theamericanconservative--2020-10-23--Waco Whitewash King Vindicates Presidential Debate Commission

“ Trump ’ s attack on the debate commission is an attack on the election itself , ” blares the headline from today ’ s Washington Post op-ed page .
That article was written by former senator John Danforth , who has been a member of the Commission on Presidential Debates since 1994 .
Danforth , an ordained Episcopal priest whose piety earned him the derisive nickname , “ Saint Jack , ” is one of Washington ’ s favorite useful idiots of Leviathan .
It is no surprise that he would be a permanent fixture on a commission that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Danforth wails in the Post that accusing the debate commission of favoritism “ destroys public confidence in the most basic treasure of democracy , the conduct of fair elections ” and “ paves the way to violence in the streets.
” Danforth warns that the “ damage to our country is incalculable ” if Americans lose faith in “ the fairness of our presidential debates , and , in turn , the presidential election.
” The usual Twitter mob quickly affixed a halo over Danforth ’ s head for his proclamation .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself as the nation ’ s political faith healer after the biggest federal law enforcement debacle in modern times .
On February 28 , 1993 , 70 federal Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agents launched an attack on the home of the Branch Davidians near Waco , Texas .
After the assault was rebuffed , the FBI arrived and , on April 19 , 1993 , sent in tanks that demolished much of the Davidians ’ home before a fire broke out .
Eighty corpses of men , women , and children were discovered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington cared about the Texas carnage .
Attorney General Janet Reno , who approved the deadly final assault , was labeled a “ folk hero ” by the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post declared that she had “ superstar status.
” A few days after the fire , the opening of a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing had to be delayed so senators could have their pictures taken with Attorney General Janet Reno .
Rep. Jack Brooks ( D-Texas ) , chairman of the House Judiciary Committee , captured the sentiments of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Davidians were “ horrible people .
Despicable people .
Burning to death was too good for them.
” In 1995 , Reno testified to Congress and shrugged off the FBI ’ s use of 54-ton tanks to assail the Davidians , declaring that the tanks were “ not military weapons … I mean , it was like a good rent-a-car.
” Media coverage of Reno ’ s showdown with congressional Republicans ignored her rent-a-tank absurdity , instead praising her toughness and demeanor .
In 1999 , news leaked out that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grenades at Waco that might have started fires that killed scores of women and children .
Thanks to those revelations , 57 percent of Americans believed that the FBI had carried out an “ intentional cover-up ” of Waco , according to an ABC News poll .
Reno personally selected John Danforth , a “ moderate ” Republican who supported gun control and was a golfing buddy of President Bill Clinton , to re-investigate federal action at Waco .
In July 2000 , as he was rumored to be on the short list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential pick , Danforth rushed out a preliminary report .
Danforth ’ s report was more pro-FBI than the FBI itself and revived discredited drug charges that the Justice Department abandoned six years earlier .
Danforth ’ s report began by stating that Koresh and the Davidians “ shot and killed four [ ATF ] agents ” and “ wounded 20 others.
” Since the Davidians had wrongfully killed and wounded dozens of federal agents , they presumably deserved whatever the feds subsequently did to them .
Danforth tacitly accepted the notion that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to determine whether the Davidians had violated federal prohibitions on converting semi-automatic firearms into firing in fully automatic mode .
Danforth ignored the fact that , only nine days before the ATF attack , David Koresh had gone target shooting with three undercover ATF agents ( whom he recognized as G-men ) .
Koresh “ provided the ammunition and the agents handed him their guns , ” noted former federal lawyer David Hardy , whose research exposed the ATF memo detailing the target practice six years after the raid .
After the raid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went outside the “ compound ” —and thus the agency needed to launch a full-scale attack to get him .
But Koresh could easily have been arrested while target shooting .
Danforth also ignored the evidence that ATF agents shot first as they assaulted the Davidians ’ home .
Danforth declared that one of the key topics for his investigation was “ whether the military was wrongly used ” in the assault on the Davidians ’ home .
Before the February 28 raid , ATF officials were told that it would be illegal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unless there was a “ drug nexus ” to the case .
A few days later , the ATF notified military officials that they suspected the Davidians had a methamphetamine lab in their basement .
ATF agents then received training in close-quarters combat and called in military helicopters from the Texas National Guard to assist in the assault .
Despite such extensive preparations , the drug charge vanished immediately after the raid , and federal prosecutors never raised the issue at the surviving Davidians ’ 1994 trial .
A 1996 congressional report concluded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and after the raid made it “ clear that the ATF believed that a methamphetamine lab did not exist.
” The House report concluded that “ the ATF intentionally misled Defense Department and military personnel ” regarding the existence of the meth lab .
Danforth is interested in none of this .
But Danforth ’ s report noted that while “ the Office of Special Counsel did not extensively investigate the basis for ATF ’ s assertion that there was a drug nexus … there is some evidence prior to February 28 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the complex which could form the basis of a drug nexus.
” This is the same type of flimsy “ drug link ” that has been used to justify thousands of no-knock raids in the subsequent decades .
Danforth repeatedly minimizes or comically misrepresents the amount of force the feds used against the Davidians .
FBI agents repeatedly threw flash-bang grenades at Davidians who tried to leave the residence and may have thrown them inside the Davidians ’ residence .
When Sen. Charles Grassley ( R-IA ) asked Danforth about this at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are “ in the nature , as I understand it , of , you know , firecrackers .
They make a flash and they make a bang .
And they don ’ t cause injury , as a general rule.
” A 2019 federal appeals court decision noted that flash-bang grenades are “ four times louder than a 12-gauge shotgun blast ” with “ a powerful enough concussive effect to break windows and put holes in walls.
” Flash bangs burn hotter than lava and have started more than a hundred fires across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ headings in Danforth ’ s report made it appear that Waco was a huge law enforcement success—such as the description of the origins of the FBI tank-gas assault : “ The FBI Develops a Tactical Solution to the Standoff.
” After the FBI had gassed the Davidians for more than four hours and exhausted almost its entire gas supply , FBI tank drivers were ordered to demolish the building .
In the next hour , tanks smashed into the residence eight times and collapsed at least one-quarter of the Davidians ’ home .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the tank assault : “ Just before noon , [ FBI on-scene commander Richard ] Rogers ordered tanks in front to drive deep [ into the building ] toward the compound tower .
At its base was a concrete room where officials believed the ‘ hostiles ’ were hiding , records show.
” As FBI Deputy Director Floyd Clarke admitted in 1995 congressional testimony , “ the destruction of the building was part of the ultimate plan ” to bring the siege to an end .
Despite all this evidence , Danforth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI on-scene commanders Jeffrey Jamar and Richard Rogers , who insisted that the tanks were not attempting to bring the building down .
Danforth dismissed not only written evidence but stunning visual evidence .
Waco : Rules of Engagement , a movie that won an Emmy and was nominated for an Academy Award , shows lengthy footage of FBI tanks repeatedly and systematically demolishing much of the building .
Harvard Prof. Alan Stone , one of the outside experts the Justice Department tapped in 1993 to examine the incident , concluded : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may have killed people before the fire started .
I can not tell whether the tanks knocked down places where people were already .
I don ’ t know if there were people in there crushed by the collapsing building [ as a result of FBI tanks plowing into the structure ] before the fire started.
” The FBI ’ s pyrotechnic devices were the hottest item in Danforth ’ s investigation .
Reno had sworn to a congressional committee in 1995 that the FBI used no pyrotechnic devices at Waco .
Yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the use of the pyrotechnics , itself , under these circumstances was not a big thing.
” Danforth also assured the senators : “ I don ’ t think that there ’ s been anybody that I know of connected with the government who has ever believed that the use of pyrotechnics , in this case , had anything to do with the fire.
” And what was his proof ?
The FBI told him so .
Regardless of how often the FBI changed its story , its latest version was sacrosanct .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ where federal officials either made false statements or wrongfully withheld key evidence on Waco .
A St. Louis Post-Dispatch headline perfectly summarized his report : “ Officials Had Nothing to Hide—But Hid Some Things Anyway.
” In the report ’ s preface , Danforth bizarrely absolved lying federal officials : “ In today ’ s world , it is perhaps understandable that government officials are reluctant to make full disclosures of information for fear that the result of candor will be personal or professional ruin .
Any misstep yields howls of indignation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigations.
” Danforth vehemently opposed any prosecution of any federal official who misled investigators on Waco from 1993 onwards .
Even though numerous agency and congressional investigations had found federal misconduct regarding Waco , Danforth lamented “ a nearly universal readiness to believe that the government must have done something wrong .
Breaking this vicious circle of distrust and recrimination is essential if we are to rebuild the consent of the governed on which our system depends.
” Danforth championed a “ move along , nothing to see here ” version of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens are obliged to swallow unlimited federal malarkey .
The lesson of Waco , according to Danforth , was that the burden is on “ all of us ” to “ be more skeptical of those who make sensational accusations of evil acts by government.
” Danforth declared that he hoped his report would “ begin the process of restoring the faith of the people in their government and the faith of the government in the people.
” Danforth believed government officials have been wrongfully victimized by public distrust .
That phrase about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government in the people ” should have been ridiculed from coast to coast .
Instead , it may have helped spurred PBS NewsHour host Jim Lehrer to gush to Danforth : “ You did tremendous investigating.
” At least Danforth didn ’ t require the 57 % of Americans who believed in an FBI coverup to write personal apology letters to FBI boss Louis Freeh .
Danforth talked as if blind trust in Washington is the key to the “ good government.
” Citizens provided almost boundless trust after the 9/11 attacks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Iraq , a worldwide torture regime , and the National Security Agency ravaging Americans ’ privacy .
And the FBI agents that Danforth exonerated created an endless series of scandals , entrapments , and debacles , culminating ( perhaps ) in their effort to take down President Donald Trump .
The same nonchalance about law enforcement abuses by politicians of both parties in recent decades led to the George Floyd killing and the violent protests that rocked this nation .
Despite it all , Americans are still supposed to bow to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that was “ close enough for government work ” to politicians actually obeying the Constitution and the law .
Former senator Bob Dole recently complained that none of the Republicans on the Commission on Presidential Debates supported Trump .
But the hollow absurdities and blatant biases of the debates are irrelevant as long as “ Saint Jack ” and his cohorts can continue preening .
As for the malcontents who recognize the charade : “ Move along , nothing to see here.
” James Bovard is the author of Lost Rights , Attention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He is also a USA Today columnist .
Follow him on Twitter @ JimBovard .

“Trump’s attack on the debate commission is an attack on the election itself,” blares the headline from today’s Washington Post op-ed page. That article was written by former senator John Danforth, who has been a member of the Commission on Presidential Debates since 1994. Danforth, an ordained Episcopal priest whose piety earned him the derisive nickname, “Saint Jack,” is one of Washington’s favorite useful idiots of Leviathan. It is no surprise that he would be a permanent fixture on a commission that appears determined to perpetuate the swamp.
Danforth wails in the Post that accusing the debate commission of favoritism “destroys public confidence in the most basic treasure of democracy, the conduct of fair elections” and “paves the way to violence in the streets.” Danforth warns that the “damage to our country is incalculable” if Americans lose faith in “the fairness of our presidential debates, and, in turn, the presidential election.”
The usual Twitter mob quickly affixed a halo over Danforth’s head for his proclamation. But few people remember how Danforth previously appointed himself as the nation’s political faith healer after the biggest federal law enforcement debacle in modern times.
On February 28, 1993, 70 federal Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agents launched an attack on the home of the Branch Davidians near Waco, Texas. After the assault was rebuffed, the FBI arrived and, on April 19, 1993, sent in tanks that demolished much of the Davidians’ home before a fire broke out. Eighty corpses of men, women, and children were discovered in the wreckage.
Almost nobody in Washington cared about the Texas carnage. Attorney General Janet Reno, who approved the deadly final assault, was labeled a “folk hero” by the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post declared that she had “superstar status.” A few days after the fire, the opening of a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing had to be delayed so senators could have their pictures taken with Attorney General Janet Reno. Rep. Jack Brooks (D-Texas), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, captured the sentiments of many congressmen when he declared in 1994 that the Davidians were “horrible people. Despicable people. Burning to death was too good for them.”
In 1995, Reno testified to Congress and shrugged off the FBI’s use of 54-ton tanks to assail the Davidians, declaring that the tanks were “not military weapons … I mean, it was like a good rent-a-car.” Media coverage of Reno’s showdown with congressional Republicans ignored her rent-a-tank absurdity, instead praising her toughness and demeanor.
In 1999, news leaked out that the FBI had lied when it used pyrotechnic grenades at Waco that might have started fires that killed scores of women and children. Thanks to those revelations, 57 percent of Americans believed that the FBI had carried out an “intentional cover-up” of Waco, according to an ABC News poll. Reno personally selected John Danforth, a “moderate” Republican who supported gun control and was a golfing buddy of President Bill Clinton, to re-investigate federal action at Waco. In July 2000, as he was rumored to be on the short list for George W. Bush’s vice presidential pick, Danforth rushed out a preliminary report. Danforth’s report was more pro-FBI than the FBI itself and revived discredited drug charges that the Justice Department abandoned six years earlier.
Danforth’s report began by stating that Koresh and the Davidians “shot and killed four [ATF] agents” and “wounded 20 others.” Since the Davidians had wrongfully killed and wounded dozens of federal agents, they presumably deserved whatever the feds subsequently did to them. Danforth tacitly accepted the notion that a massive federal no-knock assault was necessary to determine whether the Davidians had violated federal prohibitions on converting semi-automatic firearms into firing in fully automatic mode.
Danforth ignored the fact that, only nine days before the ATF attack, David Koresh had gone target shooting with three undercover ATF agents (whom he recognized as G-men). Koresh “provided the ammunition and the agents handed him their guns,” noted former federal lawyer David Hardy, whose research exposed the ATF memo detailing the target practice six years after the raid. After the raid, the ATF insisted that Koresh never went outside the “compound”—and thus the agency needed to launch a full-scale attack to get him. But Koresh could easily have been arrested while target shooting. Danforth also ignored the evidence that ATF agents shot first as they assaulted the Davidians’ home.
Danforth declared that one of the key topics for his investigation was “whether the military was wrongly used” in the assault on the Davidians’ home. Before the February 28 raid, ATF officials were told that it would be illegal for the U.S. military to assist them unless there was a “drug nexus” to the case. A few days later, the ATF notified military officials that they suspected the Davidians had a methamphetamine lab in their basement. ATF agents then received training in close-quarters combat and called in military helicopters from the Texas National Guard to assist in the assault.
Despite such extensive preparations, the drug charge vanished immediately after the raid, and federal prosecutors never raised the issue at the surviving Davidians’ 1994 trial. A 1996 congressional report concluded that the ATF’s actions during and after the raid made it “clear that the ATF believed that a methamphetamine lab did not exist.” The House report concluded that “the ATF intentionally misled Defense Department and military personnel” regarding the existence of the meth lab. Danforth is interested in none of this. But Danforth’s report noted that while “the Office of Special Counsel did not extensively investigate the basis for ATF’s assertion that there was a drug nexus … there is some evidence prior to February 28, 1993, connecting ‘drug activity’ with the complex which could form the basis of a drug nexus.” This is the same type of flimsy “drug link” that has been used to justify thousands of no-knock raids in the subsequent decades.
Danforth repeatedly minimizes or comically misrepresents the amount of force the feds used against the Davidians. FBI agents repeatedly threw flash-bang grenades at Davidians who tried to leave the residence and may have thrown them inside the Davidians’ residence. When Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) asked Danforth about this at a hearing, Danforth replied that flash-bangs are “in the nature, as I understand it, of, you know, firecrackers. They make a flash and they make a bang. And they don’t cause injury, as a general rule.” A 2019 federal appeals court decision noted that flash-bang grenades are “four times louder than a 12-gauge shotgun blast” with “a powerful enough concussive effect to break windows and put holes in walls.” Flash bangs burn hotter than lava and have started more than a hundred fires across the nation.
Some of the section headings in Danforth’s report made it appear that Waco was a huge law enforcement success—such as the description of the origins of the FBI tank-gas assault: “The FBI Develops a Tactical Solution to the Standoff.” After the FBI had gassed the Davidians for more than four hours and exhausted almost its entire gas supply, FBI tank drivers were ordered to demolish the building. In the next hour, tanks smashed into the residence eight times and collapsed at least one-quarter of the Davidians’ home. The Dallas Morning News summarized government documents on the tank assault: “Just before noon, [FBI on-scene commander Richard] Rogers ordered tanks in front to drive deep [into the building] toward the compound tower. At its base was a concrete room where officials believed the ‘hostiles’ were hiding, records show.” As FBI Deputy Director Floyd Clarke admitted in 1995 congressional testimony, “the destruction of the building was part of the ultimate plan” to bring the siege to an end.
Despite all this evidence, Danforth accepted at face value 1995 testimony of FBI on-scene commanders Jeffrey Jamar and Richard Rogers, who insisted that the tanks were not attempting to bring the building down. Danforth dismissed not only written evidence but stunning visual evidence. Waco: Rules of Engagement, a movie that won an Emmy and was nominated for an Academy Award, shows lengthy footage of FBI tanks repeatedly and systematically demolishing much of the building. Harvard Prof. Alan Stone, one of the outside experts the Justice Department tapped in 1993 to examine the incident, concluded: “Some of the government’s actions may have killed people before the fire started. I cannot tell whether the tanks knocked down places where people were already. I don’t know if there were people in there crushed by the collapsing building [as a result of FBI tanks plowing into the structure] before the fire started.”
The FBI’s pyrotechnic devices were the hottest item in Danforth’s investigation. Reno had sworn to a congressional committee in 1995 that the FBI used no pyrotechnic devices at Waco. Yet Danforth told a Senate committee that “the use of the pyrotechnics, itself, under these circumstances was not a big thing.” Danforth also assured the senators: “I don’t think that there’s been anybody that I know of connected with the government who has ever believed that the use of pyrotechnics, in this case, had anything to do with the fire.” And what was his proof? The FBI told him so. Regardless of how often the FBI changed its story, its latest version was sacrosanct.
Danforth’s report noted several cases where federal officials either made false statements or wrongfully withheld key evidence on Waco. A St. Louis Post-Dispatch headline perfectly summarized his report: “Officials Had Nothing to Hide—But Hid Some Things Anyway.”
In the report’s preface, Danforth bizarrely absolved lying federal officials: “In today’s world, it is perhaps understandable that government officials are reluctant to make full disclosures of information for fear that the result of candor will be personal or professional ruin. Any misstep yields howls of indignation, calls for resignations, and still more investigations.” Danforth vehemently opposed any prosecution of any federal official who misled investigators on Waco from 1993 onwards.
Even though numerous agency and congressional investigations had found federal misconduct regarding Waco, Danforth lamented “a nearly universal readiness to believe that the government must have done something wrong. Breaking this vicious circle of distrust and recrimination is essential if we are to rebuild the consent of the governed on which our system depends.” Danforth championed a “move along, nothing to see here” version of “consent of the governed” in which citizens are obliged to swallow unlimited federal malarkey.
The lesson of Waco, according to Danforth, was that the burden is on “all of us” to “be more skeptical of those who make sensational accusations of evil acts by government.” Danforth declared that he hoped his report would “begin the process of restoring the faith of the people in their government and the faith of the government in the people.” Danforth believed government officials have been wrongfully victimized by public distrust. That phrase about “restoring … the faith of the government in the people” should have been ridiculed from coast to coast. Instead, it may have helped spurred PBS NewsHour host Jim Lehrer to gush to Danforth: “You did tremendous investigating.” At least Danforth didn’t require the 57% of Americans who believed in an FBI coverup to write personal apology letters to FBI boss Louis Freeh.
Danforth talked as if blind trust in Washington is the key to the “good government.” Citizens provided almost boundless trust after the 9/11 attacks, and the result was a disastrous war in Iraq, a worldwide torture regime, and the National Security Agency ravaging Americans’ privacy. And the FBI agents that Danforth exonerated created an endless series of scandals, entrapments, and debacles, culminating (perhaps) in their effort to take down President Donald Trump. The same nonchalance about law enforcement abuses by politicians of both parties in recent decades led to the George Floyd killing and the violent protests that rocked this nation.
Despite it all, Americans are still supposed to bow to the sacred word “bipartisan”—as if that was “close enough for government work” to politicians actually obeying the Constitution and the law. Former senator Bob Dole recently complained that none of the Republicans on the Commission on Presidential Debates supported Trump. But the hollow absurdities and blatant biases of the debates are irrelevant as long as “Saint Jack” and his cohorts can continue preening. As for the malcontents who recognize the charade: “Move along, nothing to see here.”
James Bovard is the author of Lost Rights, Attention Deficit Democracy, and Public Policy Hooligan. He is also a USA Today columnist. Follow him on Twitter @JimBovard.


theamericanconservative--2020-10-24--This Election Isn’t Just Binary, It’s Existential

The ideologues who want to watch America burn are very close to the mainstream of the Democratic Party .
That 's what this election is about .
America is on the ballot this election .
Vote for the Republicans if you love your country .
Vote for the Democrats if you ’ d rather see it burn to the ground .
That is , essentially , the argument put forward in a recent viral speech by Tom Klingenstein , a conservative thought leader and chairman of the Claremont Institute .
Klingenstein posits that , come November , voters must choose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ought to be defended , or it is bad , and deserves to be cancelled .
It ’ s tempting to dismiss this contrast as hyperbole , and say Klingenstein is simply being a partisan , or a conspiracy theorist , or both .
But , unfortunately , the more you listen to what left-wing activists say to each other when they aren ’ t actively gaslighting the public , the more and more his argument is proven true .
It is now clear that the vast majority of the Left truly does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to its core , and needs to be done away with entirely .
Look no further than the 1619 Project and Black Lives Matter .
The 1619 Project received countless accolades ( including a Pulitzer Prize ) from left-leaning elites for arguing that America is foundationally racist and evil .
Over the summer , this was the idea , embodied by Antifa and Black Lives Matter , that burned America ’ s cities to the ground .
BLM is arguably the most powerful left-wing “ grassroots ” organization in America .
In a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get the news media , sports leagues , Hollywood , Big Tech , corporate America , and the entire Democratic Party to kneel down before them .
If you doubt that BLM is at the top of the Left ’ s hierarchy right now , consider this : Black Lives Matter completely overshadowed this year ’ s Pride Month , normally the High Holy Season of the political and corporate Left ’ s liturgical calendar .
Did you even notice it happened ?
Of course , despite its name , the BLM movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The riots that targeted monuments to Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass , and burnt down black-owned businesses and neighborhoods , didn ’ t do so out of concern for black lives .
They did it out of a real , deep hatred of America and the American way of life .
If America is racist “ systemically ” —essentially , all-encompassingly , foundationally—then nothing we traditionally call American should be allowed to survive .
Joe Biden , for his part , has signed on to this philosophy .
He now decries regularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this country , which , he says , exists “ not just in law enforcement , ” but “ across the board .
It ’ s in housing , it ’ s in education .
.
.
it ’ s in everything we do.
” He has joined with the Left in believing that , as Tom Klingenstein puts it , “ the most important thing in our history — the thing around which all else pivots — is slavery.
” If the evils of America abound in everything we do and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be overhauled .
This is the core belief motivating BLM , founded by self-proclaimed “ trained Marxists , ” and the historical revisionism of the 1619 Project .
And it ’ s at the core of the BREATHE Act , the BLM movement ’ s flagship legislative proposal .
Among a whole host of other insanities , the Act would eliminate all prisons and defund law enforcement .
It bans federal law enforcement from using body cameras or TASERs , and would prohibit them from coming within 1,000 feet of a bus stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ develop and implement anti-capitalist curricula .
It endorses socialized medicine , including taxpayer-funded abortions and sex-changes .
It abolishes a whole panoply of federal law enforcement programs , including ICE , the DEA , and FBI anti-terrorism and anti-gang task forces .
It creates a “ Commission on Truth , Racial Healing , and Transformation ” to apologize for America ’ s enactment of supposedly racist policies , which , apparently , include the creation of social security and the Federal Housing Administration , as well as the GI Bill .
This isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it proposes .
And it isn ’ t some fringe proposal , either .
This is the legislation being pushed by the corporate-darling Black Lives Matter organization .
Even the President of the NAACP has endorsed it .
This is the movement , and this is the philosophy , to which the Democratic Party and Joe Biden have sworn fealty .
No reporters , and few Republican politicians , have pressed Democrats on their alliance with such an anti-American movement .
That is , with the notable exception of Donald Trump .
Whatever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearly Trump believes in the goodness of America .
The contrast between Trump and the Biden here could not be more stark .
As Tom Klingenstein puts it , “ Trump versus Biden is the choice between a man who believes America is good and a man who is controlled by a movement which believes America is bad.
” One of these two men will be elected President of the United States .
The choice could not be clearer .
Jon Schweppe is the director of government affairs for American Principles Project .

America is on the ballot this election. Vote for the Republicans if you love your country. Vote for the Democrats if you’d rather see it burn to the ground.
That is, essentially, the argument put forward in a recent viral speech by Tom Klingenstein, a conservative thought leader and chairman of the Claremont Institute. Klingenstein posits that, come November, voters must choose: either America is good, and ought to be defended, or it is bad, and deserves to be cancelled.
It’s tempting to dismiss this contrast as hyperbole, and say Klingenstein is simply being a partisan, or a conspiracy theorist, or both. But, unfortunately, the more you listen to what left-wing activists say to each other when they aren’t actively gaslighting the public, the more and more his argument is proven true. It is now clear that the vast majority of the Left truly does believe that the American system is rotten to its core, and needs to be done away with entirely. Look no further than the 1619 Project and Black Lives Matter.
The 1619 Project received countless accolades (including a Pulitzer Prize) from left-leaning elites for arguing that America is foundationally racist and evil. Over the summer, this was the idea, embodied by Antifa and Black Lives Matter, that burned America’s cities to the ground.
BLM is arguably the most powerful left-wing “grassroots” organization in America. In a matter of months, BLM managed to get the news media, sports leagues, Hollywood, Big Tech, corporate America, and the entire Democratic Party to kneel down before them. If you doubt that BLM is at the top of the Left’s hierarchy right now, consider this: Black Lives Matter completely overshadowed this year’s Pride Month, normally the High Holy Season of the political and corporate Left’s liturgical calendar. Did you even notice it happened?
Of course, despite its name, the BLM movement isn’t really about racial justice. The riots that targeted monuments to Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, and burnt down black-owned businesses and neighborhoods, didn’t do so out of concern for black lives. They did it out of a real, deep hatred of America and the American way of life. If America is racist “systemically”—essentially, all-encompassingly, foundationally—then nothing we traditionally call American should be allowed to survive.
Joe Biden, for his part, has signed on to this philosophy. He now decries regularly the “systemic” and foundational racism of this country, which, he says, exists “not just in law enforcement,” but “across the board. It’s in housing, it’s in education . . . it’s in everything we do.” He has joined with the Left in believing that, as Tom Klingenstein puts it, “the most important thing in our history — the thing around which all else pivots — is slavery.”
If the evils of America abound in everything we do and are, then everything about America must be overhauled. This is the core belief motivating BLM, founded by self-proclaimed “trained Marxists,” and the historical revisionism of the 1619 Project.
And it’s at the core of the BREATHE Act, the BLM movement’s flagship legislative proposal. Among a whole host of other insanities, the Act would eliminate all prisons and defund law enforcement. It bans federal law enforcement from using body cameras or TASERs, and would prohibit them from coming within 1,000 feet of a bus stop. It provides grants for schools to develop and implement anti-capitalist curricula. It endorses socialized medicine, including taxpayer-funded abortions and sex-changes. It abolishes a whole panoply of federal law enforcement programs, including ICE, the DEA, and FBI anti-terrorism and anti-gang task forces. It creates a “Commission on Truth, Racial Healing, and Transformation” to apologize for America’s enactment of supposedly racist policies, which, apparently, include the creation of social security and the Federal Housing Administration, as well as the GI Bill. This isn’t even a tenth of what it proposes.
And it isn’t some fringe proposal, either. This is the legislation being pushed by the corporate-darling Black Lives Matter organization. Even the President of the NAACP has endorsed it. This is the movement, and this is the philosophy, to which the Democratic Party and Joe Biden have sworn fealty. No reporters, and few Republican politicians, have pressed Democrats on their alliance with such an anti-American movement. That is, with the notable exception of Donald Trump. Whatever else you might say about him, clearly Trump believes in the goodness of America.
The contrast between Trump and the Biden here could not be more stark. As Tom Klingenstein puts it, “Trump versus Biden is the choice between a man who believes America is good and a man who is controlled by a movement which believes America is bad.” One of these two men will be elected President of the United States. The choice could not be clearer.
Jon Schweppe is the director of government affairs for American Principles Project.


theamericanconservative--2020-10-24--The Reagan Revival We Need

The Reagan Revival We Need

It was the GOP convention of 1976 .
Ronald Reagan had just completed his departing remarks after losing a narrowly fought and bitter bid for the presidential nomination , when a woman on the convention floor exclaimed , “ Oh my God , we ’ ve nominated the wrong man !
’ According to an able Reagan field man , Kenny Klinge , the woman standing next to him in Kansas City was , as he described , an enthusiastic “ big time ” supporter of the incumbent Gerald Ford .
She was not alone ; most likely there were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Reagan ’ s impromptu , now historic and moving speech .
.Reagan ’ s dream seemed impossible that night , and one can only imagine how he felt as he walked out of the Kemper Arena .
What Reagan , or any of us , could not have known was that he may have lost the battle in 1976 but he would eventually win the war of 1980 .
Reagan was a political outsider when he ran for the Republican nomination .
Thanks to party machinations , however , Reagan was narrowly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ford .
It was a decision Republicans quickly came to regret as Ford and the party ’ s old guard lost to Jimmy Carter that November .
To say many Republicans had buyer ’ s remorse was the understatement of the year .
Reagan ’ s loss in Kansas City had only invigorated his determination to make a comeback , and he spent the next four years laying the foundations for his next move .
As discussed in my book Reagan Rising , the Gipper began planting the seeds of his victory right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ introduced the concept of a “ New Republican Party ” that could appeal to regular people and the working class , not just the corporate board members and country club socialites who had traditionally formed the GOP ’ s electorate .
It foreshadowed the rise of the “ Reagan Democrat ” that was key to his landslide victory in 1980 .
There was , of course , a primary to get through , and for Reagan the biggest obstacle was George H.W .
Bush , scion of the Republican establishment and a decidedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had an early lead in the primaries , winning the Iowa straw poll and carrying Puerto Rico .
Going into New Hampshire , in one of the campaign ’ s most memorable episodes , Reagan decided to pay for a debate among all of the GOP contenders .
However , Bush did not want any other candidates on stage , and when Reagan tried to explain his reasoning , the editor of the Nashua Telegraph ordered Reagan ’ s mic to be cut off .
This caused him to deliver his immortal line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ microphone Mr. Green !
” The saturation media coverage of that zinger led to Reagan handily winning the Granite State .
Bush and Reagan developed into intense rivals with Bush going so far as to call Reagan ’ s economic platform “ voodoo economics.
” But despite winning Massachusetts and several other primaries , Bush could not surpass Reagan ’ s lead with the delegates .
By May , Reagan ’ s momentum was too great , particularly after winning the major Southern primaries .
Despite the rivalry and his convention victory , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as his running mate , knowing that Bush could appeal to moderates and right-leaning Democrats who were put off by Reagan ’ s social conservatism , and produce a unified convention .
For me , I was but a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution in 1980 .
After knocking about conservative causes for several years , I was part of a huge upset in New Hampshire in 1978 , when the longest of longshots , Gordon Humphrey , defeated 16-year incumbent Democrat Tom McIntyre .
Afterwards , a group of other young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John Gizzi—running the Fund for a Conservative Majority—asked me to head up an independent expenditure campaign in support of Governor Reagan , in the early primaries .
It was a call that set the course of my career for the next 40 years , though at the time , it was inconceivable how significantly the Gipper ’ s presidency and legacy would impact my life and so many others .
After Reagan was upset by moderate Ambassador George H.W .
Bush in Iowa ’ s caucuses—with his campaign reeling and in debt—the decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prescient .
Reagan was in trouble and needed help .
In a decrepit studio in Georgetown , I worked feverishly to produce 30-second and 60-second radio commercials plugging his candidacy , and then bought $ 700,000 worth of time on every imaginable AM radio show—especially news , sports , weather , and farm reports—in New Hampshire , South Carolina , Alabama , Florida , Georgia , and Illinois ; early and important primary states .
In the meantime , the guys at FCM produced print ads , flyers , brochures , and press @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won all those primaries—by big margins .
By the time of the Illinois primary , Reagan had regained his footing , was off and running , and it is heartening to think that Bob , Ralph , John , and I came to the Gipper ’ s rescue at a time when he needed help the most .
Due to the convoluted FEC laws , I could not go to work for the official campaign after working for an independent expenditure , so I had to bide my time , work on other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went to work at the RNC in early 1982 to help coordinate with the political and communications offices of the Reagan White House .
The good news is I went to Arizona—briefly—to pitch in on a House race .
While there , a most important event occurred ; I met my wife Zorine , who was also working on the campaign .
Thirty-nine years later we are still happily married , both proud veteran Reaganites .
The stage was now set for a fall showdown between Carter and Reagan , but for much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead in the polls .
Despite having fought off a challenge from Sen. Ted Kennedy , Carter and the Democrats were confident they could trounce Reagan .
The Reagan campaign of 1980 was touch and go for the entire year .
First , Jimmy Carter was up considerably , then Reagan was up .
It was a seesaw battle and most thinking people assumed , in the end , that Carter would prevail .
Few of the East Coast elites thought well of Reagan .
Mostly , in the newsrooms of The Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the campuses of the Ivy League colleges , Reagan was dismissed as a lightweight who would draw us into a nuclear war .
The doom and gloom of the media and educational classes has , alas , not changed in 40 years .
If anything , they ’ ve become more pigheaded , illiterate , and naive .
Reagan always knew who his enemies were : the pseudo-intellectual elites ; the kommentariat .
Carter and the media made the mistake of viewing Reagan as some kind of novelty , an outsider who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This mistake would come to haunt Carter when he and Reagan would face off for their one and only debate on October 28 , 1980 , one week before the election .
At the time , it was the most watched debate in U.S. history , and stands today as the second-most watched debate .
The Carter-boosting Washington Post produced a questionable poll the morning of the debate , saying that the incumbent had jumped into a new lead , but few took it seriously .
The election was , in fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had momentum on his side .
However , electoral momentum is as fickle as a stormy sea , and Carter ’ s lead evaporated like a receding tide when he went on stage that night .
During the 90 minutes before an audience of millions , Reagan successfully argued his case to the American people ; the country was in a rut and desperately in need of a shot in the arm .
While Reagan pushed new ideas and a message of optimism , Carter fumbled his chance to torpedo Reagan ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took nuclear policy advice from his then-12-year-old daughter .
Reagan ended the discussion with his question to the voting audience : “ Are you better off now than you were four years ago ?
” The resounding answer from the American people was “ No !
” After four years of Soviet advances , long gas lines , high inflation , high interest rates , high unemployment , and high jinx from the stumbling , bumbling Carter White House , and malaise , the American people knew they were ready for a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They wanted jobs , they wanted to keep the value of their hard earned buck , and they wanted to respect their president again .
They wanted someone who could give them back the pride and sense of hope that is integral to the American story .
They wanted someone who would stand up to the thuggish Soviets .
Reagan gave the American people all that , and more , and along the way became one of our greatest presidents .
He helped set the stage for the fall of the Evil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freeing millions imprisoned behind the Iron Curtain , and brought prosperity and hope back to America .
.Someone once quipped that if you asked Reagan and Carter what time it was , Carter would tell you how to build a watch but Reagan would say , “ It ’ s time to get this country moving again !
” Reagan knew leadership was all about inspiring people .
The elites hated it but the American people loved it .
Reagan demolished Carter , winning in a landslide of unbelievable proportions .
Not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but he also won traditionally Democratic strongholds in parts of Massachusetts , New Mexico , Washington state , and Illinois .
The term “ Reagan Democrat ” entered the lexicon , thanks in no small part to Reagan ’ s call for Republicans to broaden their reach through a “ coalition of shared values.
” Just to show it was no fluke , he won four years later by an even bigger landslide , drowning Walter Mondale 49 states to Minnesota .
( Reagan ’ s 1984 campaign manager , Ed Rollins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they voted graveyards in the Golden Gopher State , delivering it to Mondale by a scant margin .
But Reagan , ever the gentleman , would not allow a recount in Minnesota . )
After four years—40 years ago , if it is possible—the impossible dream of conservatives came true .
Years of frustration and disappointment with “ Mr .
Republican ” Senator Robert Taft , and with “ Mr .
Conservative ” Barry Goldwater , vanished as conservatives pinched themselves over the election of their leader , Ronald Reagan .
All things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not like to throw an incumbent president out of office .
Not without good reason , anyway .
In the 20th century , only in 1932 and 1980 did the voters find sufficient reason to boot the elected incumbent in a two-man race .
The elections of 1912 and 1992 were aberrations , due to the presence of a major third-party candidate .
The election of 1976 was also an aberration , as Gerald Ford had never been voted into office in the first place .
The words of a Civil War Yankee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later , “ Was it possible ?
Did we really do these things ?
” The extraordinary road to Reagan ’ s victory in 1980 and the election itself still remain significant because they brought people together .
We can look back to the story of the 1980 campaign and see that it created unity , a foreign concept to modern American politics .
It brought intra-party rivals together into a winning coalition , and it brought Democrats and Republicans together nationally and led to eight years of stability and good will .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been a tumultuous election year , remember that such wonderful things have happened before , and they will happen again .
It ’ s interesting how , on the 40th anniversary of Ronald Reagan ’ s triumphant landslide in 1980 , we have another contest of such historic proportions .
Just like today , an enormous amount was at stake .
Back then , Republicans were still reeling from the Nixon days , and thanks to Jimmy Carter ’ s poor management skills , the Democrats looked like the party of historic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an emboldened Soviet Union , and to top it all off , an incumbent president who had the gall to tell Americans that the country ’ s best days were behind them .
Americans looking for good will today may not find it in the current election , but they should take comfort knowing our country has come together before .
As Reagan demonstrated , with patience and principled campaigning , it can come together again .
Craig Shirley is a Reagan biographer and presidential historian .
He is the author of five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Times bestseller , December , 1941 .
He is currently working on several more books on Reagan as well as April , 1945 .
He is the Visiting Reagan Scholar at Eureka College , lectures often at the Reagan Library , and is the Chairman of Shirley & McVicker Public Affairs .

It was the GOP convention of 1976. Ronald Reagan had just completed his departing remarks after losing a narrowly fought and bitter bid for the presidential nomination, when a woman on the convention floor exclaimed, “Oh my God, we’ve nominated the wrong man!’
According to an able Reagan field man, Kenny Klinge, the woman standing next to him in Kansas City was, as he described, an enthusiastic “big time” supporter of the incumbent Gerald Ford. She was not alone; most likely there were many more Ford supporters who were stunned by Reagan’s impromptu, now historic and moving speech.
.Reagan’s dream seemed impossible that night, and one can only imagine how he felt as he walked out of the Kemper Arena. What Reagan, or any of us, could not have known was that he may have lost the battle in 1976 but he would eventually win the war of 1980.
Reagan was a political outsider when he ran for the Republican nomination. Thanks to party machinations, however, Reagan was narrowly outdone at the 1976 convention by Gerald Ford. It was a decision Republicans quickly came to regret as Ford and the party’s old guard lost to Jimmy Carter that November. To say many Republicans had buyer’s remorse was the understatement of the year.
Reagan’s loss in Kansas City had only invigorated his determination to make a comeback, and he spent the next four years laying the foundations for his next move. As discussed in my book Reagan Rising, the Gipper began planting the seeds of his victory right after Ford’s loss. He introduced the concept of a “New Republican Party” that could appeal to regular people and the working class, not just the corporate board members and country club socialites who had traditionally formed the GOP’s electorate. It foreshadowed the rise of the “Reagan Democrat” that was key to his landslide victory in 1980.
There was, of course, a primary to get through, and for Reagan the biggest obstacle was George H.W. Bush, scion of the Republican establishment and a decidedly more liberal Republican than Reagan. Bush had an early lead in the primaries, winning the Iowa straw poll and carrying Puerto Rico. Going into New Hampshire, in one of the campaign’s most memorable episodes, Reagan decided to pay for a debate among all of the GOP contenders. However, Bush did not want any other candidates on stage, and when Reagan tried to explain his reasoning, the editor of the Nashua Telegraph ordered Reagan’s mic to be cut off. This caused him to deliver his immortal line “I’m paying for this microphone Mr. Green!” The saturation media coverage of that zinger led to Reagan handily winning the Granite State.
Bush and Reagan developed into intense rivals with Bush going so far as to call Reagan’s economic platform “voodoo economics.” But despite winning Massachusetts and several other primaries, Bush could not surpass Reagan’s lead with the delegates. By May, Reagan’s momentum was too great, particularly after winning the major Southern primaries. Despite the rivalry and his convention victory, Reagan was wise enough to pick Bush as his running mate, knowing that Bush could appeal to moderates and right-leaning Democrats who were put off by Reagan’s social conservatism, and produce a unified convention.
For me, I was but a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution in 1980. After knocking about conservative causes for several years, I was part of a huge upset in New Hampshire in 1978, when the longest of longshots, Gordon Humphrey, defeated 16-year incumbent Democrat Tom McIntyre. Afterwards, a group of other young conservatives—Bob Heckman, Ralph Galliano, and John Gizzi—running the Fund for a Conservative Majority—asked me to head up an independent expenditure campaign in support of Governor Reagan, in the early primaries.
It was a call that set the course of my career for the next 40 years, though at the time, it was inconceivable how significantly the Gipper’s presidency and legacy would impact my life and so many others.
After Reagan was upset by moderate Ambassador George H.W. Bush in Iowa’s caucuses—with his campaign reeling and in debt—the decision by the fellas at FCM now seems prescient. Reagan was in trouble and needed help. In a decrepit studio in Georgetown, I worked feverishly to produce 30-second and 60-second radio commercials plugging his candidacy, and then bought $700,000 worth of time on every imaginable AM radio show—especially news, sports, weather, and farm reports—in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Illinois; early and important primary states.
In the meantime, the guys at FCM produced print ads, flyers, brochures, and press releases all touting Reagan. And Reagan won all those primaries—by big margins. By the time of the Illinois primary, Reagan had regained his footing, was off and running, and it is heartening to think that Bob, Ralph, John, and I came to the Gipper’s rescue at a time when he needed help the most.
Due to the convoluted FEC laws, I could not go to work for the official campaign after working for an independent expenditure, so I had to bide my time, work on other races around the country, and then went to work at the RNC in early 1982 to help coordinate with the political and communications offices of the Reagan White House. The good news is I went to Arizona—briefly—to pitch in on a House race. While there, a most important event occurred; I met my wife Zorine, who was also working on the campaign. Thirty-nine years later we are still happily married, both proud veteran Reaganites.
The stage was now set for a fall showdown between Carter and Reagan, but for much of the campaign Carter held a steady lead in the polls. Despite having fought off a challenge from Sen. Ted Kennedy, Carter and the Democrats were confident they could trounce Reagan.
The Reagan campaign of 1980 was touch and go for the entire year. First, Jimmy Carter was up considerably, then Reagan was up. It was a seesaw battle and most thinking people assumed, in the end, that Carter would prevail.
Few of the East Coast elites thought well of Reagan. Mostly, in the newsrooms of The Washington Post and The New York Times and on the campuses of the Ivy League colleges, Reagan was dismissed as a lightweight who would draw us into a nuclear war. The doom and gloom of the media and educational classes has, alas, not changed in 40 years. If anything, they’ve become more pigheaded, illiterate, and naive. Reagan always knew who his enemies were: the pseudo-intellectual elites; the kommentariat.
Carter and the media made the mistake of viewing Reagan as some kind of novelty, an outsider who would never pose a serious threat. This mistake would come to haunt Carter when he and Reagan would face off for their one and only debate on October 28, 1980, one week before the election. At the time, it was the most watched debate in U.S. history, and stands today as the second-most watched debate.
The Carter-boosting Washington Post produced a questionable poll the morning of the debate, saying that the incumbent had jumped into a new lead, but few took it seriously.
The election was, in fact, tied at that point, although Carter had momentum on his side. However, electoral momentum is as fickle as a stormy sea, and Carter’s lead evaporated like a receding tide when he went on stage that night.
During the 90 minutes before an audience of millions, Reagan successfully argued his case to the American people; the country was in a rut and desperately in need of a shot in the arm. While Reagan pushed new ideas and a message of optimism, Carter fumbled his chance to torpedo Reagan’s hopes, only offering that he apparently took nuclear policy advice from his then-12-year-old daughter. Reagan ended the discussion with his question to the voting audience: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”
The resounding answer from the American people was “No!” After four years of Soviet advances, long gas lines, high inflation, high interest rates, high unemployment, and high jinx from the stumbling, bumbling Carter White House, and malaise, the American people knew they were ready for a new beginning and to make America great again.
They wanted jobs, they wanted to keep the value of their hard earned buck, and they wanted to respect their president again. They wanted someone who could give them back the pride and sense of hope that is integral to the American story. They wanted someone who would stand up to the thuggish Soviets. Reagan gave the American people all that, and more, and along the way became one of our greatest presidents. He helped set the stage for the fall of the Evil Empire that was the Soviet Union, freeing millions imprisoned behind the Iron Curtain, and brought prosperity and hope back to America.
.Someone once quipped that if you asked Reagan and Carter what time it was, Carter would tell you how to build a watch but Reagan would say, “It’s time to get this country moving again!” Reagan knew leadership was all about inspiring people. The elites hated it but the American people loved it.
Reagan demolished Carter, winning in a landslide of unbelievable proportions. Not only did he carry the stalwart conservative states, but he also won traditionally Democratic strongholds in parts of Massachusetts, New Mexico, Washington state, and Illinois. The term “Reagan Democrat” entered the lexicon, thanks in no small part to Reagan’s call for Republicans to broaden their reach through a “coalition of shared values.”
Just to show it was no fluke, he won four years later by an even bigger landslide, drowning Walter Mondale 49 states to Minnesota. (Reagan’s 1984 campaign manager, Ed Rollins, will tell you even today that they voted graveyards in the Golden Gopher State, delivering it to Mondale by a scant margin. But Reagan, ever the gentleman, would not allow a recount in Minnesota.)
After four years—40 years ago, if it is possible—the impossible dream of conservatives came true. Years of frustration and disappointment with “Mr. Republican” Senator Robert Taft, and with “Mr. Conservative” Barry Goldwater, vanished as conservatives pinched themselves over the election of their leader, Ronald Reagan.
All things being equal, the American people do not like to throw an incumbent president out of office. Not without good reason, anyway. In the 20th century, only in 1932 and 1980 did the voters find sufficient reason to boot the elected incumbent in a two-man race. The elections of 1912 and 1992 were aberrations, due to the presence of a major third-party candidate. The election of 1976 was also an aberration, as Gerald Ford had never been voted into office in the first place.
The words of a Civil War Yankee soldier come to mind, recounting years later, “Was it possible? Did we really do these things?” The extraordinary road to Reagan’s victory in 1980 and the election itself still remain significant because they brought people together. We can look back to the story of the 1980 campaign and see that it created unity, a foreign concept to modern American politics. It brought intra-party rivals together into a winning coalition, and it brought Democrats and Republicans together nationally and led to eight years of stability and good will.
As we reach the zenith of what has been a tumultuous election year, remember that such wonderful things have happened before, and they will happen again. It’s interesting how, on the 40th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s triumphant landslide in 1980, we have another contest of such historic proportions. Just like today, an enormous amount was at stake. Back then, Republicans were still reeling from the Nixon days, and thanks to Jimmy Carter’s poor management skills, the Democrats looked like the party of historic inflation, an unprecedented gas crisis, an emboldened Soviet Union, and to top it all off, an incumbent president who had the gall to tell Americans that the country’s best days were behind them.
Americans looking for good will today may not find it in the current election, but they should take comfort knowing our country has come together before. As Reagan demonstrated, with patience and principled campaigning, it can come together again.
Craig Shirley is a Reagan biographer and presidential historian. He is the author of five books on Reagan as well as the New York Times bestseller, December, 1941. He is currently working on several more books on Reagan as well as April, 1945. He is the Visiting Reagan Scholar at Eureka College, lectures often at the Reagan Library, and is the Chairman of Shirley & McVicker Public Affairs.


theamericanconservative--2020-10-24--Vote for the Good Dad this November

Vote for the Good Dad this November

A great leader functions as a father to the nation , and it 's clear between Trump and Biden who is better suited for the job .
Trump and Biden certainly differ on policy , but the more important and clearer contrast is in their leadership capabilities .
The incumbent is emerging as a fatherly figure , while the challenger is fading into the form of an absent father .
Presidential campaigns seem to get longer and longer , but it ’ s always the few final weeks that define the race .
Some say this year ’ s “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ September when mail-in voting started , but I would pin down the precise date and time as October 5th in the 6 o ’ clock hour , Eastern Standard Time .
When millions of Americans witnessed President Donald Trump remove his mask upon returning to the White House from a brief hospital stay for Covid-19 , that was the defining moment for the 2020 election .
Along with his subsequent , encouraging remarks , the moment also distinguished Trump as the fatherly leader of the nation .
“ Don ’ t be afraid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Don ’ t let it dominate .
Don ’ t let it take over your lives.
” Just as meaningful was Trump ’ s acknowledgement that “ there ’ s a risk , there ’ s a danger , but that ’ s OK. ” Trump said that no leader “ would not do what I did , ” but the same may be said of a good dad .
A loving father pushes his children to take chances in life , because that builds them up .
Meanwhile , the mainstream @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their “ contagious ” president for such a garish display of “ defiance.
” This ridicule had to follow after years of failure to cast Trump as a tyrant or apologist for tyrants .
The image of abusive father didn ’ t hold up , but maybe the cartoon of a bungling fool à la Homer Simpson would .
Contrast that with former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s decision to “ lid ” his campaign four days ahead of the second and final presidential debate .
Until that point , Biden had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court or shrugged off any query regarding his role in his son Hunter ’ s shady dealings with foreign governments and businesses .
If Biden were to govern as he campaigns , he would turn into the nation ’ s absent father .
His vacant leadership would merely follow the hectoring mainstream media or the SJW mob .
Enough Americans might prefer that , actually .
The race seems close .
Wouldn ’ t it be easier and feel safer to just not have a fatherly leader who reminded you of your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jordan Peterson revived these archetypal father figures in the minds of hundreds of thousands , perhaps millions , of people with his lectures on YouTube and in concert halls from late 2016 to early 2019 .
In one 2017 classroom lecture , as he described the ideal father , Peterson shared the advice he gave to conservative politicians who asked him how they could reach out to young people .
“ Talk to them about responsibility , ” Peterson pleaded .
One campaign slogan might be “ Get your act together , do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Peterson suggested .
Perhaps not much of a speechwriter , the professor did stress that young people “ hunger ” for that sort of message .
“ The more responsibility you take on , the more meaning your life has , and the higher degree of responsibility that you agree voluntarily to try to bear , the richer your life will be , and no one ’ s ever told that , ” he said .
Whether this is a winning strategy or not may be determined in the outcome of the 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that he ’ s probably no one ’ s ideal anything , but as an outsider president , he is closer to that standard than any president since Ronald Reagan a generation ago .
How much of that stirs the American people to select their next leader may be incalculable , but so is the value of a fatherly leader to a nation in dire need of hope and a new direction .
Nick Hankoff is a writer , editor , and host of a podcast at nickhankoff.com , where his other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Advocates for Self-Government can also be found .
He lives in Fort Wayne , Indiana , with his wife and their three children .

Trump and Biden certainly differ on policy, but the more important and clearer contrast is in their leadership capabilities. The incumbent is emerging as a fatherly figure, while the challenger is fading into the form of an absent father.
Presidential campaigns seem to get longer and longer, but it’s always the few final weeks that define the race. Some say this year’s “home stretch” goes back to early September when mail-in voting started, but I would pin down the precise date and time as October 5th in the 6 o’clock hour, Eastern Standard Time.
When millions of Americans witnessed President Donald Trump remove his mask upon returning to the White House from a brief hospital stay for Covid-19, that was the defining moment for the 2020 election. Along with his subsequent, encouraging remarks, the moment also distinguished Trump as the fatherly leader of the nation.
“Don’t be afraid of it,” Trump urged. “Don’t let it dominate. Don’t let it take over your lives.” Just as meaningful was Trump’s acknowledgement that “there’s a risk, there’s a danger, but that’s OK.”
Trump said that no leader “would not do what I did,” but the same may be said of a good dad. A loving father pushes his children to take chances in life, because that builds them up.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media implored the citizenry to recoil at their “contagious” president for such a garish display of “defiance.” This ridicule had to follow after years of failure to cast Trump as a tyrant or apologist for tyrants. The image of abusive father didn’t hold up, but maybe the cartoon of a bungling fool à la Homer Simpson would.
Contrast that with former Vice President Joe Biden’s decision to “lid” his campaign four days ahead of the second and final presidential debate. Until that point, Biden had refused to answer questions about packing the Supreme Court or shrugged off any query regarding his role in his son Hunter’s shady dealings with foreign governments and businesses.
If Biden were to govern as he campaigns, he would turn into the nation’s absent father. His vacant leadership would merely follow the hectoring mainstream media or the SJW mob. Enough Americans might prefer that, actually. The race seems close.
Wouldn’t it be easier and feel safer to just not have a fatherly leader who reminded you of your lost potential?
Canadian psychology professor Dr. Jordan Peterson revived these archetypal father figures in the minds of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people with his lectures on YouTube and in concert halls from late 2016 to early 2019.
In one 2017 classroom lecture, as he described the ideal father, Peterson shared the advice he gave to conservative politicians who asked him how they could reach out to young people.
“Talk to them about responsibility,” Peterson pleaded.
One campaign slogan might be “Get your act together, do something worthwhile with your life,” Peterson suggested. Perhaps not much of a speechwriter, the professor did stress that young people “hunger” for that sort of message. “The more responsibility you take on, the more meaning your life has, and the higher degree of responsibility that you agree voluntarily to try to bear, the richer your life will be, and no one’s ever told that,” he said.
Whether this is a winning strategy or not may be determined in the outcome of the 2020 election. The funny thing about Trump is that he’s probably no one’s ideal anything, but as an outsider president, he is closer to that standard than any president since Ronald Reagan a generation ago.
How much of that stirs the American people to select their next leader may be incalculable, but so is the value of a fatherly leader to a nation in dire need of hope and a new direction.
Nick Hankoff is a writer, editor, and host of a podcast at nickhankoff.com, where his other writing for the Ludwig von Mises Institute and the Advocates for Self-Government can also be found. He lives in Fort Wayne, Indiana, with his wife and their three children.


theamericanconservative--2020-10-26--Trump Unbound: Visions for a Second Term

I expect President Trump to win re-election and win big .
In a game of cops and robbers , most people side with the cops .
A triumphant Trump will be Trump Unbound , Promethean in his defiance of the establishment .
The result should be more fun than a barrel of Menckens .
What outrages might he inflict ?
Some interesting possibilities .
In a repeat of Nixon going to China , Trump goes to Moscow .
Nixon countered the Soviet threat not by shovelling endless money into the Pentagon ’ s maw but by a brilliant grand strategic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States against Moscow .
( That move also nullified our defeat in Vietnam by eliminating its strategic significance . )
Not entirely wisely , President Trump will likely up the ante in his confrontation with China .
Could he convince Russia to de-align with Beijing and join us in containing China ?
America ’ s foolish continuation of an anti-Russian policy after communism fell has pushed Russia and China together , but Moscow fears long-term Chinese ambitions in Siberia .
If President Trump wants leverage on China , nothing would give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ land threat along its vast northern border .
President Trump will remain pro-military , but that does not mean he loves the top brass .
He knows they hold him in contempt as a person and they also continue to block his desire to bring the boys home .
Were he to adopt a policy of military reform , the agenda for which was laid out in the 1980s and remains relevant , he would give the brass fits while saving money and improving our ability to win wars , something in short @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election and , I expect , re-election in part by defying cultural Marxism , aka political correctness .
Now , he could launch a full-fledged crusade against it .
Most people are fed up with PC , with children telling adults what words they may or may not use and thoughts they may or may not think .
The president began a counter-offensive in his first term .
In March he announced that colleges and universities that failed to protect freedom of thought and expression would lose all federal funding , including research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to all federally mandated “ anti-racism ” training , which conditions people to mouth cultural Marxism ’ s lies ( any dissent from that ideology is deemed “ racism ” ) .
Triumphant and unchained , he could do more .
Most public schools are now Skinner boxes conditioning children to be good little cultural Komsomol members .
A broad offensive to restore the teaching of skills and facts—he could call it “ Schools 1950 ” —would be welcomed by most parents .
In the workplace , anyone who contradicts cultural Marxism now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
President Trump could announce that freedom of thought and speech must be respected by any business receiving federal funds .
He could order that in all federal offices , including the military , any man accused of “ sexual harassment ” must be presumed innocent until proven guilty—the opposite is now the case—and revise what “ sexual harrassment ” means to exclude normal banter between men and women .
A re-elected President Trump could make powerful use of the bully pulpit to fight “ cancel culture.
” The cultural Marxists now “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; as in the old Soviet Union , those people become “ unpersons.
” Their jobs , careers , social ties , and even physical safety are threatened unless they “ apologize , ” grovelling in the dirt before the great clay god “ PC.
” President Trump could break this by meting out the same treatment to the cultural Marxists themselves .
He could organize boycotts of companies that practice “ cancelation , ” deny all federal contracts to the same , launch antitrust actions against electronic media that “ cancel ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House to give visibility to people the Left has “ canceled.
” He could order all federal departments to cease doing business with any entity that uses the vocabulary of cultural Marxism : “ diversity , ” “ privilege , ” “ microaggressions , ” etc .
And President Trump could dis-establish the Deep State itself .
How ?
By calling a Constitutional Convention with the intent of abolishing most amendments passed since 1860 .
That would transfer back to the individual states the powers the federal government has usurped in the intervening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how would the Deep State justify itself and its vast budget ?
The fleas would have lost their dog .
Here ’ s a cherry on top : A triumphant Trump pushes through a tax of one dollar on every robocall , to be paid by the phone company that delivers the call .
The roboplague ends overnight and “ Huzza for the President !
” resounds from Boston Harbor to the Golden Gate bridge .
William S. Lind is the author , with Lt. Col. Gregory A. Thiele , of the 4th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most recent book is Retroculture : Taking America Back .

I expect President Trump to win re-election and win big. In a game of cops and robbers, most people side with the cops. A triumphant Trump will be Trump Unbound, Promethean in his defiance of the establishment. The result should be more fun than a barrel of Menckens.
What outrages might he inflict? Some interesting possibilities.
In a repeat of Nixon going to China, Trump goes to Moscow. Nixon countered the Soviet threat not by shovelling endless money into the Pentagon’s maw but by a brilliant grand strategic maneuver: Convincing China to align with the United States against Moscow. (That move also nullified our defeat in Vietnam by eliminating its strategic significance.) Not entirely wisely, President Trump will likely up the ante in his confrontation with China. Could he convince Russia to de-align with Beijing and join us in containing China? America’s foolish continuation of an anti-Russian policy after communism fell has pushed Russia and China together, but Moscow fears long-term Chinese ambitions in Siberia. If President Trump wants leverage on China, nothing would give him more than facing Beijing with a land threat along its vast northern border.
President Trump will remain pro-military, but that does not mean he loves the top brass. He knows they hold him in contempt as a person and they also continue to block his desire to bring the boys home. Were he to adopt a policy of military reform, the agenda for which was laid out in the 1980s and remains relevant, he would give the brass fits while saving money and improving our ability to win wars, something in short supply of late.
President Trump won election and, I expect, re-election in part by defying cultural Marxism, aka political correctness. Now, he could launch a full-fledged crusade against it. Most people are fed up with PC, with children telling adults what words they may or may not use and thoughts they may or may not think.
The president began a counter-offensive in his first term. In March he announced that colleges and universities that failed to protect freedom of thought and expression would lose all federal funding, including research grants. He subsequently ordered an end to all federally mandated “anti-racism” training, which conditions people to mouth cultural Marxism’s lies (any dissent from that ideology is deemed “racism”).
Triumphant and unchained, he could do more. Most public schools are now Skinner boxes conditioning children to be good little cultural Komsomol members. A broad offensive to restore the teaching of skills and facts—he could call it “Schools 1950”—would be welcomed by most parents. In the workplace, anyone who contradicts cultural Marxism now stands in peril of losing his job. President Trump could announce that freedom of thought and speech must be respected by any business receiving federal funds. He could order that in all federal offices, including the military, any man accused of “sexual harassment” must be presumed innocent until proven guilty—the opposite is now the case—and revise what “sexual harrassment” means to exclude normal banter between men and women.
A re-elected President Trump could make powerful use of the bully pulpit to fight “cancel culture.” The cultural Marxists now “cancel” anyone who disagrees with them; as in the old Soviet Union, those people become “unpersons.” Their jobs, careers, social ties, and even physical safety are threatened unless they “apologize,” grovelling in the dirt before the great clay god “PC.” President Trump could break this by meting out the same treatment to the cultural Marxists themselves. He could organize boycotts of companies that practice “cancelation,” deny all federal contracts to the same, launch antitrust actions against electronic media that “cancel” conservative voices, and use the White House to give visibility to people the Left has “canceled.” He could order all federal departments to cease doing business with any entity that uses the vocabulary of cultural Marxism: “diversity,” “privilege,” “microaggressions,” etc.
And President Trump could dis-establish the Deep State itself. How? By calling a Constitutional Convention with the intent of abolishing most amendments passed since 1860. That would transfer back to the individual states the powers the federal government has usurped in the intervening 160 years. Its functions gone, how would the Deep State justify itself and its vast budget? The fleas would have lost their dog.
Here’s a cherry on top: A triumphant Trump pushes through a tax of one dollar on every robocall, to be paid by the phone company that delivers the call. The roboplague ends overnight and “Huzza for the President!” resounds from Boston Harbor to the Golden Gate bridge.
William S. Lind is the author, with Lt. Col. Gregory A. Thiele, of the 4th Generation Warfare Handbook. Lind’s most recent book is Retroculture: Taking America Back.


theamericanconservative--2020-10-26--Republicans and Democrats Will Never Deliver Peace

The Libertarian Party presidential candidate makes her case for why a third party is needed to bring the troops home .
Jo Jorgensen , the 2020 presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party , gives her acceptance speech during the 2020 Libertarian National Convention at the Orange County Convention Center .
( Photo by Paul Hennessy/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images ) The 2016 Republican presidential primary debates revealed a sea change .
From 2008 to 2012 , then-congressman Ron Paul was routinely booed for his criticism of America ’ s foreign policy .
It was even common to hear Republican office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they “ agreed with Ron Paul on everything but foreign policy.
” Yet in 2016 , candidate Donald Trump was cheered for calling the Iraq war the biggest blunder in American history .
One would have thought Trump ’ s victory would have resulted in a major reduction of America ’ s military presence in the Middle East and Afghanistan .
However , three years and 10 months after President Trump was sworn into office , at least 3,000 troops will remain in Iraq at the end of the year if Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How many troops will remain in Afghanistan depends on how successful the military-industrial complex , and their allies on Capitol Hill and in the media , are at undermining Trump .
Meanwhile , the U.S. is still supporting Saudi Arabia ’ s vicious war against Yemen , which has created a humanitarian crisis .
We still have approximately 700 troops in Syria .
Trump kicked off the new year by provoking hostility with Iran when he ordered the assassination of Iranian leader Qassem Soleimani .
He has poked at both China and Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elected in part on a promise of no more useless , endless wars wind up keeping the warfare machine humming along ?
Partly because , even at his best , Trump is far from being a consistent non-interventionist .
Even as he railed against the endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan , candidate Trump rattled sabers at Tehran by pledging to withdraw the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal .
Trump also called for dramatically increasing the military budget , repeating the lie that Obama had decimated the military .
But U.S. military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down .
Trump has been more successful at stirring up hostilities with Iran than at withdrawing from Afghanistan and Iraq .
The biggest reason his actions have not matched his campaign rhetoric is that the entire foreign policy infrastructure in D.C. is controlled by pro-war factions .
Even a truly non-interventionist Republican or Democrat would likely fail to roll back America ’ s military presence overseas .
The House versions of the fiscal year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act ( NDAA ) contained provisions designed to block Trump from fulfilling his promise to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was championed by Wyoming Republican Representative Elizabeth Cheney , daughter of famed hawk and former vice president Dick Cheney .
Representative Cheney is not some backbencher .
She is the third-ranking Republican in the House .
Cheney was joined in supporting this amendment by Democratic Representative Jason Crow of Colorado .
The amendment easily passed the House Armed Services Committee by a vote of 45-11 .
Only eight Republicans voted to support their president ’ s efforts to end America ’ s endless war .
Even more discouraging , only two Republicans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mo Brooks of Alabama , voted for an amendment to the NDAA offered on the House floor to establish a plan to end the war in Afghanistan .
Libertarian Representative Justin Amash also voted for the amendment .
The Senate ’ s version of the NDAA warned against a “ precipitous ” withdrawal from Afghanistan .
It also expressed concerns about closing any U.S. base located in Europe without offering an alternative , thus putting a monkey wrench in President Trump ’ s attempt to draw down the number of American troops in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rejected an amendment by Senator Rand Paul to withdraw troops from Afghanistan .
Paul ’ s measure failed by a vote of 60-33 .
For all the often-justified handwringing over how the Republican Party has become a “ cult of Trump , ” the sad truth is , for most Republican representatives and senators , devotion to Trump stops at the water ’ s edge .
One reason for the GOP ’ s fidelity to the warfare state is the military-industrial complex ’ s outsized influence on Capitol Hill .
For starters , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to political campaigns in 2016 .
But the main reason military contractors wield clout with many federal lawmakers is their business model .
Instead of manufacturing a complete product at one plant , they make components at various plants spread across the country .
This means that many representatives and senators have a vested interest in supporting a large military budget—and thus an interventionist foreign policy—because those weapons produce high-paying jobs in their districts and states .
Too many conservative Republicans , who usually denounce stimulus spending bills , claim that throwing money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ creates jobs and helps grow the economy .
The truth is that money heaped on the Pentagon creates less than half the number of jobs that the same amount would create if spent by the taxpayers who had earned it .
The defense industry also maintains its influence through generous donations to D.C.-based think thanks .
Recipients of these funds produce research papers , op-eds , congressional testimony , and presentations given to congressional staffers that promote an interventionist foreign policy beneficial to their donors ’ bottom lines .
Defense contractors ’ support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservatives .
Center-left think tanks and foreign policy scholars also receive funding .
This enables the defense industry to control both sides of the foreign policy debate , no matter the election results .
The military-industrial complex wins while U.S. troops fight and die in unnecessary , unconstitutional wars .
Taxpayers who fund these wars are saddled with debt and high taxes .
And defense contractors are not the only ones funding pro-defense D.C. think tanks .
Foreign governments also provide money in exchange for justification of U.S. interventions on behalf of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think tanks breeds pro-war political operatives who fill presidentially appointed civil service positions and congressional staffs .
This is why President Trump has staffed his administration with neocons like John Bolton , who spend their careers promoting the disastrous foreign policy that Trump had promised to reverse .
The Democratic Party is just as welded to the warfare state as are the Republicans , as was shown by the bipartisan effort in Congress to stop President Trump from withdrawing most of the troops from Afghanistan .
Further evidence is provided by the presidency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Iraq war was a major reason he bested uber-hawks Hillary Clinton and John McCain in 2008 .
Yet Obama expanded America ’ s military presence around the world and infamously made a “ kill list ” of individuals—including American citizens—subject to summary execution without due process .
The modern Democrats ’ love for the war party was also shown by their attacks on Representative Tulsi Gabbard for meeting with Syrian President Bashar-al-Assad .
By the logic of Gabbard ’ s critics , John F. Kennedy should never have negotiated a peaceful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They were willing to attack her , even though she ’ s a down-the-line progressive and a mixed-race military veteran who would seem an ideal presidential candidate for the Democrats .
The Democratic Party is now fielding presidential and vice-presidential candidates who are all in with the war party .
Joe Biden was an instigator of the Iraqi war .
Senator Kamala Harris recruited her foreign policy advisors for her presidential bid from the Center for a New American Security , which has long pushed Democrats to embrace war .
While I am @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Rand Paul , Thomas Massie , and , of course , former congressman and 1988 LP presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul , the fact is that the war party is too embedded in the infrastructure of the two major parties and the D.C. establishment .
Neither Republicans nor Democrats will change our disastrous foreign policy .
If we are to adopt a policy of peace , antiwar activists must work outside the two-party system .
We should be guided by independent think tanks that are free of the corrosive influence of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elected officials to stand up to the warfare state , and alternative parties that are not beholden to the military-industrial complex .
As the Libertarian nominee for president , I am proud to build on the work of former Libertarian presidential candidates Ron Paul and the late Harry Browne to bring the message of peace , prosperity , and liberty to the American people .
As I campaign from coast to coast , the reception I have gotten convinces me that the majority of Americans want peace .
If I am elected , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the Middle East on day one of my presidency .
As a member of a party that is not beholden to any part of the military establishment , I will not budge under pressure from the military-industrial-think-tank-media complex .
Instead of seeking a “ benevolent global hegemony , ” I will make America like a giant Switzerland : armed and neutral .
Furthermore , I will remove barriers to free trade with all nations , which will reinforce peaceful relations .
Republicans and Democrats can not deliver peace because they are loyal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war .
Libertarians , who have been fiercely committed to a non-interventionist policy throughout their party ’ s 49-year existence , stand ready and eager to deliver the peace and neutrality that Americans want and need .
Jo Jorgensen is the 2020 Libertarian Party presidential nominee , and was the party ’ s 1996 vice-presidential nominee .
She is a businesswoman , entrepreneur , and senior lecturer at Clemson University .
She holds an MBA and a Ph.D. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology .
Her ticket is on the November ballot in all 50 states @

The 2016 Republican presidential primary debates revealed a sea change. From 2008 to 2012, then-congressman Ron Paul was routinely booed for his criticism of America’s foreign policy. It was even common to hear Republican office holders, commentators, and activists say they “agreed with Ron Paul on everything but foreign policy.” Yet in 2016, candidate Donald Trump was cheered for calling the Iraq war the biggest blunder in American history.
One would have thought Trump’s victory would have resulted in a major reduction of America’s military presence in the Middle East and Afghanistan. However, three years and 10 months after President Trump was sworn into office, at least 3,000 troops will remain in Iraq at the end of the year if Trump’s troop reductions go into effect. How many troops will remain in Afghanistan depends on how successful the military-industrial complex, and their allies on Capitol Hill and in the media, are at undermining Trump.
Meanwhile, the U.S. is still supporting Saudi Arabia’s vicious war against Yemen, which has created a humanitarian crisis. We still have approximately 700 troops in Syria. Trump kicked off the new year by provoking hostility with Iran when he ordered the assassination of Iranian leader Qassem Soleimani. He has poked at both China and Russia.
How did a candidate who was elected in part on a promise of no more useless, endless wars wind up keeping the warfare machine humming along?
Partly because, even at his best, Trump is far from being a consistent non-interventionist. Even as he railed against the endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, candidate Trump rattled sabers at Tehran by pledging to withdraw the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal.
Trump also called for dramatically increasing the military budget, repeating the lie that Obama had decimated the military. But U.S. military spending has continually gone up, not down.
Trump has been more successful at stirring up hostilities with Iran than at withdrawing from Afghanistan and Iraq. The biggest reason his actions have not matched his campaign rhetoric is that the entire foreign policy infrastructure in D.C. is controlled by pro-war factions. Even a truly non-interventionist Republican or Democrat would likely fail to roll back America’s military presence overseas.
The House versions of the fiscal year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) contained provisions designed to block Trump from fulfilling his promise to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.
This provision was championed by Wyoming Republican Representative Elizabeth Cheney, daughter of famed hawk and former vice president Dick Cheney. Representative Cheney is not some backbencher. She is the third-ranking Republican in the House. Cheney was joined in supporting this amendment by Democratic Representative Jason Crow of Colorado. The amendment easily passed the House Armed Services Committee by a vote of 45-11. Only eight Republicans voted to support their president’s efforts to end America’s endless war. Even more discouraging, only two Republicans, Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama, voted for an amendment to the NDAA offered on the House floor to establish a plan to end the war in Afghanistan. Libertarian Representative Justin Amash also voted for the amendment.
The Senate’s version of the NDAA warned against a “precipitous” withdrawal from Afghanistan. It also expressed concerns about closing any U.S. base located in Europe without offering an alternative, thus putting a monkey wrench in President Trump’s attempt to draw down the number of American troops in Germany.
Even worse, the Senate rejected an amendment by Senator Rand Paul to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. Paul’s measure failed by a vote of 60-33.
For all the often-justified handwringing over how the Republican Party has become a “cult of Trump,” the sad truth is, for most Republican representatives and senators, devotion to Trump stops at the water’s edge.
One reason for the GOP’s fidelity to the warfare state is the military-industrial complex’s outsized influence on Capitol Hill. For starters, the defense industry donated $27 million to political campaigns in 2016.
But the main reason military contractors wield clout with many federal lawmakers is their business model. Instead of manufacturing a complete product at one plant, they make components at various plants spread across the country. This means that many representatives and senators have a vested interest in supporting a large military budget—and thus an interventionist foreign policy—because those weapons produce high-paying jobs in their districts and states.
Too many conservative Republicans, who usually denounce stimulus spending bills, claim that throwing money at failed weapons projects like the F-35 creates jobs and helps grow the economy. The truth is that money heaped on the Pentagon creates less than half the number of jobs that the same amount would create if spent by the taxpayers who had earned it.
The defense industry also maintains its influence through generous donations to D.C.-based think thanks. Recipients of these funds produce research papers, op-eds, congressional testimony, and presentations given to congressional staffers that promote an interventionist foreign policy beneficial to their donors’ bottom lines.
Defense contractors’ support for think tanks is not limited to conservatives. Center-left think tanks and foreign policy scholars also receive funding.
This enables the defense industry to control both sides of the foreign policy debate, no matter the election results. The military-industrial complex wins while U.S. troops fight and die in unnecessary, unconstitutional wars. Taxpayers who fund these wars are saddled with debt and high taxes.
And defense contractors are not the only ones funding pro-defense D.C. think tanks. Foreign governments also provide money in exchange for justification of U.S. interventions on behalf of their countries.
The funding given to pro-war think tanks breeds pro-war political operatives who fill presidentially appointed civil service positions and congressional staffs. This is why President Trump has staffed his administration with neocons like John Bolton, who spend their careers promoting the disastrous foreign policy that Trump had promised to reverse.
The Democratic Party is just as welded to the warfare state as are the Republicans, as was shown by the bipartisan effort in Congress to stop President Trump from withdrawing most of the troops from Afghanistan. Further evidence is provided by the presidency of Democrat Barack Obama. His opposition to the Iraq war was a major reason he bested uber-hawks Hillary Clinton and John McCain in 2008. Yet Obama expanded America’s military presence around the world and infamously made a “kill list” of individuals—including American citizens—subject to summary execution without due process.
The modern Democrats’ love for the war party was also shown by their attacks on Representative Tulsi Gabbard for meeting with Syrian President Bashar-al-Assad. By the logic of Gabbard’s critics, John F. Kennedy should never have negotiated a peaceful end to the Cuban missile crisis. They were willing to attack her, even though she’s a down-the-line progressive and a mixed-race military veteran who would seem an ideal presidential candidate for the Democrats.
The Democratic Party is now fielding presidential and vice-presidential candidates who are all in with the war party. Joe Biden was an instigator of the Iraqi war. Senator Kamala Harris recruited her foreign policy advisors for her presidential bid from the Center for a New American Security, which has long pushed Democrats to embrace war.
While I am grateful for pro-liberty, antiwar Republicans such as Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, and, of course, former congressman and 1988 LP presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul, the fact is that the war party is too embedded in the infrastructure of the two major parties and the D.C. establishment. Neither Republicans nor Democrats will change our disastrous foreign policy.
If we are to adopt a policy of peace, antiwar activists must work outside the two-party system. We should be guided by independent think tanks that are free of the corrosive influence of the military-industrial complex, citizen groups that pressure elected officials to stand up to the warfare state, and alternative parties that are not beholden to the military-industrial complex.
As the Libertarian nominee for president, I am proud to build on the work of former Libertarian presidential candidates Ron Paul and the late Harry Browne to bring the message of peace, prosperity, and liberty to the American people. As I campaign from coast to coast, the reception I have gotten convinces me that the majority of Americans want peace.
If I am elected, I will begin to bring troops home from the Middle East on day one of my presidency. As a member of a party that is not beholden to any part of the military establishment, I will not budge under pressure from the military-industrial-think-tank-media complex. Instead of seeking a “benevolent global hegemony,” I will make America like a giant Switzerland: armed and neutral. Furthermore, I will remove barriers to free trade with all nations, which will reinforce peaceful relations.
Republicans and Democrats cannot deliver peace because they are loyal to special interests that benefit from continual war.
Libertarians, who have been fiercely committed to a non-interventionist policy throughout their party’s 49-year existence, stand ready and eager to deliver the peace and neutrality that Americans want and need.
Jo Jorgensen is the 2020 Libertarian Party presidential nominee, and was the party’s 1996 vice-presidential nominee. She is a businesswoman, entrepreneur, and senior lecturer at Clemson University. She holds an MBA and a Ph.D. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Her ticket is on the November ballot in all 50 states.