremacy and that the problem is not going to get fixed until white Americans acknowledge their sins is nothing new. It had been making the rounds on the fringes of political discourse for years, until recently it spilled onto the world stage and was hastily adopted by said white friends and family members of yours.
Look, for example, how this young white woman reacted recently when asked why she was berating black police officers:
White woman yelling at black officers. pic.twitter.com/dEdfTf0Dgw — Henry Rodgers (@henryrodgersdc) June 23, 2020
“Racism is a white person’s problem,” she shouts. “Racism is my problem. I need to fix it.” Talk about a white-savior complex.
It’s worth remembering that Hillary Clinton was once faced with the same idea. Her response was admirable and no doubt the correct one.
At a primary campaign event in 2015, Clinton met with the Black Lives Matter activists Daunasia Yancey and Julius Jones during a backroom meeting that was captured on video. You can find the fullest available recording of the conversation here (the pertinent moments are between time codes 1:19-3:41 and 8:50-14:20):
Yancey and Jones were there to confront Clinton on her role in promoting the 1994 Crime Bill that contributed to the explosion of America’s prison population over the last thirty years (a trend that has since somewhat changed and, hopefully, with the recent passage of the First Step Act irreversibly so). The intervention was definitely necessary, as Clinton was largely getting a pass for her former tough-on-crime posture, while Bernie Sanders was getting hammered for being somehow blind to the plight of black Americans.
Clinton promised that she now held different views on criminal justice issues, but Jones remained unconvinced. And so, he asked her: “What in your heart has changed that’s going to change the direction of this country?”
The question might on first sight appear reasonable, but it also strangely confines the matter to the realm of feelings.
Clinton would have none of it and put the ball back in the activists’ court, a rhetorical tour de force that deserves to be quoted at some length:
You’re gonna have to come together as a movement and say, here’s what we want done about it. Because you can get lip service from as many white people as you can pack into Yankee Stadium and a million more like it who are gonna say: Oh, we get it, we get it, we’re gonna be nicer. That’s not enough. At least, that’s not how I see politics. So the consciousness raising, the advocacy, the passion, the youth of your movement is so critical, but now all I’m suggesting is, even for us sinners, find some common ground on agendas that can make a difference right here and now in people’s lives. […] But at the end of the day, we can do a whole lot to change some hearts and change some systems and create more opportunities for people who deserve to have them to live up to their own god-given potential, to live safely, without fear of violence in their own communities, to have a decent school, to have a decent house, to have a decent future. So, we can do it one of many ways: You can keep the movement going, which you have started, and through it, you may actually change some hearts. But if that’s all that happens, we’ll be back here in ten years having the same conversation.
Christopher Hitchens once remarked that Hillary Clinton’s record is so full of lies “that it can only hope to stay alive on the podium by quacking out the clock […] and saying nothing testable or original or courageous.” This was not one such moment.
To be sure, during her exchange with the activists, there was the fair share of Clintonian prevarication, too (“I’m not sure I agree with you. I’m not sure I disagree.”) But the imagery of Yankee Stadium full of guilt-ridden white liberals is highly amusing, and her insistence on concrete policy proposals around which the nation can gather is absolutely spot-on. Just changing someone’s heart, she argues, is a meaningless exercise. It falls below the threshold of the political because at the end of the day nothing of value will have been done to improve the lives of the poor. Economic well-being and safety from crime will always trump the hollow gestures of contemporary anti-racism.
On these points at least, Clinton had outwitted the Black Lives Matter activists. They, in turn, were right, of course, in reminding her of her central role in promoting the sort of policies that led to a general decline in the quality of living for many of America’s poor.
It also needs reminding that Clinton-style neoliberal politics had a profoundly disempowering effect on civil society. The social and political work that used to be done by trade unions, churches, parent-teacher or neighborhood associations are now monopolized by professional NGOs and non-profits with deep ties to the state and corporate donors. But during the activists’ encounter with Hillary Clinton, Black Lives Matter itself still existed in somewhat germinal form. Now, it’s a richly endowed non-profit in its own right.
But instead of insisting on any of these points, Jones somewhat haplessly replies to Clinton that, “if you don’t tell black people what we need to do, then we won’t tell you all what you need to do […] This is and has always been a white problem of violence. There’s not much that we can do to stop the violence against us.”
In a brilliant New York Times op-ed from 2017, Thomas Chatterton Williams wrote that identity politics ironically enough gives whiteness a near-mystical power to mold and control the course of the world in such a way that “those deemed white remain this nation’s primary actors.” White people act, black people are acted upon. This is the way it’s been and, if you ask the likes of Ta-Nehisi Coates, this is the way it’s going to remain for a long, long time. It was unfortunate that Jones fell into the same fatalistic way of thinking.
But what felt like an argumentative misstep then is now the law of the land on the left, by which activists like the indignant white woman from the Twitter video above reveal their actual racism. It’s the same sentiment informing those horrid Facebook posts by your friends.
What will be left to the wayside as a result is any meaningful attempt to tackle the issues of overly aggressive policing, unemployment, low growth, dwindling incomes, existential despair, and the skyrocketing homicide rate that’s been haunting our cities since the recent riots and the subsequent retreat of police forces. Black lives are getting lost at staggering rates, and no one who holds the public microphone seems to care.
There was a real moment for genuine reform in the air recently—that is, at least, in the briefest sliver of time right after the brutal killing of George Floyd and right before the looting broke out (with plenty of entitled white progressives stoking the flames, some of them literally). Since then, things have degenerated toward ahistorical acts of iconoclasm against the author of the Declaration of Independence or the Union general and later president who brought the rebellion to its knees and then crushed the KKK. The target in all this is not so much some perceived historical injustice that occurred in the distant past but the belief that “whiteness” has wiggled its way through time, swallowing and destroying all that has stood in its way. It’s the stony memorials to this mythic, all-pervasive whiteness that therefore need to be toppled first before anything else can change. And voila, we’re way past addressing the real problems affecting our country.
(Perhaps, it’s the advance guard of Joe Biden’s presidency. After all, didn’t he promise a room full of megarich donors that under his administration “nothing would fundamentally change”?)
Far from taking advice on how to fix our problems from the Clintons—they’re the last ones we should consult on literally anything—Hillary’s response to the Black Lives Matter activists remains prudent on its own. Whether she truly meant it and whether she as president would have followed through on her words (she wouldn’t have), it should still be seen as a compassionate plea to black Americans—really, to all Americans— not to feel like the deck is forever stacked against them. True change requires us to engage in meaningful civic activity in order to regain a sense of agency that our corporate-sponsored anti-racist figureheads insist remains confined to the hearts of entitled white progressives.
Otherwise, “we’ll be back here in ten years having the same conversation.”
Gregor Baszak is a PhD candidate in English at the University of Illinois at Chicago and a writer. His articles have appeared in The American Conservative, Los Angeles Review of Books, Platypus Review, Public Books, Spectator USA, Spiked, and elsewhere. Follow Gregor on Twitter at @gregorbas1.


theamericanconservative--2020-06-30--What if Trump Won’t Leave The White House?

I ’ ve got a list of bookmarks as long as a CVS receipt declaring threats to the republic and democracy and the arrival of dictatorship .
When I turn on cable news , the end of America as we know it—the literal end , as in North Korean-style lives for everyone—is a regular feature alongside weather and sports ( back when we had sports ) .
I ’ ve tried to make a career out of debunking that fear mongering .
But now I ’ m scared too .
Joe Biden has announced his own fears .
Biden ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for president ) said he is “ absolutely convinced ” the military may have to remove President Trump from the White House if he refuses to leave after losing November ’ s election .
Joe warned , “ This president is going to try to steal this election… .
It ’ s my greatest concern.
” Asked whether he ’ d thought about what would happen if he wins but Trump decides not to leave , Biden responded : “ Yes I have.
” After mentioning the high-ranking former military officers who spoke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black Lives Matter protests , he went on : “ I ’ m absolutely convinced they will escort him from the White House.
” Biden has been saying this for months .
It ’ s one thing when goofy Michael Moore , Donny Deutsch , or Bill Maher muses about this for clicks , or an op-ed worries Trump will unleash a diversionary war in some Strangelovian bid to stay in office .
Nearly everyone on Autonomous Free Twitter knows the voting will be rigged .
Some knucklehead wrote a book about it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 12th Amendment .
Democrats have also voiced “ concerns ” that Trump might use the coronavirus crisis to delay or delegitimize the election .
But this is Joe Biden saying Trump will attempt some sort of unconstitutional coup .
Joe Biden , who was vice president twice .
Joe Biden , Lion of the Senate , and for several centuries the gray representative of the credit card industry .
Joe Biden , who is not stupid , naive , or dramatic .
Joe Biden , who is , however , just a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re setting it up , aren ’ t they ?
The New York Times , as is its role , has already fired several signal flares .
They characterized Trump as a cornered despot , capable of anything to avoid losing .
In another article , the Times announced , “ Trump Sows Doubt on Voting .
It Keeps Some People Up at Night , ” which quotes a Georgetown University law professor saying that “ reactions have gone from , ‘ Don ’ t be silly , that won ’ t happen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ‘ You know , that could happen.
’ ” The professor even convened a group to brainstorm how Trump might disrupt the election and think about ways to prevent it .
They speculated that Trump could declare a state of emergency , maybe COVID-related , banning polling places in battleground states from opening .
Or Attorney General Barr could Comey-like announce a criminal investigation into Biden .
The online comment responses to the Times articles are amazing .
People are ready for this .
They are convinced Trump is defunding the post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absentee ballots ( the left imagines they ’ ll all be for Biden ) , and that Trump is sending out coded signals to his militias to take to the streets if it looks like he is losing .
More than a few claim that what happens in November “ will depend on where the military ’ s loyalty lies.
” Many think the Supreme Court is a tool in all this , with Kavanaugh a lickspittle linchpin to enable the November coup through some sort of judicial invalidation of the election .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough .
But here ’ s my nightmare .
After a long October of rumors from sources about some surprise ( war with Iran , martial law in Seattle ) fails to produce a surge in Never Trump voters , the media pivots to the cheating narrative .
Trump is doing something with mail-in ballots , black people can ’ t get to the polls in Georgia , the attorney general in Kentucky will undercount urban areas .
The media will explode like a ripe zit , splattering fake news , exaggerations , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point to make : the results on Election Day will not be valid if Trump wins .
Academics will fan the flames , bleating on about the importance of the popular vote and rehashing old arguments from 2016 about the invalidity of the Electoral College .
All will be forgotten faster than Robert-What ’ s-His-Name-Mueller if Biden wins .
But if by pre-2016 standards Trump is the winner , boom !
The media will refuse to concede .
The Dems will issue strident local court challenges , demands for recounts , and emergency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want not a conclusion , but a crisis .
Trump will fulfill his role as his own worst enemy and hold rallies to re-declare victory over and over again .
But the story everywhere else will be that he isn ’ t the president-elect , that the election was not legitimate , and that orange bad man ’ s presence in the White House after January 20 will be a Konstitutional Krisis .
Privately the Democratic power brokers will whisper to their wealthy funders that something remarkably undemocratic has to be done to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is beyond guessing .
A best case scenario is that some old school party graybeards get through to an exhausted and befuddled Biden and talk him out of it .
A bad scenario has Obama emerging under the guise of being a neutral party to negotiate a ( Democratic Party ) conclusion .
A very bad scenario has the same third-party actors who whipped Black Lives Matter protesters into a looting mob repeat the performance .
By that point , nearly everyone will demand that the military step in , albeit for different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scenario will have a real-world event intervene , like an enemy abroad taking advantage of the chaos .
The need to act expeditiously will slip a “ temporary ” military government into place faster than CNN can play the breaking news music .
Paperback thriller material , right ?
But consider whether you thought Trump was a Russian sleeper agent before you call me paranoid .
Since 2016 , learned scholars have tested legal theories saying the Electoral College was invalid and created a constitutional Frankenstein based on the national popular vote .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to foreign influence still sullies discussion today .
One political writer even continues to place an asterisk next to “ President Trump* ” to denote his questionable claim to the title .
For nearly four years , the same forces that may declare 2020 invalid tried very hard to convince us 2016 already was .
There are plenty of Hillary people ( including Hillary ) who have not accepted 2016 .
Has Stacey Abrams really accepted her defeat yet ?
Think back to everything that happened during the last election , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influence results .
Remember how the intelligence community manipulated Russiagate .
Why wait for November 2020 to have a coup ?
We ’ ve been in what Matt Taibbi calls a permanent coup for years .
They ’ ve been practicing .
Any of the those things would have been considered crazy talk only a few years ago .
None would have ever passed into the mainstream .
Compare Russiagate to the Great Obama Birth Certificate kerfuffle .
The idea that Obama was ineligible for office festered on right-wing talk radio .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone else .
Fast forward to 2016+ and America ’ s paper of record is happy to front a story claiming the president is subject to a foreign enemy ’ s blackmail based on nothing but desperate hope that it might be true .
The critical tool for the ending of democracy is people ’ s conditioned readiness to believe almost anything .
The media tells the world what ’ s important using a very narrow range of truth , or just makes things up if truth is not around to be manipulated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cynicism , decline , and distrust .
And scared .
There are no facts anymore , only what people can be made to believe .
That power was not well understood in 2016 and was clumsily applied .
Today it is ripe for exploitation , far beyond generating clicks and ad revenue .
I don ’ t think Trump will try to stay in office if he loses .
But there are people who will tell us that to manipulate our fears and steal this election .
That ’ s why I am @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 24-year State Department veteran , is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People , Hooper ’ s War : A Novel of WWII Japan , and Ghosts of Tom Joad : A Story of the # 99 Percent .

I’ve got a list of bookmarks as long as a CVS receipt declaring threats to the republic and democracy and the arrival of dictatorship. When I turn on cable news, the end of America as we know it—the literal end, as in North Korean-style lives for everyone—is a regular feature alongside weather and sports (back when we had sports). I’ve tried to make a career out of debunking that fear mongering. But now I’m scared too.
Joe Biden has announced his own fears. Biden (who despite appearances is the Democratic candidate for president) said he is “absolutely convinced” the military may have to remove President Trump from the White House if he refuses to leave after losing November’s election. Joe warned, “This president is going to try to steal this election…. It’s my greatest concern.” Asked whether he’d thought about what would happen if he wins but Trump decides not to leave, Biden responded: “Yes I have.” After mentioning the high-ranking former military officers who spoke out about Trump’s response to Black Lives Matter protests, he went on: “I’m absolutely convinced they will escort him from the White House.”
Biden has been saying this for months.
It’s one thing when goofy Michael Moore, Donny Deutsch, or Bill Maher muses about this for clicks, or an op-ed worries Trump will unleash a diversionary war in some Strangelovian bid to stay in office. Nearly everyone on Autonomous Free Twitter knows the voting will be rigged. Some knucklehead wrote a book about it based on a fan fiction reading of the 12th Amendment. Democrats have also voiced “concerns” that Trump might use the coronavirus crisis to delay or delegitimize the election.
But this is Joe Biden saying Trump will attempt some sort of unconstitutional coup. Joe Biden, who was vice president twice. Joe Biden, Lion of the Senate, and for several centuries the gray representative of the credit card industry. Joe Biden, who is not stupid, naive, or dramatic. Joe Biden, who is, however, just a pawn in the game. They’re setting it up, aren’t they?
The New York Times, as is its role, has already fired several signal flares. They characterized Trump as a cornered despot, capable of anything to avoid losing. In another article, the Times announced, “Trump Sows Doubt on Voting. It Keeps Some People Up at Night,” which quotes a Georgetown University law professor saying that “reactions have gone from, ‘Don’t be silly, that won’t happen,’ to an increasing sense of, ‘You know, that could happen.’”
The professor even convened a group to brainstorm how Trump might disrupt the election and think about ways to prevent it. They speculated that Trump could declare a state of emergency, maybe COVID-related, banning polling places in battleground states from opening. Or Attorney General Barr could Comey-like announce a criminal investigation into Biden.
The online comment responses to the Times articles are amazing. People are ready for this. They are convinced Trump is defunding the post office so no one can mail in absentee ballots (the left imagines they’ll all be for Biden), and that Trump is sending out coded signals to his militias to take to the streets if it looks like he is losing. More than a few claim that what happens in November “will depend on where the military’s loyalty lies.” Many think the Supreme Court is a tool in all this, with Kavanaugh a lickspittle linchpin to enable the November coup through some sort of judicial invalidation of the election.
That Americans think this way is scary enough. But here’s my nightmare. After a long October of rumors from sources about some surprise (war with Iran, martial law in Seattle) fails to produce a surge in Never Trump voters, the media pivots to the cheating narrative. Trump is doing something with mail-in ballots, black people can’t get to the polls in Georgia, the attorney general in Kentucky will undercount urban areas. The media will explode like a ripe zit, splattering fake news, exaggerations, and experts, all with a single point to make: the results on Election Day will not be valid if Trump wins. Academics will fan the flames, bleating on about the importance of the popular vote and rehashing old arguments from 2016 about the invalidity of the Electoral College.
All will be forgotten faster than Robert-What’s-His-Name-Mueller if Biden wins. But if by pre-2016 standards Trump is the winner, boom! The media will refuse to concede. The Dems will issue strident local court challenges, demands for recounts, and emergency hearings in the House. They will want not a conclusion, but a crisis.
Trump will fulfill his role as his own worst enemy and hold rallies to re-declare victory over and over again. But the story everywhere else will be that he isn’t the president-elect, that the election was not legitimate, and that orange bad man’s presence in the White House after January 20 will be a Konstitutional Krisis. Privately the Democratic power brokers will whisper to their wealthy funders that something remarkably undemocratic has to be done to save our democracy.
What happens next is beyond guessing. A best case scenario is that some old school party graybeards get through to an exhausted and befuddled Biden and talk him out of it. A bad scenario has Obama emerging under the guise of being a neutral party to negotiate a (Democratic Party) conclusion. A very bad scenario has the same third-party actors who whipped Black Lives Matter protesters into a looting mob repeat the performance. By that point, nearly everyone will demand that the military step in, albeit for different reasons. A very, very bad scenario will have a real-world event intervene, like an enemy abroad taking advantage of the chaos. The need to act expeditiously will slip a “temporary” military government into place faster than CNN can play the breaking news music.
Paperback thriller material, right? But consider whether you thought Trump was a Russian sleeper agent before you call me paranoid. Since 2016, learned scholars have tested legal theories saying the Electoral College was invalid and created a constitutional Frankenstein based on the national popular vote. The idea that the election was invalid due to foreign influence still sullies discussion today. One political writer even continues to place an asterisk next to “President Trump*” to denote his questionable claim to the title.
For nearly four years, the same forces that may declare 2020 invalid tried very hard to convince us 2016 already was. There are plenty of Hillary people (including Hillary) who have not accepted 2016. Has Stacey Abrams really accepted her defeat yet? Think back to everything that happened during the last election, the gaming by Comey and the FBI to influence results. Remember how the intelligence community manipulated Russiagate. Why wait for November 2020 to have a coup? We’ve been in what Matt Taibbi calls a permanent coup for years. They’ve been practicing.
Any of the those things would have been considered crazy talk only a few years ago. None would have ever passed into the mainstream. Compare Russiagate to the Great Obama Birth Certificate kerfuffle. The idea that Obama was ineligible for office festered on right-wing talk radio. It was dismissed as fact-less by just about everyone else. Fast forward to 2016+ and America’s paper of record is happy to front a story claiming the president is subject to a foreign enemy’s blackmail based on nothing but desperate hope that it might be true.
The critical tool for the ending of democracy is people’s conditioned readiness to believe almost anything. The media tells the world what’s important using a very narrow range of truth, or just makes things up if truth is not around to be manipulated.
We are exhausted, neck-deep in cynicism, decline, and distrust. And scared. There are no facts anymore, only what people can be made to believe. That power was not well understood in 2016 and was clumsily applied. Today it is ripe for exploitation, far beyond generating clicks and ad revenue. I don’t think Trump will try to stay in office if he loses. But there are people who will tell us that to manipulate our fears and steal this election. That’s why I am finally scared.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People,Hooper’s War: A Novel of WWII Japan, and Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent.


theamericanconservative--2020-07-02--Justice Roberts Splits the Baby

Justice Roberts Splits the Baby

The U.S. Supreme Court ’ s Chief Justice , John Roberts , has taken upon himself the Solomonic role of American philosopher king left vacant at Justice Anthony Kennedy ’ s retirement .
Seemingly committed above all to the institutional legitimacy of the Court , Roberts has in the last few weeks cast a series of votes in the Bostock , Espinoza , and June Medical Services cases that appear to show him to be trying to placate both sides of America ’ s culture wars by offering something to each .
By joining the Court ’ s four liberals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority opinion in the Bostock v. Clayton County LGBT civil rights case , Roberts has endorsed a strained reading of the 1964 Civil Rights Act ’ s prohibition on sex discrimination as prohibiting discrimination based upon sexual orientation—a reading that may be “ textualist , ” but certainly isn ’ t originalist .
This is a victory for LGBT activists comparable to the epochal Obergefell decision on same-sex marriage , and a catastrophe for social conservatives , as described by Helen Andrews in the pages of TAC .
By authoring the conservative majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Roberts has handed social conservatives a significant victory , holding that states violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment when they withhold from parochial and other religious schools aid that they had made available to non-religious schools .
Roberts noted the roots of Montana ’ s prohibition on aid to “ sectarian ” schools in the frank anti-Catholic bigotry of the Know Nothing era ’ s Blaine Amendments ( on the books in 37 states ) , and while his opinion did not declare them unconstitutional outright , it stripped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and opened the door to challenges to those amendments as being unconstitutional in their entirety .
This was a big win for social conservatives , and an important defeat for secular progressives .
Having handed a major victory and a major defeat to both sides of the culture war this term , Roberts handed each of them half a loaf with his tie-breaking concurrence in June Medical Services v. Russo case .
Roberts held in his controlling concurrence that Louisiana ’ s requirement that abortionists must have hospital admitting privileges was unconstitutional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whole Women ’ s Health v. Hellerstedt , despite having joined Justice Alito ’ s dissent in that case .
He larded his opinion with quotations from Blackstone , Burke , and Hamilton in an unwitting self-parody of the bromides of “ conservative ” jurisprudence .
But while he stretched his jurisprudence far beyond credibility to hand the pro-choice camp a substantive win , Roberts has spooked liberal commentators with the sops he threw to pro-lifers in his concurrence : he pared back the liberal Whole Women ’ s Health majority ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interests in protecting maternal safety and unborn life against the burdens placed upon the penumbral “ right ” to an abortion , and restored the less onerous “ undue burden ” test enunciated in 1992 ’ s Planned Parenthood v. Casey , signaling that in future cases , only the degree of burden , and not any showing of health benefits to the mother , will be dispositive .
Moreover , Roberts took care to note that neither party in June Medical Services had challenged Casey itself , which commentators on both sides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-life states to bring such challenges—an especially significant development given that , contrary to popular perception , it is Casey , and not the Court ’ s earlier , famously muddleheaded opinion in 1973 ’ s Roe v. Wade , that has since 1992 provided the jurisprudential rationale for the “ right ” to an abortion .
As the dissenters pointed out , Roberts ’ concurrence in June Medical Services was an exercise in motivated reasoning , treating the precedent in Whole Women ’ s Health with far more respect than prior Roberts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precedents in other areas .
He also mischaracterized the balancing test enunciated in that case as a reaffirmation of the undue burden test in Casey , so he could pretend to be deferring to Whole Women ’ s Health while discarding its central legal holding .
Roberts reached the substantively pro-choice result he wanted to reach , but he sacrificed not merely the unborn , but his intellectual integrity to get there .
Why has Roberts ruled this way , and what should social conservatives to do about it ?
It has become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ above all , and will stretch interpretive credulity—as in his Obamacare decision—in order to avoid a controversial ( i.e.
, conservative and politically important ) decision that would delegitimize the Court in the eyes of mainstream elite liberal opinion .
With polls and incumbent incompetence making a future Biden administration look probable , Roberts ’ concerns about a Democratic White House and Senate cooperating to avenge the blocked nomination of Merrick Garland by packing the Supreme Court may have been a prominent motive for Roberts ’ illogical mess of an opinion .
Where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The movement is divided into two sorts of activity—local activities like sidewalk and crisis pregnancy counseling , and state and national political activities like support for pro-life politicians , the March for Life , Louisiana ’ s now-overturned abortion law , and the conservative legal movement ’ s doomed attempt to defend it in court .
Roberts ’ opinion doesn ’ t change the landscape for local activities at all , and we may expect them to continue .
But the state and national political landscape have changed a great deal in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further very rapidly .
As mentioned above , at the national level , a Biden win in November looks likely .
So while social conservatives can argue about whether it still makes sense to support Republicans for the presidency given the records of Roberts and Gorsuch , the debate is probably academic .
Likewise , while social conservatives can continue to debate jurisprudential philosophy , the conservatives on the Supreme Court already have developed legal philosophies , and with the almost certain retirement of Justice Ginsburg early in a Biden Administration , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thereafter , it will be a long time before social conservatives have the chance to expand the pro-life bench there .
At most , there might be the opportunity after 2024 to replace social conservatism ’ s greatest jurisprudential champion—Justice Clarence Thomas—with a justice quite unlikely to equal his incomparable record .
For now , any pro-life legal victories will come only by crafting legislation that can survive Roberts ’ revived undue burden test , or by mounting a challenge to Casey that he might favor .
Then again , he might greet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tradition , rather than a uncompromising decision in the mold of Clarence Thomas that would overturn bad precedent , and stop the legal murder of millions of children .
In short , we are likely to have a divided 4-1-4 Court again for the next decade at least , with Justice Roberts sitting on Anthony Kennedy ’ s old throne as our reigning kritarch .
The only remotely plausible alternative to this scenario is one where Justice Thomas—not a young man—is replaced by a pro-choice justice , giving the champions of abortion a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can great legal strides be anticipated by the pro-life movement at the Supreme Court .
At best , Justice Roberts might apply the undue burden test from Casey to allow socially conservative states to chip away in an incremental—one might say Burkean—way at the “ right ” to murder an unborn child .
With national political and legal progress likely to be stagnant in the best case scenario , pro-lifers have begun to consider civil disobedience , reviving a recently dormant discussion that that had begun with 1996 ’ s “ The End @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Things on liberal court decisions .
Now , we see voices like Matthew Walther advocating that the pro-life movement adopt the confrontational tactics of BLM .
He writes that pro-lifers should abandon the impotent respectability of the March for Life for scribbling Black Lives Matter on the bust of notorious eugenicist and early abortion advocate Margaret Sanger in the National Portrait Gallery .
Walther suggests that just as progressives have created “ sanctuary cities ” where federal immigration law is flouted , perhaps pro-life state governments should declare themselves “ sanctuary states ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jackson once did , that they have made their decision , and now let them enforce it .
Sixty million unborn children have been killed in the womb in America since Roe .
Legal abortion should be seen by any pro-life Christian as this nation ’ s worst moral abomination since slavery .
Just as it took a Civil War to end that scourge , so it is impossible not to sympathize with those who advocate extra-judicial means to end the scourge of abortion .
But reason , not sentiment , must guide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as follows : BLM enjoys elite cultural support that the pro-life movement very much does not , and while civil disobedience by progressives will be met with the indulgence we ’ ve seen toward the CHAZ in Seattle , or the rioters in New York , sustained confrontational civil disobedience by pro-lifers would be crushed as thoroughly as Cliven Bundy ’ s conservative activists .
One need only compare the fates of BLM rioters who have destroyed businesses to that of those who have destroyed abortion clinic property without injuring clinic employees—the former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrorists—to see that any civil disobedience serious enough to get the establishment ’ s attention will be met not with an open hand , but with a boot in the face .
Walther ’ s suggestion of sanctuary states is likewise doomed .
Even in the reddest of red states , the fear of corporate boycotts has frightened legislators away from “ transgender bathroom bills ” that have drawn the ire of LGBT activists .
It would take only the slightest hint of such a boycott to derail any “ sanctuary state ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state capitols .
Moreover , in the vanishingly unlikely event that such legislation became law , it would be trivially easy for our pro-abortion mainstream media to paint any intervention in force by the Biden Administration to enforce abortion “ rights ” as the second coming of President Eisenhower calling out the National Guard to force desegregation upon a truculent South .
The narrative writes itself , and it ’ s a kind of story that both Hollywood and generations of college professors and Howard Zinn-toting social studies teachers have already primed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embrace—as we are seeing now with BLM .
Realistically then , neither respectable electoral politics nor confrontational action offers the pro-life movement any hope .
What is left after those are gone is those sidewalk counselors and crisis clinic volunteers .
What is left is the Benedict Option advocated by TAC ’ s own Rod Dreher , who has shared the tragic fate of Cassandra—he has prophesied doom and been proven right when it was too late to avert catastrophe .
In other words , for Christian social conservatives surveying the wreck of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kritarchy headed by the establishmentarian John Roberts , it is no longer a Benedict “ Option.
” It is simply the ineluctable reality .
Thomas FitzGerald writes from Texas .
You can follow him on Twitter at @ tmacgearailt

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Chief Justice, John Roberts, has taken upon himself the Solomonic role of American philosopher king left vacant at Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement. Seemingly committed above all to the institutional legitimacy of the Court, Roberts has in the last few weeks cast a series of votes in the Bostock, Espinoza, and June Medical Services cases that appear to show him to be trying to placate both sides of America’s culture wars by offering something to each.
By joining the Court’s four liberals in endorsing Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion in the Bostock v. Clayton County LGBT civil rights case, Roberts has endorsed a strained reading of the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s prohibition on sex discrimination as prohibiting discrimination based upon sexual orientation—a reading that may be “textualist,” but certainly isn’t originalist. This is a victory for LGBT activists comparable to the epochal Obergefell decision on same-sex marriage, and a catastrophe for social conservatives, as described by Helen Andrews in the pages of TAC.
By authoring the conservative majority’s opinion in Espinoza v. Montana, Roberts has handed social conservatives a significant victory, holding that states violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment when they withhold from parochial and other religious schools aid that they had made available to non-religious schools. Roberts noted the roots of Montana’s prohibition on aid to “sectarian” schools in the frank anti-Catholic bigotry of the Know Nothing era’s Blaine Amendments (on the books in 37 states), and while his opinion did not declare them unconstitutional outright, it stripped them of much of their practical effect, and opened the door to challenges to those amendments as being unconstitutional in their entirety. This was a big win for social conservatives, and an important defeat for secular progressives.
Having handed a major victory and a major defeat to both sides of the culture war this term, Roberts handed each of them half a loaf with his tie-breaking concurrence in June Medical Services v. Russo case. Roberts held in his controlling concurrence that Louisiana’s requirement that abortionists must have hospital admitting privileges was unconstitutional under the Court’s precedent in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, despite having joined Justice Alito’s dissent in that case. He larded his opinion with quotations from Blackstone, Burke, and Hamilton in an unwitting self-parody of the bromides of “conservative” jurisprudence. But while he stretched his jurisprudence far beyond credibility to hand the pro-choice camp a substantive win, Roberts has spooked liberal commentators with the sops he threw to pro-lifers in his concurrence: he pared back the liberal Whole Women’s Health majority’s balancing test that pitted the states’ interests in protecting maternal safety and unborn life against the burdens placed upon the penumbral “right” to an abortion, and restored the less onerous “undue burden” test enunciated in 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey, signaling that in future cases, only the degree of burden, and not any showing of health benefits to the mother, will be dispositive.
Moreover, Roberts took care to note that neither party in June Medical Services had challenged Casey itself, which commentators on both sides have taken as a possible invitation for pro-life states to bring such challenges—an especially significant development given that, contrary to popular perception, it is Casey, and not the Court’s earlier, famously muddleheaded opinion in 1973’s Roe v. Wade, that has since 1992 provided the jurisprudential rationale for the “right” to an abortion. As the dissenters pointed out, Roberts’ concurrence in June Medical Services was an exercise in motivated reasoning, treating the precedent in Whole Women’s Health with far more respect than prior Roberts opinions have treated older and more important precedents in other areas. He also mischaracterized the balancing test enunciated in that case as a reaffirmation of the undue burden test in Casey, so he could pretend to be deferring to Whole Women’s Health while discarding its central legal holding. Roberts reached the substantively pro-choice result he wanted to reach, but he sacrificed not merely the unborn, but his intellectual integrity to get there.
Why has Roberts ruled this way, and what should social conservatives to do about it? It has become conventional wisdom that Roberts is an institutionalist above all, and will stretch interpretive credulity—as in his Obamacare decision—in order to avoid a controversial (i.e., conservative and politically important) decision that would delegitimize the Court in the eyes of mainstream elite liberal opinion. With polls and incumbent incompetence making a future Biden administration look probable, Roberts’ concerns about a Democratic White House and Senate cooperating to avenge the blocked nomination of Merrick Garland by packing the Supreme Court may have been a prominent motive for Roberts’ illogical mess of an opinion.
Where does this leave the pro-life movement? The movement is divided into two sorts of activity—local activities like sidewalk and crisis pregnancy counseling, and state and national political activities like support for pro-life politicians, the March for Life, Louisiana’s now-overturned abortion law, and the conservative legal movement’s doomed attempt to defend it in court. Roberts’ opinion doesn’t change the landscape for local activities at all, and we may expect them to continue.
But the state and national political landscape have changed a great deal in the last four years—and are likely to change further very rapidly. As mentioned above, at the national level, a Biden win in November looks likely. So while social conservatives can argue about whether it still makes sense to support Republicans for the presidency given the records of Roberts and Gorsuch, the debate is probably academic.
Likewise, while social conservatives can continue to debate jurisprudential philosophy, the conservatives on the Supreme Court already have developed legal philosophies, and with the almost certain retirement of Justice Ginsburg early in a Biden Administration, and the likely retirement of Justice Breyer soon thereafter, it will be a long time before social conservatives have the chance to expand the pro-life bench there. At most, there might be the opportunity after 2024 to replace social conservatism’s greatest jurisprudential champion—Justice Clarence Thomas—with a justice quite unlikely to equal his incomparable record. For now, any pro-life legal victories will come only by crafting legislation that can survive Roberts’ revived undue burden test, or by mounting a challenge to Casey that he might favor. Then again, he might greet it with more Burkean bromides about inherited tradition, rather than a uncompromising decision in the mold of Clarence Thomas that would overturn bad precedent, and stop the legal murder of millions of children.
In short, we are likely to have a divided 4-1-4 Court again for the next decade at least, with Justice Roberts sitting on Anthony Kennedy’s old throne as our reigning kritarch. The only remotely plausible alternative to this scenario is one where Justice Thomas—not a young man—is replaced by a pro-choice justice, giving the champions of abortion a lasting firm majority. In neither case can great legal strides be anticipated by the pro-life movement at the Supreme Court. At best, Justice Roberts might apply the undue burden test from Casey to allow socially conservative states to chip away in an incremental—one might say Burkean—way at the “right” to murder an unborn child.
With national political and legal progress likely to be stagnant in the best case scenario, pro-lifers have begun to consider civil disobedience, reviving a recently dormant discussion that that had begun with 1996’s “The End of Democracy?” symposium in First Things on liberal court decisions. Now, we see voices like Matthew Walther advocating that the pro-life movement adopt the confrontational tactics of BLM. He writes that pro-lifers should abandon the impotent respectability of the March for Life for scribbling Black Lives Matter on the bust of notorious eugenicist and early abortion advocate Margaret Sanger in the National Portrait Gallery. Walther suggests that just as progressives have created “sanctuary cities” where federal immigration law is flouted, perhaps pro-life state governments should declare themselves “sanctuary states” and tell the Court, as President Jackson once did, that they have made their decision, and now let them enforce it.
Sixty million unborn children have been killed in the womb in America since Roe. Legal abortion should be seen by any pro-life Christian as this nation’s worst moral abomination since slavery. Just as it took a Civil War to end that scourge, so it is impossible not to sympathize with those who advocate extra-judicial means to end the scourge of abortion. But reason, not sentiment, must guide the prudent statesman. The realities are as follows: BLM enjoys elite cultural support that the pro-life movement very much does not, and while civil disobedience by progressives will be met with the indulgence we’ve seen toward the CHAZ in Seattle, or the rioters in New York, sustained confrontational civil disobedience by pro-lifers would be crushed as thoroughly as Cliven Bundy’s conservative activists. One need only compare the fates of BLM rioters who have destroyed businesses to that of those who have destroyed abortion clinic property without injuring clinic employees—the former unmolested, the latter crushed as domestic terrorists—to see that any civil disobedience serious enough to get the establishment’s attention will be met not with an open hand, but with a boot in the face.
Walther’s suggestion of sanctuary states is likewise doomed. Even in the reddest of red states, the fear of corporate boycotts has frightened legislators away from “transgender bathroom bills” that have drawn the ire of LGBT activists. It would take only the slightest hint of such a boycott to derail any “sanctuary state” legislation in even the deepest crimson of state capitols. Moreover, in the vanishingly unlikely event that such legislation became law, it would be trivially easy for our pro-abortion mainstream media to paint any intervention in force by the Biden Administration to enforce abortion “rights” as the second coming of President Eisenhower calling out the National Guard to force desegregation upon a truculent South. The narrative writes itself, and it’s a kind of story that both Hollywood and generations of college professors and Howard Zinn-toting social studies teachers have already primed the last few generations of American students to embrace—as we are seeing now with BLM.
Realistically then, neither respectable electoral politics nor confrontational action offers the pro-life movement any hope. What is left after those are gone is those sidewalk counselors and crisis clinic volunteers. What is left is the Benedict Option advocated by TAC’s own Rod Dreher, who has shared the tragic fate of Cassandra—he has prophesied doom and been proven right when it was too late to avert catastrophe. In other words, for Christian social conservatives surveying the wreck of our post-Christian culture presided over by a kritarchy headed by the establishmentarian John Roberts, it is no longer a Benedict “Option.” It is simply the ineluctable reality.
Thomas FitzGerald writes from Texas. You can follow him on Twitter at @tmacgearailt


theamericanconservative--2020-07-02--Will Rust-Belt Catholics Keep Backing Trump?

In a handful of key counties in Michigan , Wisconsin , Pennsylvania , and Ohio , they play an outsized role in who these states elect Throughout most of the twentieth century , Catholic voters had been a pivotal demographic for Democrats in presidential elections .
Franklin Roosevelt , Harry Truman , John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson could not have been elected without the huge support they received from urban and suburban white ethnic Catholics .
But the loyalty of many Catholic voters began to wane in the late 1960s and they became Nixon Democrats and later , Reagan Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party ?
The most succinct explanation was voiced by Ronald Reagan in 1980 : Ronald Reagan made it clear , time and again , that he did not leave the Democratic Party , it left him .
The takeover of the Democratic Party by extreme leftists , that gave the nation the Great Society social experiments that created a welfare-dependent underclass and pandemic urban crime , drove Reagan and millions of working-class Americans , particularly inner city and suburban ethnic Catholics , into the arms of the Republican Party .
In 1972 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carry a majority of the Catholic vote , 52 % .
Ronald Reagan won a plurality ( 44 % ) of Catholics in 1980 and 61 % in 1984 .
Fifty-one percent of Catholics voted for George H.W .
Bush in 1988 .
But , at the tail end of the twentieth century and the early twenty-first century , Catholic demographics changed .
While the Church-going World War II “ Greatest Generation ” Catholics were dying , many younger baptized Catholics no longer practiced their faith and could care less about Church teachings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A study released this year by the Center for Applied Research , as reported in TheCatholicThing.org.
, confirmed the decline in observant Catholics : “ Between 1970 and 2018 , annual figures for Catholic marriages in the United States fell from 426,309 to 143,087 ; infant baptisms from 1.089 million to 615,119 ; students in Catholic elementary and secondary schools from 4.4 million to 1.8 million ; and elementary and secondary school students in parish religious education from 5.5 million to 2.9 million.
” These findings explain why generic Catholic vote exit polls—which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White Catholics—have generally gone with the winner : However , while the total number of working-class practicing Catholics has declined , they are still a key voting bloc in the economically-depressed rust-belt states of Pennsylvania , Ohio , Michigan and Wisconsin .
Aging Catholics are disproportionately represented in numerous counties within those states because their children and grandchildren have relocated to greener economic pastures in the south and southwestern parts of the nation .
Hence , these Catholic voters , who generally cast their ballots according to their Judeo-Christian principles , still matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they can determine in 2020 who will carry the Electoral College just as they did in 2016 .
For instance , in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania , where Catholics are about 35 percent of the voting population , the winners in presidential elections carried the state by narrow margins .
( Gore 51 % , Kerry 51 % , Obama 55 % in 2008 and 52 % in 2012 , Trump 48 % ) .
Pennsylvania is closely contested due to its three voting demographics : the liberal cities of Philadelphia and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NRA country ; and the heavily Catholic economically-depressed western portions of the state .
While the major cities are reliably Democratic and central Pennsylvania is reliably Republican , the state ’ s western portion is a swing vote area .
Take , for example , the voting patterns in presidential elections ( 2000-2016 ) of western Pennsylvania ’ s Elk and Cambria counties which are 65 % and 55 % Catholic , respectively : These two counties tell an interesting political story .
In 2016 , voters came out in greater numbers for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McCain in 2008 .
These numbers confirmed the 2012 findings of blue-collar focus group studies by pollster John McLaughlin in western Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio .
Participants indicated that in 2008 they weren ’ t excited by McCain and decided to give Obama a shot at fixing the economy .
In 2012 , while many were unhappy with Obama , a significant number thought Romney was a plutocrat who didn ’ t understand them culturally and economically .
That November , while Romney carried Elk and Cambria counties , the total votes cast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters opposed to Obama but uncomfortable with Romney stayed home .
In 2016 , however , these Catholics came out in force and overwhelmingly voted for Trump .
Statewide , Donald Trump carried 14 of the top Catholic counties while Romney carried 10 , and McCain 8 .
And the voter turnout for Trump was greater in each county .
Similarly , Church-going Catholics that came out in Wisconsin and Michigan were responsible for bringing down the Democrat ’ s “ blue wall ” in those states .
In Wisconsin ’ s top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote totals were significantly higher than Romney ’ s .
He carried 18 of the 20 counties versus 13 for Romney .
The results were similar in Michigan .
The increase of white blue-collar voters caused Hillary Clinton to lose Michigan by 11,000 votes out of 4.5 million cast .
In the top twenty Catholic Michigan counties , Hillary Clinton ’ s vote exceeded 50 % in only one , Oakland—a traditional Democratic enclave .
Obama had exceeded 50 % in nine of those counties in 2008 and 6 of them in 2012 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a blue-collar Detroit suburb—which many analysts consider the original bastion of Reagan Democrats—is a microcosm of the Catholic vote .
Trump ’ s vote total in Macomb County was 224,589 versus Romney ’ s 208,016 .
Clinton ’ s vote , 176,238 , was down 10 % from Obama ’ s 2012 total of 191,913 .
What does this all mean for Trump in 2016 ?
To be re-elected , Trump must keep together the coalition of Southern , Southwestern , and Midwestern states he carried in 2016 .
This means he must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Pennsylvania , Michigan , Wisconsin and Ohio .
The fact that the margins of victory in those states were very narrow means every one of those Catholic votes matter .
The bad news for Trump : in the past four years , a portion of those Catholic voters have died .
Today , there are precious few Reagan Democrats alive .
Of the 16 million people in uniform in 1945 , only 300,000 were alive in January 2020 .
In 2015 , that number stood at 939,000 .
Korean War veterans that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate of more than 700 a day .
The good news for Trump : an EWTN News-Real Clear Politics Opinion Research poll taken in late February , indicated that practicing Catholics , representing about 6 % of the electorate , are sticking with Trump .
Sixty-three percent of these Catholics approved of Trump and “ 59 % said they are certain they will vote for Trump in 2020 ; another 8 % say there is a good chance they will.
” While Trump has been falling behind in national polls , it appears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are still behind him .
In the June Pennsylvania primary—in which neither Trump or Biden faced serious opposition—there was a record turnout .
Over 40 % cast ballots .
Trump received 861,000 votes—94 % of the total , while Biden received only 734,000 votes .
Analyzing the results , Salena Zito wrote in the New York Post , “ Biden , who boasts Scranton as his hometown and has based his national campaign headquarters in Philadelphia , has earned just under 78 percent of his party ’ s support .
Vermont Sen. Bernie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away at his numbers , with Sanders winning nearly 20 percent of the vote even though he has dropped out of the race and urged his supporters to back Biden.
” To keep his base intact and to attract “ on the fence ” suburban voters , Trump must hope that the coronavirus-driven unemployment in Main Street America ( which has seriously hurt his supporters economically ) significantly declines and that culture war issues—political rioting , arson and looting , the destruction of cherished landmarks , the defunding of police departments , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump because he will preserve their American way of life .
And he must crank up the enthusiasm of working-class Catholics and persuade them to come out to the polls in droves for him , not the pro-abortion , pro-same sex marriage , cafeteria Catholic Joe Biden .
If Trump fails to get them out , his lease on the White House will end on January 20 , 2021 .
George J. Marlin is the author of the American Catholic Voter : Two Hundred Years of Political Impact .
His next book , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Man , will be published in October .

Throughout most of the twentieth century, Catholic voters had been a pivotal demographic for Democrats in presidential elections.
Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson could not have been elected without the huge support they received from urban and suburban white ethnic Catholics.
But the loyalty of many Catholic voters began to wane in the late 1960s and they became Nixon Democrats and later, Reagan Democrats. Why did they desert the Democratic Party?
The most succinct explanation was voiced by Ronald Reagan in 1980:
The secret is that when the Left took over the Democratic Party, we took over the Republican Party. We made the Republican Party into the Party of the working people, the family, the neighborhood, the defense of freedom, and yes, the American Flag and the Pledge of Allegiance to one Nation under God. So, you see, the Party that so many of us grew up with still exists except that today it’s called the Republican Party.
Ronald Reagan made it clear, time and again, that he did not leave the Democratic Party, it left him. The takeover of the Democratic Party by extreme leftists, that gave the nation the Great Society social experiments that created a welfare-dependent underclass and pandemic urban crime, drove Reagan and millions of working-class Americans, particularly inner city and suburban ethnic Catholics, into the arms of the Republican Party.
In 1972, Richard Nixon became the first Republican to carry a majority of the Catholic vote, 52%. Ronald Reagan won a plurality (44%) of Catholics in 1980 and 61% in 1984. Fifty-one percent of Catholics voted for George H.W. Bush in 1988.
But, at the tail end of the twentieth century and the early twenty-first century, Catholic demographics changed. While the Church-going World War II “Greatest Generation” Catholics were dying, many younger baptized Catholics no longer practiced their faith and could care less about Church teachings, particularly on abortion and sex.
A study released this year by the Center for Applied Research, as reported in TheCatholicThing.org., confirmed the decline in observant Catholics: “Between 1970 and 2018, annual figures for Catholic marriages in the United States fell from 426,309 to 143,087; infant baptisms from 1.089 million to 615,119; students in Catholic elementary and secondary schools from 4.4 million to 1.8 million; and elementary and secondary school students in parish religious education from 5.5 million to 2.9 million.”
These findings explain why generic Catholic vote exit polls—which include large subsets of non-practicing Hispanic and White Catholics—have generally gone with the winner:
1992 Clinton 44%* 1996 Clinton 54% 2000 Gore 51% 2004 Bush 52% 2008 Obama 55% 2012 Obama 52% 2016 Trump 52%
* Plurality
However, while the total number of working-class practicing Catholics has declined, they are still a key voting bloc in the economically-depressed rust-belt states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin.
Aging Catholics are disproportionately represented in numerous counties within those states because their children and grandchildren have relocated to greener economic pastures in the south and southwestern parts of the nation. Hence, these Catholic voters, who generally cast their ballots according to their Judeo-Christian principles, still matter. And in a closely contested election, they can determine in 2020 who will carry the Electoral College just as they did in 2016.
For instance, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, where Catholics are about 35 percent of the voting population, the winners in presidential elections carried the state by narrow margins. (Gore 51%, Kerry 51%, Obama 55% in 2008 and 52% in 2012, Trump 48%). Pennsylvania is closely contested due to its three voting demographics: the liberal cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh; central Pennsylvania’s rural NRA country; and the heavily Catholic economically-depressed western portions of the state.
While the major cities are reliably Democratic and central Pennsylvania is reliably Republican, the state’s western portion is a swing vote area. Take, for example, the voting patterns in presidential elections (2000-2016) of western Pennsylvania’s Elk and Cambria counties which are 65% and 55% Catholic, respectively:
Elk County
Votes % Gore 5,754 42% Bush 7,347 54% Total 13,081 Kerry 6,602 45% Bush 7,822 54% Total 14,424 Obama 7,290 51% McCain 6,676 46% Total 13,966 Obama 5,144 41% Romney 7,099 57% Total 12,242 Clinton 3,853 26% Trump 10,025 69% Total 13,878
Cambria County
Votes % Gore 30,308 50% Bush 28,008 46% Total 58,309 Kerry 32,591 48% Bush 34,048 50% Total 66,639 Obama 32,451 49% McCain 31,995 48% Total 64,446 Obama 24,249 40% Romney 35,163 58% Total 59,412 Clinton 18,867 29% Trump 42,258 67% Total 61,125
These two counties tell an interesting political story. In 2016, voters came out in greater numbers for Trump than for Romney in 2012 or McCain in 2008.
These numbers confirmed the 2012 findings of blue-collar focus group studies by pollster John McLaughlin in western Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio. Participants indicated that in 2008 they weren’t excited by McCain and decided to give Obama a shot at fixing the economy.
In 2012, while many were unhappy with Obama, a significant number thought Romney was a plutocrat who didn’t understand them culturally and economically. That November, while Romney carried Elk and Cambria counties, the total votes cast were down. A subset of Catholic voters opposed to Obama but uncomfortable with Romney stayed home.
In 2016, however, these Catholics came out in force and overwhelmingly voted for Trump. Statewide, Donald Trump carried 14 of the top Catholic counties while Romney carried 10, and McCain 8. And the voter turnout for Trump was greater in each county.
Similarly, Church-going Catholics that came out in Wisconsin and Michigan were responsible for bringing down the Democrat’s “blue wall” in those states. In Wisconsin’s top twenty Catholic counties, Trump’s vote totals were significantly higher than Romney’s. He carried 18 of the 20 counties versus 13 for Romney.
The results were similar in Michigan. The increase of white blue-collar voters caused Hillary Clinton to lose Michigan by 11,000 votes out of 4.5 million cast. In the top twenty Catholic Michigan counties, Hillary Clinton’s vote exceeded 50% in only one, Oakland—a traditional Democratic enclave. Obama had exceeded 50% in nine of those counties in 2008 and 6 of them in 2012. Michigan’s Macomb County, a blue-collar Detroit suburb—which many analysts consider the original bastion of Reagan Democrats—is a microcosm of the Catholic vote.
Macomb County, Michigan
Vote for President
1980-2016
Republican Democrat Independent 1980 51.9% 40.4% 7.7% 1984 66.2% 33.3% — 1988 60.3% 38.8% — 1992 42.3% 37.4% 19.5% 1996 39.4% 49.5% 9.5% 2000 47.5% 50.0% — 2004 50.8% 49.2% — 2008 45.6% 54.4% — 2012 53% 47% — 2016 54% 42% —
Trump’s vote total in Macomb County was 224,589 versus Romney’s 208,016. Clinton’s vote, 176,238, was down 10% from Obama’s 2012 total of 191,913.
What does this all mean for Trump in 2016?
To be re-elected, Trump must keep together the coalition of Southern, Southwestern, and Midwestern states he carried in 2016. This means he must carry three of the four rust-belt states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio. The fact that the margins of victory in those states were very narrow means every one of those Catholic votes matter.
The bad news for Trump: in the past four years, a portion of those Catholic voters have died. Today, there are precious few Reagan Democrats alive. Of the 16 million people in uniform in 1945, only 300,000 were alive in January 2020. In 2015, that number stood at 939,000. Korean War veterans that trend toward Trump are dying at the rate of more than 700 a day.
The good news for Trump: an EWTN News-Real Clear Politics Opinion Research poll taken in late February, indicated that practicing Catholics, representing about 6% of the electorate, are sticking with Trump. Sixty-three percent of these Catholics approved of Trump and “59% said they are certain they will vote for Trump in 2020; another 8% say there is a good chance they will.”
While Trump has been falling behind in national polls, it appears his base voters in the rust-belt states are still behind him.
In the June Pennsylvania primary—in which neither Trump or Biden faced serious opposition—there was a record turnout. Over 40% cast ballots. Trump received 861,000 votes—94% of the total, while Biden received only 734,000 votes. Analyzing the results, Salena Zito wrote in the New York Post, “Biden, who boasts Scranton as his hometown and has based his national campaign headquarters in Philadelphia, has earned just under 78 percent of his party’s support. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Hawaiian Rep. Tulsi Gabbard ate away at his numbers, with Sanders winning nearly 20 percent of the vote even though he has dropped out of the race and urged his supporters to back Biden.”
To keep his base intact and to attract “on the fence” suburban voters, Trump must hope that the coronavirus-driven unemployment in Main Street America (which has seriously hurt his supporters economically) significantly declines and that culture war issues—political rioting, arson and looting, the destruction of cherished landmarks, the defunding of police departments, and surging crime—convinces them to vote again for Trump because he will preserve their American way of life.
And he must crank up the enthusiasm of working-class Catholics and persuade them to come out to the polls in droves for him, not the pro-abortion, pro-same sex marriage, cafeteria Catholic Joe Biden.
If Trump fails to get them out, his lease on the White House will end on January 20, 2021.
George J. Marlin is the author of the American Catholic Voter: Two Hundred Years of Political Impact. His next book, Mario Cuomo: The Myth and the Man, will be published in October.